Volume I—A To Elba (continued 35)

G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 14.

{502}

On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been granted to them. For the first time they admitted the possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers. The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this action. … The debate was continued until the shadows of the early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted, the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished. Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion. The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn. When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair promises."

E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 16.

ALSO IN: J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686, and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697. King William's War.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701. The reinstatement of the charter government.

"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody. May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their functions, and called the assembly together for the following month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the charter; but the charter government was put into full effect again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No decided action was taken by the home government for some years, except that its appointment of the New York governor, Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded. Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid, Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had any judgment of record been entered against it; that its operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical moment, secured all that could be secured under the circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last, and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a real democracy. … Democracy had done more for Connecticut than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12.

{503}

"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the portion of the British empire distinguished above all others by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy under the shelter of a monarchy. … The crown, by reserving to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701, was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and contended that its liberties were held by contract in return for services that had been performed; that the taking away of so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in England. The impending war with the French postponed the purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690. The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711. Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710; and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748. King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799. Western territorial claims. Settlements in the Wyoming Valley. Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754. The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760. The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756; 1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760; NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755; Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755; CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765. The question of taxation by Parliament. The Sugar Act. The Stamp Act. The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765. The revolt against the Stamp Act.

"The English government understood very well that the colonies were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public affairs in America. … Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll, with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power to oppose the scheme of taxation … counselled submission. They mistook the feeling of the people. … The clergy were still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if necessary. … Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with this action. … He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A formal resignation was given him to sign. … After he had signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the court-house.

E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 29.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766. The repeal of the Stamp Act. The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768. The Townshend duties. The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston. The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784. The ending of slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea. Committees of Correspondence instituted. The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill. The Massachusetts Act. The Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. New England in arms and Boston beleaguered. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776. Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."

"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the people of this State, shall be and remain the civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever. And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless presented to the Americans of 1776-89."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 16.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

{504}

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783. The war and the victory. Independence achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778. The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779. Tryon's marauding expeditions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786. Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States. The Western Reserve in Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799; and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788. Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814. The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

—————CONNECTICUT: End—————

CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CONNUBIUM.

See MUNICIPIUM.

CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.

CONOYS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONRAD I., King of the East Franks (Germany), (the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.

Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039; King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039; Emperor, 1027-1039.

Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.

Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.

CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

The Roman senators were so called,—"Patres Conscripti." The origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed finally into "Patres-Conscripti."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4.

CONSCRIPTION, The first French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).

CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.

The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND: A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept slowly into general favour, although some few there were who always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr. Croker's mark upon it."

L. J. Jennings, The Croker Papers, volume 2, page 198.

CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CONSISTORY, The Papal.

See CURIA, PAPAL.

CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.

"The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties the breach of the moral law. … The administration of such a discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. … Thus arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts, perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to wield them. … The Consistory Courts had continued into the sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although they had been for generations merely perennially flowing fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to them. … But between the original design and the degenerate counterfeit there was this vital difference,—that the censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence against morality was rated at its specific money value in the Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were 'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,' 'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,' 'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal definition."

J. A. Froude. History of England, chapter 3.

CONSPIRACY BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

CONSTABLE, The.

"The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory of Tours. The duties of the constables of France … and those of the constables of Naples … are not exactly parallel with [those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the constable one of the castle or army. … The constable … exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 122, and note.

{505}

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.

"No other dignity in the world has been held by such a succession of great soldiers as the office of Constable of France. The Constable was originally a mere officer of the stables, but his power had increased by the suppression of the office of Grand Seneschal, and by the time of Philip Augustus he exercised control over all the military forces of the crown. He was the general in chief of the army and the highest military authority in the kingdom. The constables had for four centuries been leaders in the wars of France, and they had experienced strange and varied fortunes. The office had been bestowed on the son of Simon de Montfort, and he for this honor had granted to the king of France his rights over those vast domains which had been given his father for his pious conquests. [See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.] It had been bestowed on Raoul de Nesle, who fell at Courtrai, where the French nobility suffered its first defeat from Flemish boors; on Bertrand de Guesclin, the last of the great warriors, whose deeds were sung with those of the paladins of Charlemagne; on Clisson, the victor of Roosebeck [or Rosebecque]; on Armagnac, whose name has a bloody preeminence among the leaders of the fierce soldiery who ravaged France during the English wars; on Buchan, whose Scotch valor and fidelity gained him this great trust among a foreign people; on Richemont, the companion of Joan Darc; on Saint Pol, the ally of Charles the Bold, the betrayer and the victim of Louis XI.; on the Duke of Bourbon, who won the battle of Pavia against his sovereign, and led his soldiers to that sack of Rome which made the ravages of Genseric and Alaric seem mild; on Anne of Montmorenci, a prominent actor in every great event in France from the battle of Pavia against Charles V. to that of St. Denis against Coligni; on his son, the companion of Henry IV. in his youth, and his trusted adviser in his age. … The sword borne by such men had been bestowed [1621] on Luines, the hero of an assassination, who could not drill a company of infantry; it was now [1622] given to the hero of many battles [the Duke of Lesdeguières], and the great office was to expire in the hands of a great soldier."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 94.

CONSTANCE, The Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

CONSTANCE, Peace of (1183).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

CONSTANS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-350.

Constans II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641-668.

CONSTANTINA, The taking of (1837).

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

CONSTANTINE, Pope, A. D. 708-715. Constantine I. (called The Great), Roman Emperor, A. D. 306-337.

The Conversion.

See ROME: A. D. 323.

The Forged Donation of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).

Constantine II., Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-340.

Constantine III., Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 641.

Constantine IV. (called Pogonatus), Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 668-685.

Constantine V. (called Copronymus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 741-775.

Constantine VI., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 780-797.

Constantine VII. (called Porphyrogenitus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 911-950.

Constantine VIII. (colleague of Constantine VII.), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 944.

Constantine IX., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1028.

Constantine X., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1042-1054.

Constantine XI., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1059-1067.

Constantine XII., nominal Greek Emperor in the East, about A. D. 1071.

Constantine XIII. (Polæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A. D. 1448-1453.

Constantine the Usurper.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330. Transformation of Byzantium.

"Constantine had for some time contemplated the erection of a new capital. The experience of nearly half a century had confirmed the sagacity of Diocletian's selection of a site on the confines of Europe and Asia [Nicomedia] as the whereabouts in which the political centre of gravity of the Empire rested. At one time Constantine thought of adopting the site of ancient Troy, and is said to have actually commenced building a new city there. … More prosaic reasons ultimately prevailed. The practical genius of Constantine recognized in the town of Byzantium, on the European side of the border line between the two continents, the site best adapted for his new capital. All subsequent ages have applauded his discernment, for experience has endorsed the wisdom of the choice. By land, with its Asian suburb of Chrysopolis [modern Scutari], it practically spanned the narrow strait and joined Europe and Asia: by sea, it was open on one side to Spain, Italy, Greece, Africa, Egypt, Syria; on the other to the Euxine, and so by the Danube it had easy access to the whole of that important frontier between the Empire and the barbarians; and round all the northern coasts of the sea it took the barbarians in flank. … The city was solemnly dedicated with religious ceremonies on the 11th of May, 330, and the occasion was celebrated, after the Roman fashion, by a great festival, largesses and games in the hippodrome, which lasted forty days. The Emperor gave to the city institutions modelled after those of the ancient Rome."

E. L. Cutts, Constantine the Great, chapter 29.

"The new walls of Constantine stretched from the port to the Propontis … at the distance of fifteen stadia from the ancient fortification, and, with the city of Byzantium, they enclosed five of the seven hills which, to the eyes of those who approach Constantinople, appear to rise above each other in beautiful order. About a century after the death of the founder, the new buildings … already covered the narrow ridge of the sixth and the broad summit of the seventh hill. … The buildings of the new city were executed by such artificers as the reign of Constantine could afford; but they were decorated by the hands of the most celebrated masters of the age of Pericles and Alexander. … By his commands the cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most valuable ornaments."

{506}

"The new city was an exact copy of old Rome. … It was inhabited by senators from Rome. Wealthy individuals from the provinces were likewise compelled to keep up houses at Constantinople, pensions were conferred upon them, and a right to a certain amount of provisions from the public stores was annexed to these dwellings. Eighty thousand loaves of bread were distributed daily to the inhabitants of Constantinople. … The tribute of grain from Egypt was appropriated to supply Constantinople, and that of Africa was left for the consumption of Rome."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: J. B. Bury, History of the later Roman Empire, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 363-518. The Eastern Court from Valens to Anastatius. Tumults at the capital.

See ROME: A. D. 363-379 to 400-518.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 378. Threatened by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 400. Popular rising against the Gothic soldiery. Their expulsion from the city.

See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512. Tumults concerning the Trisagion.

During the reign of Anastatius, at Constantinople, the fierce controversy which had raged for many years throughout the empire, between the Monophysites (who maintained that the divine and the human natures in Christ were one), and the 'adherents of the Council of Chalcedon (which declared that Christ possessed two natures in one person), was embittered at the imperial capital by opposition between the emperor, who favored the Monophysites, and the patriarch who was strict in Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 511, and again in 512, it gave rise to two alarming riots at Constantinople. On the first occasion, a Monophysite or Eutychian party "burst into the Chapel of the Archangel in the Imperial Palace and dared to chant the Te Deum with the addition of the forbidden words, the war-cry of many an Eutychian mob, 'Who wast crucified for us.' The Trisagion, as it was called, the thrice-repeated cry to the Holy One, which Isaiah in his vision heard uttered by the seraphim, became, by the addition of these words, as emphatic a statement as the Monophysite party could desire of their favourite tenet that God, not man, breathed out his soul unto death outside the gates of Jerusalem. … On the next Sunday the Monophysites sang the verse which was their war-cry in the great Basilica itself." The riot which ensued was quieted with difficulty by the patriarch, to whom the emperor humbled himself. But in the next year, on a fast-day (Nov. 6) the Monophysites gave a similar challenge, singing the Trisagion with the prohibited words added, and "again psalmody gave place to blows; men wounded and dying lay upon the floor of the church. … The orthodox mob streamed from all parts into the great forum. There they swarmed and swayed to and fro all that day and all that night, shouting forth, not the greatness of the Ephesian Diana, but 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' without the words' 'Who wast crucified.' They hewed down the monks,—a minority of their class,—who were on the side of the imperial creed, and burned their monasteries with fire." After two days of riot, the aged emperor humbled himself to the mob, in the great Circus, offered to abdicate the throne and made peace by promises to respect the decrees of Chalcedon.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 10.

See, also, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 532. The Sedition of Nika.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 542. The Plague.

See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 553. General Council.

See THREE CHAPTERS, THE DISPUTE OF THE.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 626. Attacked by the Avars and Persians.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675. First siege by the Saracens.

"Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca his disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople. They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of the Cæsars, their sins were forgiven. … No sooner had the Caliph Moawiyah [the first of the Ommiade caliphs, seated at Damascus,] suppressed his rivals and established his throne, than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the success of this holy expedition; his preparations by sea and land were adequate to the importance of the object; his standard was entrusted to Sophian, a veteran warrior. … The Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons of fear, from the courage and vigilance of the reigning Emperor, who disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated only the inglorious years of his grandfather Heraclius. Without delay or opposition, the naval forces of the Saracens passed through the unguarded channel of the Hellespont, which even now, under the feeble and disorderly government of the Turks, is maintained as the natural bulwark of the capital. The Arabian fleet cast anchor and the troops were disembarked near the palace of Hebdomon, seven miles from the city. During many days, from the dawn of light to the evening, the line of assault was extended from the golden gate to the Eastern promontory. … But the besiegers had formed an insufficient estimate of the strength and resources of Constantinople. The solid and lofty walls were guarded by numbers and discipline; the spirit of the Romans was rekindled by the last danger of their religion and empire; the fugitives from the conquered provinces more successfully renewed the defence of Damascus and Alexandria; and the Saracens were dismayed by the strange and prodigious effects of artificial fire. This firm and effectual resistance diverted their arms to the more easy attempts of plundering the European and Asiatic coasts of the Propontis; and, after keeping the sea from the month of April to that of September, on the approach of winter they retreated four score miles from the capital, to the isle of Cyzicus, in which they had established their magazine of spoil and provisions. So patient was their perseverance, or so languid were their operations, that they repeated in the six following summers the same attack and retreat, with a gradual abatement of hope and vigour, till the mischances of shipwreck and disease, of the sword and of fire, compelled them to relinquish the fruitless enterprise. They might bewail the loss, or commemorate the martyrdom, of 30,000 Moslems who fell in the siege of Constantinople. … The event of the siege revived, both in the East and West, the reputation of the Roman arms, and cast a momentary shade over the glories of the Saracens. … A peace, or truce of thirty years was ratified between the two Empires; and the stipulation of an annual tribute, fifty horses of a noble breed, fifty slaves, and 3,000 pieces of gold, degraded the majesty of the commander of the faithful."

{507}

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 680. General Council.

See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718. The second siege by the Saracens.

"When Leo [the Isaurian] was raised to the [Byzantine] throne [A. D. 717], the empire was threatened with immediate ruin. Six emperors had been dethroned within the space of twenty-one years. … The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus. … The Caliph Suleiman, who had seen one private adventurer succeed the other in quick succession on the imperial throne, deemed the moment favourable for the final conquest of the Christians; and, reinforcing his brother's army [in Asia Minor], he ordered him to lay siege to Constantinople. The Saracen empire had now reached its greatest extent. From the banks of the Sihun and the Indus to the shores of the Atlantic in Mauretania and Spain, the order of Suleiman was implicitly obeyed. … The army Moslemah led against Constantinople was the best-appointed that had ever attacked the Christians: it consisted of 80,000 warriors. The Caliph announced his intention of taking the field in person with additional forces, should the capital of the Christians offer a protracted resistance to the arms of Islam. The whole expedition is said to have employed 180,000 men. … Moslemah, after capturing Pergamus, marched to Abydos, where he was joined by the Saracen fleet. He then transported his army across the Hellespont, and marching along the shore of the Propontis, invested Leo in his capital both by land and sea. The strong walls of Constantinople, the engines of defence with which Roman and Greek art had covered the ramparts, and the skill of the Byzantine engineers, rendered every attempt to carry the place by assault hopeless, so that the Saracens were compelled to trust to the effect of a strict blockade for gaining possession of the city. … The besiegers encamped before Constantinople on the 15th August 717. The Caliph Suleiman died before he was able to send any reinforcements to his brother. The winter proved unusually severe." Great numbers of the warriors from the south were destroyed by the inclemency of a climate to which they had not become inured; many more died of famine in the Moslem camp, while the besieged city was plentifully supplied. The whole undertaking was disastrous from its beginning to its close, and, exactly one year from the pitching of his camp under the Byzantine walls, "on the 15th of August 718, Moslemah raised the siege, after ruining one of the finest armies the Saracens ever assembled. … Few military details concerning Leo's defence of Constantinople have been preserved, but there can be no doubt that it was one of the most brilliant exploits of a warlike age. … The vanity of Gallic writers has magnified the success of Charles Martel over a plundering expedition of the Spanish Arabs into a marvellous victory, and attributed the deliverance of Europe from the Saracen yoke to the valour of the Franks. A veil has been thrown over the talents and courage of Leo, a soldier of fortune, just seated on the imperial throne, who defeated the long-planned schemes of conquest of the Caliphs Welid and Suleiman. It is unfortunate that we have no Isaurian literature. … The war was languidly carried on for some years and the Saracens were gradually expelled from most of their conquests beyond Mount Tauris."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057, chapter 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 747. The Great Plague.

See PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 754. The Iconoclastic Council.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865. First attack by the Russians.

"In the year 865, a nation hitherto unknown made its first appearance in the history of the world, where it was destined to act no unimportant part. Its entrance into the political system of the European nations was marked by an attempt to take Constantinople, a project which it has often revived. … In the year 862, Rurik, a Scandinavian or Varangian chief, arrived at Novgorod, and laid the first foundation of the state which has grown into the Russian empire. The Russian people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. … From what particular circumstance the Russians were led to make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The Emperor Michael [III.] had taken the command of an army to act against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of 200 Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis, about 18 miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging the monasteries and slaying the monks as well as the other inhabitants. The Emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on his capital hastened to its defence. … It required no great exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders; but the horrid cruelty of the barbarians, and the wild daring of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the people of Constantinople."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 3, section 3.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043. Repeated attacks by the Russians.

Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians, Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of 2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople. "It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner. {508} At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a large sum of money. … These hostilities were terminated by a commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria; which would have brought them into the same dangerous neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the Danube, once more. For more than half a century, Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000 men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted; and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most Christian nation."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057, book 2, chapter 3, section 2.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081. Sacked by the rebel army of Alexius Comnenus.

Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in 1057-1059,—he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years had seen four emperors come and go—two to the grave and two into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these—Nicephorus III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery. Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. … The power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family, Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April, 1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204. Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203; and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261. The Latin Empire and its fall. Recovery by the Greeks.

See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF, and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261. Great privileges conceded to the Genoese. Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453. The restored Greek Empire.

On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the nobles in the palaces of their fathers. … He repeopled Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the era of a new Empire." {509} The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest islands of the Archipelago—Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. … But in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish conquerors—the Ottomans—but those most aggressive of the proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece, until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference, almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. … The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the triumph of Venice. … Yet the spirit of commerce survived that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2.

See, also, TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359; 1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355. War with the Genoese. Alliance with Venice and Aragon.

John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town, and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the revenue which the imperial government derived from the port. … The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their profits. … The increased industry of the Greeks, and the jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner, without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who administered the government in the absence of her husband, behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital, where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover, to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and his army retreated without making a serious attack. Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. … Their victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep possession of some land they had seized, and on which they soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded, by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor of Constantinople in ten years. … But this treaty was never carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses. The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351, Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon. Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age, appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his principal object was attained when he had convoyed the merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos, however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness of the Venetians. {510} Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter, stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, … The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city, indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the Black Sea. … Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata. The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese. … Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the Venetian alliance … concluded a peace with the republic of Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 4.

The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November, when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed; an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000, and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken." In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.

W. C. Hazlitt, History of the Venetian Republic, chapters 18-19 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: F. A. Parker, The Fleets of the World, pages 88-94.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453. Conquest by the Turks.

Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he would renounce the project of building a fort on the European shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five miles from the capital, would give him the command of the Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan. Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor] made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when, in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May, 1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman capital. "The despairing people—senators, priests, monks, nuns, husbands, wives and children—sought safety in the church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed, sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes, and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were plundered by other divisions of the army. … About noon the Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos, passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought, his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to slavery."

C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern: Fourth course, lecture 6.

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481. The city repopulated and rebuilt. Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.

{511}

"It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople, in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build their houses. … Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick succession, and long before the end of his reign Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. … Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were constructed in every quarter of the city. … The picturesque beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine architecture, must continue his travels eastward to Trebizond."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 7.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1807. Threatened by a British fleet.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

—————CONSTANTINOPLE: End—————

CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

CONSTANTIUS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-306.

Constantius II., A. D. 337-361.

CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1814.

CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

—————CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End—————

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868," taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic," prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since 1860: