The Basilikè Pylè.

Before concluding the study of the Harbour Walls we must recur to the question which presented itself at an earlier stage of our inquiries, but was reserved for consideration at the close of this chapter, as more favourable to an intelligent and thorough discussion of the subject.

Where was the Basilikè Pylè which Byzantine historians, after the Restoration of the Empire, associate with this line of the city’s bulwarks? Was it, as some authorities maintain, at Balat Kapoussi, [842] or, as others hold, in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio Point? [843] Or is it possible that a gate bearing that epithet was found at both points?

In favour of the opinion that the Imperial Gate was near the Seraglio Point there is, first, the statement of Phrantzes, already cited, to that effect. “To Gabriel of Treviso,” says the historian, [844] “captain of the Venetian triremes, with fifty men under him, was entrusted the defence of the tower, in the middle of the current, guarding the entrance of the harbour; and he was opposite the Imperial Gate.”

What Phrantzes means by the “entrance of the harbour” (τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος) admits of no dispute, for the phrase has only one signification. But, as though to render mistake impossible, he repeats the expression, in that sense, several times. The Greek ships, which were moored beside the chain across the mouth of the harbour, and which the Sultan endeavoured to sink or drive away by the fire of a battery planted on the hill of St. Theodore, to the north-east of Galata, Phrantzes [845] observes, were stationed “at the entrance of the harbour” (ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ τοῦ λιμένος). The object of this bombardment, adds the historian [846] in the next sentence, was not simply to force “the entrance to the harbour” (διὰ τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος), but also to injure the Genoese shipping at that point, and thus show that the Sultan dared to act in any way he pleased, even towards the Italians of Galata. Again, Phrantzes [847] remarks that the ships moored along the chain at the mouth of the harbour (ἐν τῶ στόματι τοῦ λιμένος) were placed here to render entrance into the harbour more difficult to the enemy (ὅπως ἰσχυροτέρως κωλύσωσι τὴν εἴσοδον).

Equally decisive is the indication given regarding the tower which stood opposite the Imperial Gate. It was “in the middle of the current.” This statement carries the mind, at first, to the tower which stood on the rock off Scutari (Damalis, Arcla), where the lighthouse Kiz Kalehssi has been erected. But the idea that Phrantzes had that tower in view cannot be entertained for more than a moment; for to have stationed Gabriel there, with the Turkish fleet in complete command of the Bosporus and the Sea of Marmora, was not simply useless, but impossible. The current intended can be none other than the strong current at the head of the Seraglio Point, where it divides in two swift streams, which Nicephorus Gregoras [848] compares to Scylla and Charybdis, one running up the Golden Horn, the other out into the Sea of Marmora. A tower near a point with rushing waters on either hand might aptly be described as “in the middle of the current.” [849] Furthermore, Phrantzes [850] mentions the tower referred to, in close connection with what stood, unquestionably, near the head of the promontory. He speaks of it immediately after the Horaia Pylè, and immediately before the ships which defended the chain across the harbour’s mouth, as though in the same vicinity.

In the second place, the view that the Imperial Gate was near the Seraglio Point is supported by the testimony of Leonard of Scio, when he makes the statement that Gabriel of Treviso fought bravely, with his men, on the portion of the walls extending from the Beacon-tower as far as the Imperial Gate, at the entrance of the bay (of the Golden Horn): “Gabriel Trevsianus cordatissime a Turri Phani usque ad Imperialem Portam, ante sinum, decertabat.” [851] The archbishop’s phrase “ante sinum” corresponds to Phrantzes’ ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ τοῦ λιμένος.

Thirdly, it remains to add, on this side of the question, that the order in which Pusculus mentions the gates in the Harbour Walls favours the view that the Basilikè Pylè was not at Balat Kapoussi. Proceeding from west to cast in his account of the defence of the fortifications along the Golden Horn, that author refers to seven gates in the following order: Xylina, Cynegon, Phani, Theodosia, Puteæ, Platea, Basilea, [852] thus putting the Imperial Gate somewhere to the east of Oun Kapan Kapoussi. Had the Basilea stood at Balat Kapoussi it should have been mentioned immediately after Cynegon.

This is the main evidence in support of the opinion that the Basilikè Pylè was near the Seraglio Point, and it is difficult to conceive of evidence more clear and conclusive.

The argument countenancing the view which identifies the Imperial Gate with Balat Kapoussi may be stated, briefly, thus: In the first place, when Leonard of Scio declares that Gabriel of Treviso defended the walls “a Turri Phani ad Imperialem Portam” he associates the Imperial Gate with the quarter of the Phanar. Again, when Ducas affirms that the Venetians assisted the Greeks in the defence of the walls from the Imperial Gate to the Kynegon, [853] that entrance is associated with the district so named. The Imperial Gate, therefore, must have stood at a point between the Phanar and the Kynegon. But that is exactly the situation of Balat Kapoussi, with the quarter of the Phanar on its east, and the Kynegon on its west; hence the two gates were one and the same.

In the next place, the epithet “Imperial” was eminently suitable for an entrance which stood at the foot of a hill surmounted by the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus, and from which the Palace of Blachernæ could be readily reached. How appropriate the epithet was is proved by the actual name of the gate, Balat Kapoussi (the Gate of the Palace), so similar in meaning to Basilikè Pylè.

In the third place, on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè stood a Church of St. John the Baptist. [854] And in keeping with this fact, there is a Church of St. John the Baptist (the metochion of the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai) outside Balat Kapoussi.

These arguments are, however, open to criticism. So far as the statement of Leonard of Scio is concerned, it should be noted that he does not speak of the Turris Phani absolutely. Had he done so, the presumption would certainly be in favour of the view which understands him to refer to the district of the Phanar, half-way up the Golden Horn. [855] But his complete statement on the subject is that the Turris Phani of which he was speaking stood, with the Imperial Gate beside it, “ante sinum,” at the entrance of the bay of the Golden Horn, thus making it manifest that he had in mind another beacon-tower than the one in the district commonly known as the Phanar. That the shore of the Golden Horn was lighted at more than one point during the night, and especially at the entrance of the harbour, is only what might be expected. Nor is there in the assertion of Ducas, that the Venetians and Greeks united their forces to defend the fortifications from the Imperial Gate to the Kynegon, anything to determine the distance between the two points. They might be very near, or they might be as far apart as the extremities of the Harbour Walls; for there is no reason to think that the Venetians defended only the small portion of the walls between Balat Kapoussi and the three archways to the west of that gate.

The remaining arguments under consideration have more force, but are by no means decisive. The appropriateness of the epithet “Imperial” to an entrance in the situation of Balat Kapoussi affords, certainly, a presumption in favour of the view that the entrance was so named, although it cannot, alone, prove that such was the fact. The name Balat Kapoussi appears only after the Turkish Conquest, and may or may not be borrowed from the Byzantine designation of the gate. The strongest argument on this side of the question is, undoubtedly, that drawn from the presence of the Church of St. John the Baptist on the shore to the north-east of Balat Kapoussi, [856] the possible representative of the ancient church of that dedication “on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè.” [857]

But, in any case, these arguments do not refute the proof adduced for the existence of a Basilikè Pylè near the Seraglio Point. They leave that fact undisturbed; and can only claim to give countenance to the idea that another Basilikè Pylè stood at Balat Kapoussi.

Two questions, accordingly, are involved in the problem before us. Which of the gates near the Seraglio Point was styled the Basilikè Pylè? Was that gate the only Imperial Gate in the line of the Harbour Walls, or do some statements of Byzantine historians on the subject imply the existence of a second Basilikè Pylè?

In the opinion of Leunclavius, the Imperial Gate is to be identified with the Horaia Pylè (the Gate of the Neorion) at Bagtchè Kapoussi. [858] But if the Horaia Pylè was at Bagtchè Kapoussi, the Basilikè Pylè could not be there also. The two entrances are unmistakably distinguished by Phrantzes, who mentions both in the same connection, the one immediately after the other, and states that, in the defence of the fortifications along the harbour, the Beautiful Gate was in charge of the crew of a vessel from Crete, while the Imperial Gate was under the care of Gabriel of Treviso.

But this is an objection which has force only against those who adopt the view that the Horaia Pylè stood at Bagtchè Kapoussi.

A more general objection to the view of Leunclavius is that Bagtchè Kapoussi does not occupy the situation attributed to the Imperial Gate by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio. It is not opposite a tower guarding the entrance of the harbour; it is too far up the Golden Horn to be described as “ante sinum.”

This being so there are only two gates with one or other of which the Imperial Gate can be identified, if the indications furnished on the subject by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio are strictly followed. It was either the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), as Gerlach maintains, [859] or the Gate of St. Barbara (Top Kapoussi), which stands immediately to the south of Seraglio Point, and was, therefore, so near the Harbour Walls that it might be included in an account of their defence.

The description of the Imperial Gate given by the historians above mentioned, applies equally well to both these entrances. Both stand near the mouth of the harbour, and opposite a tower “in the middle of the current;” both occupy a point of great strategical importance, such as the Basilikè Pylè must have occupied, if we may judge from the fact that it was entrusted to commanders like Gabriel of Treviso and the Duke Notaras; both entrances were, in the course of history, associated with the Court [860] in a way which might have earned for them the distinction of the epithet, “Imperial.”

It is not easy to decide, directly, between conflicting claims so nicely balanced. Judgment on the point at issue will doubtless be determined, largely, by the views adopted on questions indirectly connected with the matter in dispute, especially by what view is taken as regards the situation of the Horaia Pylè. Any one who upholds the accuracy of Ducas regarding the point to which the southern end of the chain was attached, and identifies the Beautiful Gate with Yali Kiosk Kapoussi (the Gate of Eugenius) will, necessarily, identify the Imperial Gate with Top Kapoussi. On the other hand, those who accept the opinion that the Beautiful Gate stood, as the Greeks in the sixteenth century maintained, at Bagtchè Kapoussi, may, though still free to place the Imperial Gate at Top Kapoussi, nevertheless prefer to place it at Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, as, on the whole, more in accordance with the indications of its position. If at the latter point, one can understand more readily why the Imperial Gate should have been associated with the Harbour Walls, and why Phrantzes mentions it immediately after the Horaia Pylè, and before the chain and the ships at the harbour’s mouth.

Having thus indicated which of the gates near the Seraglio Point have the strongest claim to be regarded as the Basilikè Pylè, it remains to consider the question whether either of those gates was the only entrance bearing that epithet, in the Harbour Walls.

Are there, in other words, any statements made by Byzantine writers in reference to the Basilikè Pylè which cannot be applied to the Gate of Eugenius or to the Gate of St. Barbara, and which, therefore, imply the existence of another gate of that name? So far as the Gate of St. Barbara is concerned, there are several such statements. The narrow quay outside Top Kapoussi could not afford room for the Church of St. John, the hospitium, and the other buildings, which are described as situated on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè. [861] Nor could a ship be moored in front of that gate, as the ship of the Catalan chief Berenger was moored in front of the Imperial Gate. [862] Nor was it necessary, before that gate could be attacked by the Turkish fleet, that the chain across the entrance of the Golden Horn should be forced, as we are told was necessary in the case of the Basilikè Pylè to which Critobulus alludes. [863] Hence the opinion that the Basilikè Pylè was another name for the Gate of St. Barbara involves the view that there were two Imperial Gates.

The claim of the Gate of Eugenius to be the sole Basilikè Pylè encounters but one serious objection. Critobulus, it would appear, distinguishes the two entrances. He refers to the former to indicate where the southern end of the chain across the harbour was attached; [864] he speaks of the latter to mark the point which the Turkish fleet attacked on the last day of the siege, after breaking the chain, and becoming master of the Golden Horn. [865] For as soon as the Turkish admiral perceived that the Sultan’s troops had entered the city, and were busily engaged in the work of plunder, he made a desperate attempt upon the chain, cut it asunder, and forced his way into the harbour. Then, having captured or sunk the Greek galleys found in the port, he led his ships to the Imperial Gate (ταῖς βασιλικαῖς πόλαις) and landed his sailors in quest of booty. The gate was, however, still held by the Greeks, as the Turkish troops had not yet reached it from within the city. A fierce struggle therefore ensued. But at last the gate was burst open, its brave defenders were slain to a man, their blood pouring through it like a stream, and the assailants rushed in to share the spoils of victory.

What is here related might hold true of the Gate of Eugenius. Such facts as that the Imperial Gate stood within the chain, that before attacking it the Greek vessels in the harbour had to be disposed of, that it was held for a considerable time after the Turkish army had entered the city, are all consistent with the idea that the Basilikè Pylè, to which Critobulus refers, was the Gate of Eugenius. But, on the other hand, if the Gate of Eugenius was both the entrance to which the chain was attached and the entrance captured by the Turkish admiral after the chain had been broken, it comes very near defying all the laws of the association of ideas for the historian to speak of the entrance by different names, when the matters he records were so closely connected. This is a very serious objection to the identification of the Imperial Gate which Critobulus had in mind with the Gate of Eugenius. Hence, if this objection cannot be removed by saying that he could speak of the same gate by different names in different passages of his work, it follows that the epithet “Basilikè” did not belong exclusively to the Gate of Eugenius (any more than to the Gate of St. Barbara), but was bestowed also upon a gate higher up the Golden Horn.

This being the case, there can be no hesitation where the latter was situated. Balat Kapoussi, by the significance of its name, by its proximity to Imperial palaces, and by the presence of a Church of St. John, with room for other buildings, on the territory outside the gate, establishes the best claim to be considered the second Basilikè Pylè in the line of the harbour fortifications. [866]

Why the Turkish admiral selected it as the point at which to land his sailors is explained by the wealthy character of the adjoining quarter of the city. [867]