NOTE.
Two or three additional passages which bear upon the question under discussion may be noticed, notwithstanding their vagueness.
The statement of Phrantzes (p. [252]), among others, that in the siege of 1453 the charge of the palace and all about it was entrusted to Minotto, the Baillus of the Venetian colony, might be employed in favour of the view that the “turres Avenides” which Leonard of Scio associates with the Xylo Porta, and assigns to Jerome and Leonardus de Langasco, could not be the towers S and N, but the towers of the Heraclian Wall. For the towers S and N, being attached to the Palace of Blachernæ, would fall under the care of Minotto. There is force in the argument. But it is weakened by statements of Pusculus (iv. 173) and Zorzo Dolfin (s. 55), which imply that the palace defended by Minotto was the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus. For both of these writers place the Gate of the Palace (see above, p. 47) between the Gate of Charisius (Edirnè Kapoussi) and the Gate of the Kaligaria (Egri Kapou), and Pusculus describes the palace concerned as “Regia celsa,” an apt description of a building seated, like Tekfour Serai, upon the walls.
The references made to the Tower of Anemas, though not under its name, by the Spanish ambassador Clavijo, who visited the Byzantine Court in 1403, should not be overlooked (see Constantinople, ses Sanctuaires et ses Reliques, translated into French by Ph. Bruun, Odessa). Speaking of the Church of Blachernæ (p. 15), he describes it as “située dans la ville près d’un châteaufort, servant de demeure aux empereurs; ce fort a été démoli par un empereur, parce qu’il y avait été enfermé par son fils.” The fact that Clavijo identifies the Church of Blachernæ by its vicinity to the Tower of Anemas may be pressed into the service of the opinion that the tower in question stood in the Wall of Heraclius. For there is no more appropriate way of indicating the situation of that church than by saying that it stands a little to the rear of the Heraclian Wall. So appropriate is that mode of identification, that the Patriarch Constantius has recourse to it when, conversely, he indicates the situation of the Tower of Anemas (which he considered to be the southernmost Heraclian tower): “The Tower of Anemas still exists,” he says. “On its side facing the Holy Well of Blachernæ it has a large window, with a smaller one above” (see above, p. [150]). But, unfortunately, to describe one building as “near” another is often the most tantalizing aid to its discovery that can be offered. The towers S and N cannot be said to be far from the Church of Blachernæ. Perhaps some injury to one of the Heraclian towers might explain the statement of Clavijo, that the Tower of Anemas had been destroyed; but could he have mistaken the citadel formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo for an Imperial residence? Such language suggests rather the towers S and N.
Again, the declaration of the Spanish envoy that the tower (“une prison très profonde et obscure”) had been demolished by the Emperor John VI. Palæologus (“L’empereur s’empressa de démolir la tour où il avait été enferme,” pp. 19, 20) might seem to imply that the tower has disappeared, and thus to relieve us from all the labour involved in the effort to identify it. But the statement of Leonard of Scio that the “turres Avenides” were repaired by Cardinal Isidore (“impensis cardinalis reparatas”), while it confirms the declaration of Clavijo to some extent, is opposed to the idea of the total destruction and disappearance of the famous prison-tower.
Or, the statement that the Tower of Anemas was demolished, when combined with the statement that it was repaired, might seem to open a way out of the difficulties involved in regarding the tower S as the Tower of Anemas, although more recent than the tower N. May not the tower S be, in its present form, a reconstruction, after the reign of Isaac Angelus, of a tower originally older than that emperor’s day, and be thus at once more ancient and more modern than the tower N? But this solution of the puzzle cannot be allowed; there is the fatal objection that the common wall II belonged first to the tower N.
Finally, in the Venetian account of the attempt made by Carlo Zen to liberate John VI. Palæologus from the Tower of Anemas, Zen is represented as reaching the foot of the tower in a boat, and clambering up to the window of the prison by means of a rope. This would exclude the claim of a Heraclian tower to be the Tower of Anemas, for that wall could not be reached by boat. One might approach the towers S and N in that way, if the moat before Leo’s Wall extended from the Golden Horn to the Wall of Manuel Comnenus, and was full of water. But this is an extremely improbable supposition, when we hear nothing of the sort in the history of the attack upon this side of the city by the Crusaders in 1203, notwithstanding the minute description of the territory from the pen of Nicetas Choniates and other historians of that time. Nor is such a thing mentioned in the history of the last siege, when the moat before the Wall of Leo was reconstructed. The whole story of Carlo Zen’s efforts to deliver John Palæologus savours too much of romance to have any topographical value. The story may be read in Le Beau’s Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. xii. pp. 174-179.
CHAPTER XI.
INMATES OF THE PRISON OF ANEMAS.
Michael Anemas, the first to occupy the prison, and from whom it obtained its name,[[543]] was a descendant of Emir Abd-el-Aziz ben Omar ben Choaib, known in Byzantine history as Courapas, and famous as the defender of Crete, when Nicephoras Phocas wrested that island from the Saracens, in the reign of Romanus II.[[544]]
Upon the return of the victorious troops to the capital, the Emir and his family were carried to Constantinople to grace the triumph with which the success of Nicephorus was celebrated. And as the vanquished chief, his wives, his eldest son Anemas, and other members of his family, all clothed in long white robes, passed along the triumphal way in chains, the dignity of their demeanour attracted universal attention, and produced a most favourable impression. To the credit of the conquerors, be it said, the Emir was, thereafter, treated with all due regard and generosity. He received a large estate in the neighbourhood of the capital, and was allowed to end his days in peace, surrounded by his friends, and unmolested on account of his faith. Had he seen his way to renounce the creed of his fathers he would have been created a senator.
His son Anemas embraced Christianity, entered the army of the Empire, and took part in the war against the Russians during the reign of Zimisces, when he distinguished himself by his bravery, and fell in battle in personal encounter with Swiatoslaf, the Russian king.
A martial spirit continued to characterize the family in subsequent generations, and was not least conspicuous in Michael Anemas and his three brothers, the representatives of the race under Alexius Comnenus. But they allowed themselves to become involved in a conspiracy against that emperor, and upon the discovery of the plot were condemned to imprisonment and the loss of their eyes.
To accompany the infliction of punishment with every circumstance that could humiliate the criminal, and excite popular contempt and derision was after the heart of those times. Accordingly, Michael Anemas and his companions, attired in sacking, with their beards plucked out, their heads shorn and crowned with the horns and the intestines of oxen and sheep, were led forth, mounted sideways on oxen, and in this guise, conducted first around the court of the Great Palace, and then along the Mesè of the city, crowded with excited spectators. But the appearance of the guilty men excited commiseration rather than ridicule. The agony of Michael, as he implored to be put to death rather than to suffer blindness, touched all hearts. Even Anna Comnena, who witnessed the scene, and whose filial sentiments might have hardened her heart against the conspirators, was so deeply affected that she determined to do all in her power to save Michael from the cruel loss of his eyes. Finding her mother, Anna brought her to the harrowing spectacle, certain it would have the desired effect. The empress was overwhelmed to tears, and hastening back to the palace, prevailed upon Alexius to spare the prisoners’ sight. By this time the unhappy men were approaching the Amastrianon, a public place where stood an arch on which was a bas-relief representing two hands pierced by a spear. Once a criminal on his way to execution passed that point he was beyond the reach of the Imperial clemency. A few moments more, and the messenger of mercy sent by Alexius would have been too late. But just before the doomed men reached the fatal point, the order for the mitigation of their sentence was delivered, and Anemas was simply imprisoned in the tower which was to perpetuate his name. There he remained for a considerable period; but at length was pardoned and set free.[[545]]
Before Anemas was released, another notable personage was committed to the tower, Georgius, Duke of Trebizond, who attempted, in 1107, to establish the independence of his province; as though to anticipate the creation of the Empire of Trebizond in the thirteenth century.
He proved a refractory prisoner, venting his rage in unceasing imprecations upon the head of his Imperial master. With the hope of conciliating the rebel, he was repeatedly visited by his old friend, the Cæsar Nicephorus Bryennius, the husband of Anna Comnena. For a long time, however, all friendly overtures proved unavailing. But at last the tedium of protracted confinement broke the prisoner’s spirit, and induced him to submit; upon which he was liberated, and loaded with wealth and honours.[[546]]
Chamber in “The Prison of Anemas.”
The next inmate of the tower was the Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, of infamous memory, upon his capture after his flight from the insurrection which his vices and tyranny had provoked in the capital, in 1185. To Andronicus imprisonment was no new experience, for already, during the reign of Manuel Comnenus, he had been imprisoned twice elsewhere. On both these occasions, however, he had succeeded in effecting his escape. But the prison of Anemas was to prove his last, and he quitted it, only to die at the hands of his infuriated subjects. On the eve of his execution he was bound with chains about the neck and feet, like some wild animal, and dragged into the presence of his successor, Isaac Angelus, to be subjected to every indignity. He was reviled, beaten, struck on the mouth; he had his hair and beard plucked, his teeth knocked out, his right hand struck off with an axe, and then was sent back to his cell, and left there without food or water or attention of any kind for several days. When brought forth for execution, he was dressed like a slave, blinded of one eye, mounted upon a mangy camel, and led in mock triumph through the streets of the city to the Hippodrome, amidst a storm of hatred and insult, seldom, if ever, witnessed under similar circumstances in a civilized community. At the Hippodrome he was hung by the feet on the architrave of two short columns which stood beside the figures of a wolf and a hyena, his natural associates. But neither his pitiable condition, nor his quiet endurance of pain, nor his pathetic cry, “Kyrie Eleison, Why dost Thou break the bruised reed?” excited the slightest commiseration. Additional and indescribable insults were heaped upon the fallen tyrant, until his agony was brought to an end by three men who plunged their swords into his body, to exhibit their dexterity in the use of arms.[[547]]
In the course of the following century a different personage figured in the history of the prison. This was Veccus, Chartophylax of St. Sophia at the time of his confinement, and subsequently Patriarch of Constantinople.[[548]] He incurred the displeasure of Michael Palæologus by opposing the union of the Eastern and Western Churches, through which the emperor hoped to secure the goodwill and assistance of the Pope in maintaining the newly recovered throne of Constantinople. Before an assembly convened to discuss the question in the presence of Michael, Veccus, who had been appointed the spokesman of the opponents of the Imperial policy on account of his abilities, denounced the Latins as heretics with whom ecclesiastical communion was simply impossible. The emperor resented the affront, but, unwilling to make it the official ground of proceedings against the popular champion of orthodoxy, sought other reasons for punishing him. Accordingly, he accused Veccus of having thwarted the marriage which had been arranged between the Princess Anna and the second son of the Kral of Servia; another of Michael’s measures to make his position secure.
The charge had some foundation. For upon the completion of the negotiations for the marriage, the bride-elect had started for her destined home under the care of Veccus and of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But when the party reached Berœa, Veccus, acting on the private instructions of the empress, left Anna and the patriarch, and pushed forward to investigate the character and manners of the people among whom the princess was to cast her lot. The primitive and boorish ways of the Servian Court did not commend themselves to Veccus, as a suitable environment for a lady brought up in the palaces of Constantinople. The splendour of the tent which Veccus occupied was lost upon the Kral; while the eunuchs in the household of the Byzantine princess shocked the sovereign’s unsophisticated mind. Pointing to the wife of his elder son, simply attired, and busy spinning wool, the rough monarch exclaimed, “That is how we treat our brides!” Nor was Veccus more favourably impressed by other experiences. The embassy which the Kral sent to welcome the bride-elect was robbed on the journey by brigands; and the Byzantine envoys awoke one morning to find that all their fine horses had been stolen during the night. Under these circumstances, Veccus thought the wisest course was to conduct Anna back to Constantinople;[[549]] and for this action Michael now saw fit to prosecute him.
But the court which was appointed to try Veccus declined to judge a priest in the service of the patriarch without that prelate’s orders; and as such orders were not forthcoming, the trial could not proceed. At this juncture, Veccus had an interview with the emperor and proposed, for the sake of peace, to resign office and emoluments, and to go into exile. Michael did not condescend a reply. Whereupon the Chartophylax, fearing the worst, sought asylum in the Church of St. Sophia, and there awaited the Imperial decision. He was soon summoned to appear again before the emperor, the order being written in vermilion ink, as a mark of esteem and a pledge of personal safety. But on the road to the palace he was treacherously arrested, and carried off to the prison of Anemas under charge of the Varangian guards.
With Veccus out of the way, Michael pushed the matter of the union of the churches more hopefully, and in furtherance of the Imperial policy caused a list of passages favourable to the orthodox character of the Latin Church to be compiled from the writings of theologians of repute, and submitted to the patriarch and his clergy for consideration. The patriarch replied by presenting a list of counter passages, and the situation remained what it had been before Veccus was imprisoned. Thereupon the suggestion was made that the first list should be forwarded to the cell of the Chartophylax. Such a man, it was urged, would never alter his views unless convinced by reason. The suggestion was adopted, and after reading the extracts, Veccus acknowledged that the argument for the union of the Churches was stronger than he had hitherto believed. His mind, however, he added, could not be satisfied on the point at issue by the perusal of isolated passages, torn from their connection, and he therefore begged permission to study the works from which the extracts submitted to him had been taken, pleading as an excuse that he was more versed in the writings of classic authors than in patristic learning. Upon this he was released, and provided with the books necessary for the full prosecution of his inquiries.
The result was that, ere long, he found himself in agreement with the emperor, and the scheme for the union of the Churches was pursued with renewed ardour. Delegates proceeded from Constantinople to the Council assembled at Lyons, and there on June 29, 1274, the two great divisions of Christendom were formally united. On the second day of June in the following year Veccus was elevated to the patriarchal throne.[[550]]
It is natural to suspect that the prison of Anemas had a share in the conversion of Veccus. But the historian Pachymeres ascribes the change to candour of judgment and sincere love of the truth. Certain it is that Veccus suffered for the views he adopted, and died twenty-five years later in the prison of the Castle of St. Gregorius, near Helenopolis (Yalova), a martyr to his convictions.[[551]]
The Tower of Anemas was probably also the prison to which the Despot Michael was committed by Andronicus II. on the charge of treason. He had been created Despot by Michael Palæologus, and was married to the Princess Anna, above mentioned, after the failure of the Servian marriage to which reference has been made. Upon her death, he fell into disgrace at the Court for marrying a daughter of the Bulgarian king Terter, the repudiated wife of the King of Servia. To this he added treasonable offences, and was, therefore, confined with his wife and children in the prison attached to the Great Palace. On attempting to escape, he was removed to the prison at Blachernæ[[552]] for greater security.
Another inmate of the prison of Anemas was Syrghiannes, a political adventurer conspicuous for his intrigues during the struggle between Andronicus II. and Andronicus III., taking sometimes the one side and sometimes the other.
He had been immured elsewhere for five years on the charge of conspiracy to assassinate the elder emperor, but in 1322, at the instance of John Cantacuzene, then Grand Domestic, he was transferred to the Tower of Anemas as a more tolerable place of confinement, in the hope of conciliating him; and there he was permitted to receive visits from his mother, and even to have his wife and children with him.[[553]] Ultimately he was released, but the old spirit was too strong to be vanquished by suffering or by kindness. He returned to a life of intrigue and rebellion, and his career was closed by the hands of assassins.
Later in the century, members of the Imperial family were once more imprisoned in the Tower of Anemas, under circumstances which afford a vivid picture of an empire weakened by domestic feuds, and distracted by the rival ambitions of foreign powers that were awaiting its dissolution, and ready to appropriate its territories.
There John VI. Palæologus imprisoned his eldest son Andronicus, and there, upon the escape of the latter, he was himself imprisoned with his two younger sons, Manuel and Theodore.
Andronicus had been excluded from the succession to the throne, on account, it is said, of his indifference to the financial straits of his father, when the latter was detained at Venice for inability to meet the demands of creditors. The disinherited prince, seeking an opportunity for revenge, found a kindred spirit in a son of Amurath I., Saoudji, who was jealous of his younger brother Bajazet, because he was the Sultan’s favourite child. The two princes, bound by a common grievance, joined forces to supplant their respective parents on the throne, and raised the standard of revolt. Amurath crushed the rebellion with remorseless severity, and after putting out the eyes of his own son, called upon the emperor to punish Andronicus in the same manner. Andronicus was consequently committed to the Tower of Anemas, along with his wife and his son John, a child only five years old, and there he and his little boy underwent the operation of being blinded. The cruel deed was, however, performed so imperfectly that Andronicus recovered the use of one eye, while his son suffered only from a squint. Two years were thus passed in the tower, after which the prisoners were released, either through the intervention of the Genoese, at the price of the concession to them of the island of Tenedos, or in compliance with the demand of Bajazet.
Entrance of Passage From The Stairway in “The Tower of Anemas” To Chamber D In “The Tower of Isaac Angelus.” (For this view I am indebted to the late Dr. Ledyard.)
Free to act, Andronicus made terms both with the Sultan and the Genoese, and relying upon their favour, suddenly appeared before the capital. As the emperor and his son Manuel happened to be staying at the Palace of the Pegè, outside the walls, they were easily captured, and upon the surrender of the city they were, in their turn, sent, along with Theodore, to the Tower of Anemas, “as Zeus cast his father Chronos and his brothers Pluto and Poseidon into the nether world.”
Corridor in the Original Western Terrace Wall of the Palace of Blachernæ (Looking South-West). (See Plan facing page [131].)
Bajazet advised Andronicus to establish his position by putting the prisoners to death, but to that depth of inhumanity the rebellious son would not descend. Matters remained in this condition for two years, and then the captives managed to escape. Precisely how they found their way out of the tower is a question upon which authorities differ. According to Phrantzes, it was by some deception practised on their Bulgarian guards. Ducas ascribes the escape to the skill of a certain Angelus, surnamed Diabolus, and known by the soubriquet of Diabol-angelus; but whether the deliverance was effected through the angelic power or the satanic cunning of the man, the historian is unable to decide. Chalcocondylas says that the Imperial captives broke through the walls of their dungeon with an iron tool, furnished by the servant who brought their food. According to Venetian authorities, two ineffectual attempts to save the emperor were made by Carlo Zen, on the condition that the island of Tenedos would be granted to the Republic of Venice, thus rescinding the concession of the island to the Genoese by Andronicus. The first attempt, it is said, failed because the emperor refused to escape without his sons; the second, owing to the detection of the plot to deliver him.[[554]] Once out of prison, John Palæologus and his son Manuel repaired to the Court of Bajazet, prevailed upon him to espouse their cause, and so compelled Andronicus to surrender the throne.[[555]]
Thus the history of the Tower of Anemas reflects the civil broils, the tyranny, the ecclesiastical dissensions, the political feebleness, and the inability to withstand foreign aggression, which marked the decline and fall of the Byzantine Empire.
CHAPTER XII.
THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR HERACLIUS: THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR LEO THE ARMENIAN.
The fortifications extending from the north-western angle of the enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ to the Golden Horn consist of two parallel lines, connected by transverse walls, so as to form a citadel beside the Golden Horn. The inner wall belongs to the reign of Heraclius; the outer is an erection of Leo V., the Armenian.
The Heraclian Wall was constructed in 627, under the following circumstances:—[[556]]
Until that year the quarter of Blachernæ, at the foot of the Sixth Hill, was a suburb immediately outside the fortifications.[[557]] The fact that the suburb and its celebrated Church of the Theotokos, containing, it was believed, the girdle of the Blessed Virgin, were thus exposed to the attacks of an enemy did not occasion serious concern. In the opinion of the devout citizens of Constantinople, the shrine, so far from needing protection, formed one of the strongest bulwarks of the capital. At the worst, when danger threatened, the treasures of the sanctuary could be readily transported into the city, as was done in the reign of Justinian the Great.[[558]]
But in 627, Constantinople learned what a siege really meant. Persia and the Empire were then at war with each other; and while Heraclius was carrying the campaign into the enemy’s country, a Persian army had encamped at Chalcedon for the purpose of joining the Avars in laying siege to the capital.[[559]]
As the Byzantine fleet, however, commanded the Bosporus, the allies could not unite their forces, and the Avars were left to act alone. The undertaking proved too difficult for the barbarians, notwithstanding the vigour with which it was conducted, and the siege was raised. But before retiring, a troop of Avaric horse set itself to devastate the suburbs, and having fired the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, and the Church of St. Nicholas, dashed into the open ground beside the Church of Blachernæ, intent upon devoting also that sacred edifice to the flames. For some reason, that purpose was not carried into effect, and the church escaped all injury. This marvellous deliverance enhanced, indeed, the reputation of the Theotokos, but it likewise aroused a sense of the danger to which her shrine was liable, and so the Government of the day ordered the immediate erection of a wall along the western side of the Blachernæ quarter, to place the church beyond the reach of hostile attack in future. The wall was known, until the erection of the Wall of Leo, as the Single Wall of Blachernæ (Μονοτείχος Βλαχερνῶν:[[560]] τεῖχος τῶν Βλαχερνῶν).[[561]]
The wall is flanked by three fine hexagonal towers, built towards their summit in brick, perhaps, as Dr. Paspates[[562]] suggests, in order to lighten the weight of constructions erected on marshy ground. They are among the finest towers in the circuit of the fortifications. The interior of the southernmost tower, the only one which can be safely examined, measures 32-½ by about 19 feet, and was in three stories. Upon the face of the tower is an inscription, in letters formed with pieces of marble, in honour of the Emperor Michael, probably Michael II.
Between the first and second towers is a gate, named the Gate of Blachernæ (πόρτα τοῦ Μονοτείχους τῶν Βλαχερνῶν),[[563]] after the quarter before which it stood.
General View of the Walls of the City From The Hill On Which The Crusaders Encamped in 1203.
It has been generally supposed that the Wall of Heraclius comprised not only the portion of the city walls just indicated, but the whole line of fortifications extending from the Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn.[[564]] The evidence on the subject is, however, in favour of the opinion that the Wall of Heraclius was only the portion of the fortifications before us. It is the extent implied in the description of the Heraclian Wall, as a wall erected to bring the Church of Blachernæ within the line of the city bulwarks.[[565]] That is an apt description of a wall extending from the foot of the Sixth Hill to the Golden Horn; it is a very inadequate description of a line of bulwarks from the Kerko Porta to the harbour. In the next place, more extensive fortifications were not required to protect the church, seeing it was well defended on the south by the acropolis on the western spur of the Sixth Hill. All that was necessary for the further security of the church was a wall on the west side of the plain on which it stood. Furthermore, the fortifications extending from the Kerko Porta to the foot of the Sixth Hill, commonly ascribed to Heraclius, have been proved to be the work of other hands, the greater part being the Wall of Manuel Comnenus,[[566]] while the remainder formed, originally, the defences of the Fourteenth Region.
The Wall of Leo the Armenian was erected in 813 to strengthen the defence of this part of the capital, in view of the preparations which the Bulgarians under Crum were making for a second attack upon Constantinople.[[567]] Crum had retired from his first assault upon the city, resolved not only to retrieve the defeat he had sustained, but also to punish the treacherous attempt upon his life, when he was proceeding to negotiate terms of peace with the emperor.
Arrangements had been made for holding a conference between the two sovereigns at a short distance to the west of the Heraclian Wall, on the explicit understanding that all persons present were to attend unarmed; so little confidence had the two parties in each other. But in flagrant breach of this agreement, Leo placed three bowmen in ambush near the place of meeting, with orders to shoot at the Bulgarian king, upon a preconcerted signal. In due time Crum arrived; but he had scarcely dismounted from his horse when his suspicions of a plot were aroused, and, springing into his saddle, he galloped back towards his camp. The arrows of the soldiers in ambush flew after him, wounding him although he escaped with his life.
The Byzantine historian who records the incident explains the failure of the plot as a Divine punishment upon the sins of his countrymen.[[568]] Crum saw the dastardly act in a different light, and, vowing vengeance, withdrew to Bulgaria to prepare for another war. He died before he could carry out his intention, but meanwhile Leo had put himself in readiness for the expected attack by constructing a new wall and a broad moat in front of the Wall of Heraclius.
The Wall of Leo stands 77 feet to the west of the Wall of Heraclius, running parallel to it for some 260 feet, after which it turns to join the walls along the Golden Horn. Its parapet-walk was supported upon arches, which served at the same time to buttress the wall itself, a comparatively slight structure about 8 feet thick. With the view of increasing the wall’s capacity for defence, it was flanked by four small towers, while its lower portion was pierced by numerous loopholes. Two of the towers were on the side facing the Golden Horn, and the other two guarded the extremities of the side looking towards the country on the west. The latter towers projected inwards from the rear of the wall, and between them was a gateway corresponding to the Heraclian Gate of Blachernæ.
The citadel formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo was designated the Brachionion of Blachernæ (τὸ Βραχιόνιον τῶν Βλαχερνῶν).[[569]] Subsequent to the Turkish Conquest it was named after the five more conspicuous towers which guarded the enclosure, the Pentapyrgion,[[570]] on the analogy of the Heptapyrgion, or Castle of Severn Towers (Yedi Koulè) at the southern end of the land walls.
Near the southern end of the wall, where it has evidently undergone repair, two inscriptions are found. One is in honour of Michael II. and Theophilus, the great Emperors:
ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΜΕΤΑ ... Ν ΒΑΣΙ....
The other gives the date †ϚΤΛ† (822), which belonged to the sole reign of the former emperor. These repairs were probably made when Thomas, the rival of Michael for the throne, attacked the fortifications in this quarter. It was precisely in the year 822 that the rebel general encamped beside the Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus (above Eyoub), and then, armed with battering-rams and scaling-ladders, advanced to the assault of the towers of Blachernæ, behind which the standard of Michael floated over the Church of the Theotokos.[[571]]
The tower at the north-western corner of the enclosure was reconstructed by the Emperor Romanus, as an inscription upon it proclaims:
“The Tower of St. Nicholas was restored from the foundations, under Romanus, the Christ-loving Sovereign.”
To which of the four emperors named Romanus the work should be assigned is not easy to decide. The tower must have derived its name from the Church of S. Nicholas in this vicinity, for the site of that church is marked by the Holy Well which still flows amid the graves and trees of the Turkish cemetery within the Brachionion of Blachernæ, an object of veneration alike to Moslems and orthodox Greeks. The grounds on which the opinion rests are that, previous to the erection of the Heraclian Wall, the church is described as without the city bounds, in the district of Blachernæ;[[572]] while after the erection of Leo’s Wall it is spoken of as within the city limits, and close to the gate by which persons proceeded from the Blachernæ quarter to the Cosmidion.[[573]] This is exactly how a building beside the Holy Well between the two walls, and near the Gate of Blachernæ which pierces them, would be described under such circumstances.
The proximity of these walls to the Palace of Blachernæ, as well as their comparative weakness, combined to make them the scene of many historical events.
While the Wall of Heraclius stood alone, it was through the Gate of Blachernæ that Apsimarus was admitted by his adherents, in 698, to supplant Leontius;[[574]] by the same entrance Justinian II., in 705, attempted to force his way into the city to dethrone Apsimarus;[[575]] and through it, again, Theodosius III., in 716, entered and deposed Anastasius II.[[576]] It was before the Heraclian Wall that Crum and Leo the Armenian met to confer, under the circumstances already narrated.
This portion of the fortifications continued to be a favourite point of attack also after the erection of Leo’s Wall. Here, as above stated, the rebel Thomas sought to break into the city in 822;[[577]] here, in 924, Simeon of Bulgaria and Romanus Lecapenus met to conclude peace,[[578]] taking the greatest precautions against the repetition of the treachery which disgraced the former meeting of a Bulgarian king with a Byzantine emperor. In 1047, in the reign of Constantine Monomachus, the rebel general Tornikius took up his position before these walls, and having routed a company of raw recruits who had sallied forth against him by the Gate of Blachernæ, would have rushed into the city with the fugitives, had not the difficulty of crossing the moat given the defenders of the walls time to close the entrance.[[579]]
Through the Gate of Blachernæ the friends of Alexius Comnenus sallied from the city, in 1081, to join the standard of revolt against Nicephorus Botoniates; and it was at the Imperial stables outside the gate that they obtained horses to reach as fast as possible the Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, baffling pursuit by having taken the precaution to ham-string the animals they did not require.[[580]] In 1097, Godfrey de Bouillon encamped on the hills and plains without these walls. While the negotiations with the crafty Alexius Comnenus were proceeding, the envoys of the Crusaders were on one occasion detained so long by the emperor as to arouse suspicions of treachery on his part; whereupon a band of Crusaders rushed from the camp at the Cosmidion, and in their attempt to enter the city and rescue their comrades set fire to the Gate of Blachernæ.[[581]]
In 1203 these fortifications were attacked by the land forces of the Fourth Crusade.[[582]] The Venetian fleet, bearing the banner of St. Mark, occupied the Golden Horn, under the command of Dandolo; the army of the expedition under Baldwin held the hill immediately to the west of the Palace of Blachernæ. Upon the walls and towers of the citadel stood the Varangian guards, composed mainly of Englishmen and Danes, loyal to their trust, and the peers of the invaders in courage and strength. Alexius III. and his courtiers watched the scene from the palace windows. At length, on the 17th of July, the Crusaders delivered a grand assault by sea and land; the army attacking the fortress formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo; the fleet attempting the adjoining fortifications along the harbour. With the help of ladders, fifteen knights and sergeants scaled the outer Wall, and engaged the defenders on the summit in a desperate struggle. It was a bold attempt, but the odds were too great, and the assailants, leaving two of their number prisoners, were driven off by the swords and battle-axes of the Varangians. Many other Crusaders, also, who had advanced to support the attack, were wounded, and the day went so hard against the Latins at this point that Dandolo, who had captured twenty-five towers of the harbour fortifications, was obliged to abandon the advantage he had gained, and hastened with his ships to protect his worsted allies.
Finally, in 1453, the moat before these walls, which had been filled with earth in the course of time, was excavated by the crews of the Venetian galleys present at the siege under the command of Aluxio Diedo. It was made 200 paces long and 8 feet wide, the emperor and his courtiers being present at the work, while two sentries, stationed on the neighbouring hill, watched the Turkish outposts.[[583]]
From the northern extremity of the Heraclian Wall, a short wall was carried to the water’s edge, across the western end of the street that runs along the shore of the Golden Horn, outside the Harbour Walls; thus protecting the latter line of fortifications from attack by the land forces of an enemy.
At the same time, for the convenience of traffic, the wall was pierced by a gate, named, from its material, the Xylo Porta (Ξυλόπορτα, Ξυλίνη), the Wooden Gate.[[584]] It was in its place as late as 1868, and bore an inscription in honour of Theophilus.[[585]] Very probably, the wall was erected by that emperor when he reconstructed the defences along the harbour. In accordance with its situation, the Xylo Porta is described sometimes as the gate at the northern extremity of the land fortifications;[[586]] and sometimes as the gate at the western end of the walls along the Golden Horn.[[587]]
Du Cange[[588]] identified the Porta Xylo Kerkou with this gate. But the former was an entrance in the Theodosian lines;[[589]] it led directly into the city, and was built up in the reign of Isaac Angelus[[590]]—facts which did not hold true of the Xylo Porta. Furthermore, Ducas expressly distinguishes the two entrances.[[591]] Or the facts in the case may be stated thus: The Gate of the Xylokerkus was in existence before the erection of the wall in which the Xylo Porta stood; the former entrance being not later than the reign of Anastasius I., in the fifth century, the latter not earlier than the reign of Heraclius, in the seventh century, when the wall on the west of Blachernæ was erected. Therefore the two entrances cannot be the same gate under different names.
In Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion,[[592]] the Postern of Kallinicus (τὸ τῆς Καλλινίκου παραπόρτιον), mentioned by Byzantine writers,[[593]] was the Xylo Porta under an earlier name. And what is known regarding that postern lends support to this view. Like the Xylo Porta, the Postern of Kallinicus stood near the Church of Blachernæ,[[594]] and led to the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus in the Cosmidion,[[595]] as well as to the bridge across the head of the Golden Horn.[[596]] The identity is confirmed by the fact that the bridge to which the road issuing from the Xylo Porta conducted was sometimes called the Bridge of St. Kallinicus, after a church of that dedication in its neighbourhood.[[597]]