VOLUME VII slice II

CONSTANTINE PAVLOVICH to CONVENTION

CONSTANTINE PAVLOVICH (1779-1831), grand-duke and cesarevich of Russia, was born at Tsarskoye Selo on the 27th of April 1779. Of the sons born to the unfortunate tsar Paul Petrovich and his wife Maria Feodorovna, _née_ princess of Württemberg, none more closely resembled his father in bodily and mental characteristics than did the second, Constantine Pavlovich. The direction of the boy's upbringing was entirely in the hands of his grandmother, the empress Catherine II. As in the case of her eldest grandson (afterwards the emperor Alexander I.), she regulated every detail of his physical and mental education; but in accordance with her usual custom she left the carrying out of her views to the men who were in her confidence. Count Nicolai Ivanovich Soltikov was supposed to be the actual tutor, but he too in his turn transferred the burden to another, only interfering personally on quite exceptional occasions, and exercised neither a positive nor a negative influence upon the character of the exceedingly passionate, restless and headstrong boy. The only person who really took him in hand was César La Harpe, who was tutor-in-chief from 1783 to May 1795 and educated both the empress's grandsons.

Like Alexander, Constantine was married by Catherine when not yet seventeen years of age, a raw and immature boy, and he made his wife, Juliana of Coburg, intensely miserable. After a first separation in the year 1799, she went back permanently to her German home in 1801, the victim of a frivolous intrigue, in the guilt of which she was herself involved. An attempt made by Constantine in 1814 to win her back to his hearth and home broke down on her firm opposition. During the time of this tragic marriage Constantine's first campaign took place under the leadership of the great Suvorov. The battle of Bassignano was lost by Constantine's fault, but at Novi he distinguished himself by such personal bravery that the emperor Paul bestowed on him the title of cesarevich, which according to the fundamental law of the constitution belonged only to the heir to the throne. Though it cannot be proved that this action of the tsar denoted any far-reaching plan, it yet shows that Paul already distrusted the grand-duke Alexander. However that may be, it is certain that Constantine never tried to secure the throne. After his father's death he led a wild and disorderly bachelor life. He abstained from politics, but remained faithful to his military inclinations, though, indeed, without manifesting anything more than a preference for the externalities of the service.

In command of the guards during the campaign of 1805 Constantine had a share of the responsibility for the unfortunate turn which events took at the battle of Austerlitz; while in 1807 neither his skill nor his fortune in war showed any improvement. However, after the peace of Tilsit he became an ardent admirer of the great Corsican and an upholder of the Russo-French alliance. It was on this account that in political questions he did not enjoy the confidence of his imperial brother. To the latter the French alliance had always been merely a means to an end, and after he had satisfied himself at Erfurt, and later during the Franco-Austrian War of 1809, that Napoleon likewise regarded his relation to Russia only from the point of view of political advantage, he became convinced that the alliance must transform itself into a battle of life and death. Such insight was never attained by Constantine; even in 1812, after the fall of Moscow, he pressed for a speedy conclusion of peace with Napoleon, and, like field-marshal Kutusov, he too opposed the policy which carried the war across the Russian frontier to a victorious conclusion upon French soil. During the campaign he was a boon companion of every commanding-officer. Barclay de Tolly was twice obliged to send him away from the army. His share in the battles in Germany and France was insignificant. At Dresden, on the 26th of August, his military knowledge failed him at the decisive moment, but at La Fère-Champenoise he distinguished himself by personal bravery. On the whole he cut no great figure. In Paris the grand-duke excited public ridicule by the manifestation of his petty military fads. His first visit was to the stables, and it was said that he had marching and drilling even in his private rooms.

In the great political decisions of those days Constantine took not the smallest part. His importance in political history dates only from the moment when the emperor Alexander entrusted him in Poland with a task which enabled him to concentrate all the one-sidedness of his talents and all the doggedness of his nature on a definite object: that of the militarization and outward discipline of Poland. With this begins the part played by the grand-duke in history. In the Congress-Poland created by Alexander he received the post of commander-in-chief of the forces of the kingdom; to which was added later (1819) the command of the Lithuanian troops and of those of the Russian provinces that had formerly belonged to the kingdom of Poland. In effect he was the actual ruler of the country, and soon became the most zealous advocate of the separate position of Poland created by the constitution granted by Alexander. He organized their army for the Poles, and felt himself more a Pole than a Russian, especially after his marriage, on the 27th of May 1820, with a Polish lady, Johanna Grudzinska. Connected with this was his renunciation of any claim to the Russian succession, which was formally completed in 1822. It is well known how, in spite of this, when Alexander I. died on the 1st of December 1825 the grand-duke Nicholas had him proclaimed emperor in St Petersburg, in connexion with which occurred the famous revolt of the Russian Liberals, known as the rising of the Dekabrists. In this crisis Constantine's attitude had been very correct, far more so than that of his brother, which was vacillating and uncertain. Under the emperor Nicholas also Constantine maintained his position in Poland. But differences soon arose between him and his brother in consequence of the share taken by the Poles in the Dekabrist conspiracy. Constantine hindered the unveiling of the organized plotting for independence which had been going on in Poland for many years, and held obstinately to the belief that the army and the bureaucracy were loyally devoted to the Russian empire. The eastern policy of the tsar and the Turkish War of 1828 and 1829 caused a fresh breach between them. It was owing to the opposition of Constantine that the Polish army took no part in this war, so that there was in consequence no Russo-Polish comradeship in arms, such as might perhaps have led to a reconciliation between the two nations.

The insurrection at Warsaw in November 1830 took Constantine completely by surprise. It was owing to his utter failure to grasp the situation that the Polish regiments passed over to the revolutionaries; and during the continuance of the revolution he showed himself as incompetent as he was lacking in judgment. Every defeat of the Russians appeared to him almost in the light of a personal gratification: _his_ soldiers were victorious. The suppression of the revolution he did not live to see. He died of cholera at Vitebsk on the 27th of June 1831. He was an impossible man in an impossible situation. On the Russian imperial throne he would in all probability have been a tyrant like his father.

See also Karrnovich's _The Cesarevich Constantine Pavlovich_ (2 vols., St Petersburg, 1899), (Russian); T. Schiemann's _Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nicolaus I._ vol. i. (Berlin, 1904); Pusyrevski's _The Russo-Polish War of 1831_ (2nd ed., St Petersburg, 1890) (Russian). (T. SE.)

CONSTANTINE, a city of Algeria, capital of the department of the same name, 54 m. by railway S. by W. of the port of Philippeville, in 36° 22' N., 6° 36' E. Constantine is the residence of a general commanding a division, of a prefect and other high officials, is the seat of a bishop, and had a population in 1906 of 46,806, of whom 25,312 were Europeans. The population of the commune, which includes the suburbs of Constantine, was 58,435. The city occupies a romantic position on a rocky plateau, cut off on all sides save the west from the surrounding country by a beautiful ravine, through which the river Rummel flows. The plateau is 2130 ft. above sea-level, and from 500 to nearly 1000 ft. above the river bed. The ravine, formed by the Rummel, through erosion of the limestone, varies greatly in width--at its narrowest part the cliffs are only 15 ft. apart, at its broadest the valley is 400 yds. wide. At the N.E. angle of the city the gorge is spanned by an iron bridge (El-Kantara) built in 1863, giving access to the railway station, situated on Mansura hill. A stone bridge built by the Romans, and restored at various times, suddenly gave way in 1857 and is now in ruins; it was built on a natural arch, which, 184 ft. above the level of the river, spans the valley. Along the north-eastern side of the city the Rummel is spanned in all four times by these natural stone arches or tunnels. To the north the city is commanded by the Jebel Mecid, a hill which the French (following the example of the Romans) have fortified.

Constantine is walled, the extant medieval wall having been largely constructed out of Roman material. Through the centre from north to south runs a street (the rue de France) roughly dividing Constantine into two parts. The place du Palais, in which are the palace of the governor and the cathedral, and the kasbah (citadel) are west of the rue de France, as is likewise the place Négrier, containing the law courts. The native town lies chiefly in the south-east part of the city. A striking contrast exists between the Moorish quarter, with its tortuous lanes and Oriental architecture, and the modern quarter, with its rectangular streets and wide open squares, frequently bordered with trees and adorned with fountains. Of the squares the place de Nemours is the centre of the commercial and social life of the city. Of the public buildings those dating from before the French occupation possess chief interest. The palace, built by Ahmed Pasha, the last bey of Constantine, between 1830 and 1836, is one of the finest specimens of Moorish architecture of the 19th century. The kasbah, which occupies the northern corner of the city, dates from Roman times, and preserves in its more modern portions numerous remains of other Roman edifices. It is now turned into barracks and a hospital. The fine mosque of Sidi-el-Kattani (or Salah Bey) dates from the close of the 18th century; that of Suk-er-Rezel, now transformed into a cathedral, and called _Notre-Dame des Sept Douleurs_, was built about a century earlier. The Great Mosque, or Jamaa-el-Kebir, occupies the site of what was probably an ancient pantheon. The mosque Sidi-el-Akhdar has a beautiful minaret nearly 80 ft. high. The museum, housed in the hôtel de ville, contains a fine collection of antiquities, including a famous bronze statuette of the winged figure of Victory, 23 in. high, discovered in the kasbah in 1858.

A religious seminary, or medressa, is maintained in connexion with the Sidi-el-Kattani; and the French support a college and various minor educational establishments for both Arabic and European culture. The native industry of Constantine is chiefly confined to leather goods and woollen fabrics. Some 100,000 burnouses are made annually, the finest partly of wool and partly of silk. There is also an active trade in embossing or engraving copper and brass utensils. A considerable trade is carried on over a large area by means of railway connexion with Algiers, Bona, Tunis and Biskra, as well as with Philippeville. The railways, however, have taken away from the city its monopoly of the traffic in wheat, though its share in that trade still amounts to from £400,000 to £480,000 a year.

Constantine, or, as it was originally called, Cirta or Kirtha, from the Phoenician word for a city, was in ancient times one of the most important towns of Numidia, and the residence of the kings of the Massyli. Under Micipsa (2nd century B.C.) it reached the height of its prosperity, and was able to furnish an army of 10,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry. Though it afterwards declined, it still continued an important military post, and is frequently mentioned during successive wars. Caesar having bestowed a part of its territory on his supporter Sittius, the latter introduced a Roman settlement, and the town for a time was known as Colonia Sittianorum. In the war of Maxentius against Alexander, the Numidian usurper, it was laid in ruins; and on its restoration in A.D. 313 by Constantine it received the name which it still retains. It was not captured during the Vandal invasion of Africa, but on the conquest by the Arabians (7th century) it shared the same fate as the surrounding country. Successive Arab dynasties looted it, and many monuments of antiquity suffered (to be finally swept away by "municipal improvements" under the French régime). During the 12th century it was still a place of considerable prosperity; and its commerce was extensive enough to attract the merchants of Pisa, Genoa and Venice. Frequently taken and retaken by the Turks, Constantine finally became under their dominion the seat of a bey, subordinate to the dey of Algiers. To Salah Bey, who ruled from 1770 to 1792, we owe most of the existing Moslem buildings. In 1826 Constantine asserted its independence of the dey of Algiers, and was governed by Haji Ahmed, the choice of the Kabyles. In 1836 the French under Marshal Clausel made an unsuccessful attempt to storm the city, which they attacked by night by way of El-Kantara. The French suffered heavy loss. In 1837 Marshal Valée approached the town by the connecting western isthmus, and succeeded in taking it by assault, though again the French lost heavily. Ahmed, however, escaped and maintained his independence in the Aures mountains. He submitted to the French in 1848 and died in 1850.

CONSTANTINOPLE, the capital of the Turkish empire, situated in 41° 0' 16'' N. and 28° 58' 14" E. The city stands at the southern extremity of the Bosporus, upon a hilly promontory that runs out from the European or western side of the straits towards the opposite Asiatic bank, as though to stem the rush of waters from the Black Sea into the Sea of Marmora. Thus the promontory has the latter sea on the south, and the bay of the Bosporus, forming the magnificent harbour known as the Golden Horn, some 4 m. long, on the north. Two streams, the Cydaris and Barbysus of ancient days, the Ali-Bey-Su and Kiahat-Hané-Su of modern times, enter the bay at its north-western end. A small winter stream, named the Lycus, that flows through the promontory from west to south-east into the Sea of Marmora, breaks the hilly ground into two great masses,--a long ridge, divided by cross-valleys into six eminences, overhanging the Golden Horn, and a large isolated hill constituting the south-western portion of the territory. Hence the claim of Constantinople to be enthroned, like Rome, upon seven hills. The 1st hill is distinguished by the Seraglio, St Sophia and the Hippodrome; the 2nd by the column of Constantine and the mosque Nuri-Osmanieh; the 3rd by the war office, the Seraskereate Tower and the mosque of Sultan Suleiman; the 4th by the mosque of Sultan Mahommed II., the Conqueror; the 5th by the mosque of Sultan Selim; the 6th by Tekfour Serai and the quarter of Egri Kapu; the 7th by Avret Tash and the quarter of Psamatia. In Byzantine times the two last hills were named respectively the hill of Blachernae and the Xerolophos or dry hill.

_History, Architecture and Antiquities._--Constantinople is famous in history, first as the capital of the Roman empire in the East for more than eleven centuries (330-1453), and secondly as the capital of the Ottoman empire since 1453. In respect of influence over the course of human affairs, its only rivals are Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. Yet even the gifts of these rivals to the cause of civilization often bear the image and superscription of Constantinople upon them. Roman law, Greek literature, the theology of the Christian church, for example, are intimately associated with the history of the city beside the Bosporus.

The city was founded by Constantine the Great, through the enlargement of the old town of Byzantium, in A.D. 328, and was inaugurated as a new seat of government on the 11th of May, A.D. 330. To indicate its political dignity, it was named New Rome, while to perpetuate the fame of its founder it was styled Constantinople. The chief patriarch of the Greek church still signs himself "archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome." The old name of the place, Byzantium, however, continued in use.

The creation of a new capital by Constantine was not an act of personal caprice or individual judgment. It was the result of causes long in operation, and had been foreshadowed, forty years before, in the policy of Diocletian. After the senate and people of Rome had ceased to be the sovereigns of the Roman world, and their authority had been vested in the sole person of the emperor, the eternal city could no longer claim to be the rightful throne of the state. That honour could henceforth be conferred upon any place in the Roman world which might suit the convenience of the emperor, or serve more efficiently the interests he had to guard. Furthermore, the empire was now upon its defence. Dreams of conquests and extension had long been abandoned, and the pressing question of the time was how to repel the persistent assaults of Persia and the barbarians upon the frontiers of the realm, and so retain the dominion inherited from the valour of the past. The size of the empire made it difficult, if not impossible, to attend to these assaults, or to control the ambition of successful generals, from one centre. Then the East had grown in political importance, both as the scene of the most active life in the state and as the portion of the empire most exposed to attack. Hence the famous scheme of Diocletian to divide the burden of government between four colleagues, in order to secure a better administration of civil and of military affairs. It was a scheme, however, that lowered the prestige of Rome, for it involved four distinct seats of government, among which, as the event proved, no place was found for the ancient capital of the Roman world. It also declared the high position of the East, by the selection of Nicomedia in Asia Minor as the residence of Diocletian himself. When Constantine, therefore, established a new seat of government at Byzantium, he adopted a policy inaugurated before his day as essential to the preservation of the Roman dominion. He can claim originality only in his choice of the particular point at which that seat was placed, and in his recognition of the fact that his alliance with the Christian church could be best maintained in a new atmosphere.

But whatever view may be taken of the policy which divided the government of the empire, there can be no dispute as to the wisdom displayed in the selection of the site for a new imperial throne, "Of all the events of Constantine's life," says Dean Stanley, "this choice is the most convincing and enduring proof of his real genius." Situated where Europe and Asia are parted by a channel never more than 5 m. across, and sometimes less than half a mile wide, placed at a point commanding the great waterway between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, the position affords immense scope for commercial enterprise and political action in rich and varied regions of the world. The least a city in that situation can claim as its appropriate sphere of influence is the vast domain extending from the Adriatic to the Persian Gulf, and from the Danube to the eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, the site constituted a natural citadel, difficult to approach or to invest, and an almost impregnable refuge in the hour of defeat, within which broken forces might rally to retrieve disaster. To surround it, an enemy required to be strong upon both land and sea. Foes advancing through Asia Minor would have their march arrested, and their blows kept beyond striking distance, by the moat which the waters of the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmora and the Dardanelles combine to form. The narrow straits in which the waterway connecting the Mediterranean with the Black Sea contracts, both to the north and to the south of the city, could be rendered impassable to hostile fleets approaching from either direction, while on the landward side the line of defence was so short that it could be strongly fortified, and held against large numbers by a comparatively small force. Nature, indeed, cannot relieve men of their duty to be wise and brave, but, in the marvellous configuration of land and sea about Constantinople, nature has done her utmost to enable human skill and courage to establish there the splendid and stable throne of a great empire.

Byzantium, out of which Constantinople sprang, was a small, well-fortified town, occupying most of the territory comprised in the two hills nearest the head of the promontory, and in the level ground at their base. The landward wall started from a point near the present Stamboul custom-house, and reached the ridge of the 2nd hill, a little to the east of the point marked by Chemberli Tash (the column of Constantine). There the principal gate of the town opened upon the Egnatian road. From that gate the wall descended towards the Sea of Marmora, touching the water in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio lighthouse. The Acropolis, enclosing venerated temples, crowned the summit of the first hill, where the Seraglio stands. Immediately to the south of the fortress was the principal market-place of the town, surrounded by porticoes on its four sides, and hence named the Tetrastoon. On the southern side of the square stood the baths of Zeuxippus, and beyond them, still farther south, lay the Hippodrome, which Septimius Severus had undertaken to build but failed to complete. Two theatres, on the eastern slope of the Acropolis, faced the bright waters of the Marmora, and a stadium was found on the level tract on the other side of the hill, close to the Golden Horn. The Strategion, devoted to the military exercises of the brave little town, stood close to Sirkedji Iskelessi, and two artificial harbours, the Portus Prosforianus and the Neorion, indented the shore of the Golden Horn, respectively in front of the ground now occupied by the station of the Chemins de Fer Orientaux and the Stamboul custom-house. A graceful granite column, still erect on the slope above the head of the promontory, commemorated the victory of Claudius Gothicus over the Goths at Nissa, A.D. 269. All this furniture of Byzantium was appropriated for the use of the new capital.

According to Zosimus, the line of the landward walls erected by Constantine to defend New Rome was drawn at a distance of nearly 2 m. (15 stadia) to the west of the limits of the old town. It therefore ran across the promontory from the vicinity of Un Kapan Kapusi (Porta Platea), at the Stamboul head of the Inner Bridge, to the neighbourhood of Daud Pasha Kapusi (Porta S. Aemiliani), on the Marmora, and thus added the 3rd and 4th hills and portions of the 5th and 7th hills to the territory of Byzantium. We have two indications of the course of these walls on the 7th hill. One is found in the name Isa Kapusi (the Gate of Jesus) attached to a mosque, formerly a Christian church, situated above the quarter of Psamatia. It perpetuates the memory of the beautiful gateway which formed the triumphal entrance into the city of Constantine, and which survived the original bounds of the new capital as late as 1508, when it was overthrown by an earthquake. The other indication is the name Alti Mermer (the six columns) given to a quarter in the same neighbourhood. The name is an ignorant translation of Exakionion, the corrupt form of the designation Exokionion, which belonged in Byzantine days to that quarter because marked by a column outside the city limits. Hence the Arians, upon their expulsion from the city by Theodosius I., were allowed to hold their religious services in the Exokionion, seeing that it was an extra-mural district. This explains the fact that Arians are sometimes styled Exokionitae by ecclesiastical historians. The Constantinian line of fortifications, therefore, ran a little to the east of the quarter of Alti Mermer. In addition to the territory enclosed within the limits just described, the suburb of Sycae or Galata, on the opposite side of the Golden Horn, and the suburb of Blachernae, on the 6th hill, were regarded as parts of the city, but stood within their own fortifications. It was to the ramparts of Constantine that the city owed its deliverance when attacked by the Goths, after the terrible defeat of Valens at Adrianople, A.D. 378.

In the opinion of his courtiers, the bounds assigned to New Rome by Constantine seemed, it is said, too wide, but after some eighty years they proved too narrow for the population that had gathered within the city. The barbarians had meantime also grown more formidable, and this made it necessary to have stronger fortifications for the capital. Accordingly, in 413, in the reign of Theodosius II., Anthemius, then praetorian prefect of the East and regent, enlarged and refortified the city by the erection of the wall which forms the innermost line of defence in the bulwarks whose picturesque ruins now stretch from the Sea of Marmora, on the south of Yedi Kuléh (the seven towers), northwards to the old Byzantine palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfour Serai), above the quarter of Egri Kapu. There the new works joined the walls of the suburb of Blachernae, and thus protected the city on the west down to the Golden Horn. Somewhat later, in 439, the walls along the Marmora and the Golden Horn were brought, by the prefect Cyrus, up to the extremities of the new landward walls, and thus invested the capital in complete armour. Then also Constantinople attained its final size. For any subsequent extension of the city limits was insignificant, and was due to strategic considerations. In 447 the wall of Anthemius was seriously injured by one of those earthquakes to which the city is liable. The disaster was all the more grave, as the Huns under Attila were carrying everything before them in the Balkan lands. The desperateness of the situation, however, roused the government of Theodosius II., who was still upon the throne, to put forth the most energetic efforts to meet the emergency. If we may trust two contemporary inscriptions, one Latin, the other Greek, still found on the gate Yeni Mevlevi Khanéh Kapusi (Porta Rhegium), the capital was again fully armed, and rendered more secure than ever, by the prefect Constantine, in less than two months. Not only was the wall of Anthemius restored, but, at the distance of 20 yds., another wall was built in front of it, and at the same distance from this second wall a broad moat was constructed with a breastwork along its inner edge. Each wall was flanked by ninety-six towers. According to some authorities, the moat was flooded during a siege by opening the aqueducts, which crossed the moat at intervals and conveyed water into the city in time of peace. This opinion is extremely doubtful. But in any case, here was a barricade 190-207 ft. thick, and 100 ft. high, with its several parts rising tier above tier to permit concerted action, and alive with large bodies of troops ready to pour, from every coign of vantage, missiles of death--arrows, stones, Greek fire--upon a foe. It is not strange that these fortifications defied the assaults of barbarism upon the civilized life of the world for more than a thousand years. As might be expected, the walls demanded frequent restoration from time to time in the course of their long history. Inscriptions upon them record repairs, for example, under Justin II., Leo the Isaurian, Basil II., John Palaeologus, and others. Still, the ramparts extending now from the Marmora to Tekfour Serai are to all intents and purposes the ruins of the Theodosian walls of the 5th century.

This is not the case in regard to the other parts of the fortifications of the city. The walls along the Marmora and the Golden Horn represent the great restoration of the seaward defences of the capital carried out by the emperor Theophilus in the 9th century; while the walls between Tekfour Serai and the Golden Horn were built long after the reign of Theodosius II., superseding the defences of that quarter of the city in his day, and relegating them, as traces of their course to the rear of the later works indicate, to the secondary office of protecting the palace of Blachernae. In 627 Heraclius built the wall along the west of the quarter of Aivan Serai, in order to bring the level tract at the foot of the 6th hill within the city bounds, and shield the church of Blachernae, which had been exposed to great danger during the siege of the city by the Avars in that year. In 813 Leo V. the Armenian built the wall which stands in front of the wall of Heraclius to strengthen that point in view of an expected attack by the Bulgarians.

The splendid wall, flanked by nine towers, that descends from the court of Tekfour Serai to the level tract below Egri Kapu, was built by Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180) for the greater security of the part of the city in which stood the palace of Blachernae, then the favourite imperial residence. Lastly, the portion of the fortifications between the wall of Manuel and the wall of Heraclius presents too many problems to be discussed here. Enough to say, that in it we find work belonging to the times of the Comneni, Isaac Angelus and the Palaeologi.

If we leave out of account the attacks upon the city in the course of the civil wars between rival parties in the empire, the fortifications of Constantinople were assailed by the Avars in 627; by the Saracens in 673-677, and again in 718; by the Bulgarians in 813 and 913; by the forces of the Fourth Crusade in 1203-1204; by the Turks in 1422 and 1453. The city was taken in 1204, and became the seat of a Latin empire until 1261, when it was recovered by the Greeks. On the 29th of May 1453 Constantinople ceased to be the capital of the Roman empire in the East, and became the capital of the Ottoman dominion.

The most noteworthy points in the circuit of the walls of the city are the following. (1) The Golden gate, now included in the Turkish fortress of Yedi Kuléh. It is a triumphal archway, consisting of three arches, erected in honour of the victory of Theodosius I. over Maximus in 388, and subsequently incorporated in the walls of Theodosius II., as the state entrance of the capital. (2) The gate of Selivria, or of the Pegé, through which Alexius Strategopoulos made his way into the city in 1261, and brought the Latin empire of Constantinople to an end. (3) The gate of St Romanus (Top Kapusi), by which, in 1453, Sultan Mahommed entered Constantinople after the fall of the city into Turkish hands. (4) The great breach made in the ramparts crossing the valley of the Lycus, the scene of the severest fighting in the siege of 1453, where the Turks stormed the city, and the last Byzantine emperor met his heroic death. (5) The palace of the Porphyrogenitus, long erroneously identified with the palace of the Hebdomon, which really stood at Makrikeui. It is the finest specimen of Byzantine civil architecture left in the city. (6) The tower of Isaac Angelus and the tower of Anemas, with the chambers in the body of the wall to the north of them. (7) The wall of Leo, against which the troops of the Fourth Crusade came, in 1203, from their camp on the hill opposite the wall, and delivered their chief attack. (8) The walls protecting the quarter of Phanar, which the army and fleet of the Fourth Crusade under the Venetian doge Henrico Dandolo carried in 1204. (9) Yali Kiosk Kapusi, beside which the southern end of the chain drawn across the mouth of the harbour during a siege was attached. (10) The ruins of the palace of Hormisdas, near Chatladi Kapu, once the residence of Justinian the Great and Theodora. It was known in later times as the palace of the Bucoleon, and was the scene of the assassination of Nicephorus Phocas. (11) The sites of the old harbours between Chatladi Kapu and Daud Pasha Kapusi. (12) The fine marble tower near the junction of the walls along the Marmora with the landward walls.

The interior arrangements of the city were largely determined by the configuration of its site, which falls into three great divisions,--the level ground and slopes looking towards the Sea of Marmora, the range of hills forming the midland portion of the promontory, and the slopes and level ground facing the Golden Horn. In each division a great street ran through the city from east to west, generally lined with arcades on one side, but with arcades on both sides when traversing the finer and busier quarters. The street along the ridge formed the principal thoroughfare, and was named the Mesé ([Greek: Mesê]), because it ran through the middle of the city. On reaching the west of the 3rd hill, it divided into two branches, one leading across the 7th hill to the Golden gate, the other conducting to the church of the Holy Apostles, and the gate of Charisius (Edirnéh Kapusi). The Mesé linked together the great fora of the city,--the Augustaion on the south of St Sophia, the forum of Constantine on the summit of the 2nd hill, the forum of Theodosius I. or of Taurus on the summit of the 3rd hill, the forum of Amastrianon where the mosque of Shah Zadéh is situated, the forum of the Bous at Ak Serai, and the forum of Arcadius or Theodosius II. on the summit of the 7th hill. This was the route followed on the occasion of triumphal processions.

Of the edifices and monuments which adorned the fora, only a slight sketch can be given here. On the north side of the Augustaion rose the church of St Sophia, the most glorious cathedral of Eastern Christendom; opposite, on the southern side of the square, was the Chalcé, the great gate of the imperial palace; on the east was the senate house, with a porch of six noble columns; to the west, across the Mesé, were the law courts. In the area of the square stood the Milion, whence distances from Constantinople were measured, and a lofty column which bore the equestrian statue of Justinian the Great. There also was the statue of the empress Eudoxia, famous in the history of Chrysostom, the pedestal of which is preserved near the church of St Irené. The Augustaion was the heart of the city's ecclesiastical and political life. The forum of Constantine was a great business centre. Its most remarkable monument was the column of Constantine, built of twelve drums of porphyry and bearing aloft his statue. Shorn of much of its beauty, the column still stands to proclaim the enduring influence of the foundation of the city.

In the forum of Theodosius I. rose a column in his honour, constructed on the model of the hollow columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius at Rome. There also was the Anemodoulion, a beautiful pyramidal structure, surmounted by a vane to indicate the direction of the wind. Close to the forum, if not in it, was the capitol, in which the university of Constantinople was established. The most conspicuous object in the forum of the Bous was the figure of an ox, in bronze, beside which the bodies of criminals were sometimes burnt. Another hollow column, the pedestal of which is now known as Avret Tash, adorned the forum of Arcadius. A column in honour of the emperor Marcian still stands in the valley of the Lycus, below the mosque of Sultan Mahommed the Conqueror. Many beautiful statues, belonging to good periods of Greek and Roman art, decorated the fora, streets and public buildings of the city, but conflagrations and the vandalism of the Latin and Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople have robbed the world of those treasures.

The imperial palace, founded by Constantine and extended by his successors, occupied the territory which lies to the east of St Sophia and the Hippodrome down to the water's edge. It consisted of a large number of detached buildings, in grounds made beautiful with gardens and trees, and commanding magnificent views over the Sea of Marmora, across to the hills and mountains of the Asiatic coast. The buildings were mainly grouped in three divisions--the Chalcé, the Daphné and the "sacred palace." Labarte and Paspates have attempted to reconstruct the palace, taking as their guide the descriptions given of it by Byzantine writers. The work of Labarte is specially valuable, but without proper excavations of the site all attempts to restore the plan of the palace with much accuracy lack a solid foundation. With the accession of Alexius Comnenus, the palace of Blachernae, at the north-western corner of the city, became the principal residence of the Byzantine court, and was in consequence extended and embellished. It stood in a more retired position, and was conveniently situated for excursions into the country and hunting expeditions. Of the palaces outside the walls, the most frequented were the palace at the Hebdomon, now Makrikeui, in the early days of the Empire, and the palace of the Pegé, now Balukli, a short distance beyond the gate of Selivria, in later times. For municipal purposes, the city was divided, like Rome, into fourteen Regions.

As the seat of the chief prelate of Eastern Christendom, Constantinople was characterized by a strong theological and ecclesiastical temperament. It was full of churches and monasteries, enriched with the reputed relics of saints, prophets and martyrs, which consecrated it a holy city and attracted pilgrims from every quarter to its shrines. It was the meeting-place of numerous ecclesiastical councils, some of them ecumenical (see below, Constantinople, Councils of). It was likewise distinguished for its numerous charitable institutions. Only some twenty of the old churches of the city are left. Most of them have been converted into mosques, but they are valuable monuments of the art which flourished in New Rome. Among the most interesting are the following. St John of the Studium (Emir-Achor Jamissi) is a basilica of the middle of the 5th century, and the oldest ecclesiastical fabric in the city; it is now, unfortunately, almost a complete ruin. SS. Sergius and Bacchus (Kutchuk Aya Sofia) and St Sophia are erections of Justinian the Great. The former is an example of a dome placed on an octagonal structure, and in its general plan is similar to the contemporary church of S. Vitale at Ravenna. St Sophia (i.e. [Greek: Hagia Sophia], Holy Wisdom) is the glory of Byzantine art, and one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. St Mary Diaconissa (Kalender Jamissi) is a fine specimen of the work of the closing years of the 6th century. St Irené, founded by Constantine, and repaired by Justinian, is in its present form mainly a restoration by Leo the Isaurian, in the middle of the 8th century. St Mary Panachrantos (Fenari Isa Mesjidi) belongs to the reign of Leo the Wise (886-912). The Myrelaion (Bodrum Jami) dates from the 10th century. The Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Jamissi), the Pantocrator (Zeirek Kilissè Jamissi), and the body of the church of the Chora (Kahriyeh Jamissi) represent the age of the Comneni. The Pammacaristos (Fetiyeh Jamissi), St Andrew in Krisei (Khoja Mustapha Jamissi), the narthexes and side chapel of the Chora were, at least in their present form, erected in the times of the Palaeologi. It is difficult to assign precise dates to SS. Peter and Mark (Khoda Mustapha Jamissi at Aivan Scrai), St Theodosia (Gul Jamissi), St Theodore Tyrone (Kilissé Jamissi). The beautiful façade of the last is later than the other portions of the church, which have been assigned to the 9th or 10th century.

For the thorough study of the church of St Sophia, the reader must consult the works of Fossati, Salzenburg, Lethaby and Swainson, and Antoniadi. The present edifice was built by Justinian the Great, under the direction of Anthemius of Tralles and his nephew Isidorus of Miletus. It was founded in 532 and dedicated on Christmas Day 538. It replaced two earlier churches of that name, the first of which was built by Constantius and burnt down in 404, on the occasion of the exile of Chrysostom, while the second was erected by Theodosius II. in 415, and destroyed by fire in the Nika riot of 532. Naturally the church has undergone repair from time to time. The original dome fell in 558, as the result of an earthquake, and among the improvements introduced in the course of restoration, the dome was raised 25 ft. higher than before. Repairs are recorded under Basil I., Basil II., Andronicus III. and Cantacuzene. Since the Turkish conquest a minaret has been erected at each of the four exterior angles of the building, and the interior has been adapted to the requirements of Moslem worship, mainly by the destruction or concealment of most of the mosaics which adorned the walls. In 1847-1848, during the reign of Abd-ul-Mejid, the building was put into a state of thorough repair by the Italian architect Fossati. Happily the sultan allowed the mosaic figures, then exposed to view, to be covered with matting before being plastered over. They may reappear in the changes which the future will bring.

The exterior appearance of the church is certainly disappointing, but within it is, beyond all question, one of the most beautiful creations of human art. On a large scale, and in magnificent style, it combines the attractive features of a basilica, with all the glory of an edifice crowned by a dome. We have here a stately hall, 235 ft. N. and S., by 250 ft. E. and W., divided by two piers and eight columns on either hand into nave and aisles, with an apse at the eastern end and galleries on the three other sides. Over the central portion of the nave, a square area at the angles of which stand the four piers, and at a height of 179 ft. above the floor, spreads a dome, 107 ft. in diameter, and 46 ft. deep, its base pierced by forty arched windows. From the cornice of the dome stretches eastwards and westwards a semi-dome, which in its turn rests upon three small semi-domes. The nave is thus covered completely by a domical canopy, which, in its ascent, swells larger and larger, mounts higher and higher, as though a miniature heaven rose overhead. For lightness, for grace, for proportion, the effect is unrivalled. The walls of the building are reveted with marbles of various hues and patterns, arranged to form beautiful designs, and traces of the mosaics which joined the marbles in the rich and soft coloration of the whole interior surface of the building appear at many points. There are forty columns on the ground floor and sixty in the galleries, often crowned with beautiful capitals, in which the monograms of the emperor Justinian and the empress Theodora are inscribed. The eight porphyry columns, placed in pairs in the four bays at the corners of the nave, belonged originally to the temple of the sun at Baalbek. They were subsequently carried to Rome by Aurelian, and at length presented to Justinian by a lady named Marcia, to be erected in this church "for the salvation of her soul." The columns of verde antique on either side of the nave are commonly said to have come from the temple of Diana at Ephesus, but recent authorities regard them as specially cut for use in the church. The inner narthex of the church formed a magnificent vestibule 205 ft. long by 26 ft. wide, reveted with marble slabs and glowing with mosaics.

The citizens of Constantinople found their principal recreation in the chariot-races held in the Hippodrome, now the At Meidan, to the west of the mosque of Sultan Ahmed. So much did the race-course (begun by Severus but completed by Constantine) enter into the life of the people that it has been styled "the axis of the Byzantine world." It was not only the scene of amusement, but on account of its ample accommodation it was also the arena of much of the political life of the city. The factions, which usually contended there in sport, often gathered there in party strife. There emperors were acclaimed or insulted; there military triumphs were celebrated; there criminals were executed, and there martyrs were burned at the stake. Three monuments remain to mark the line of the Spina, around which the chariots whirled; an Egyptian obelisk of Thothmes III., on a pedestal covered with bas-reliefs representing Theodosius I., the empress Galla, and his sons Arcadius and Honorius, presiding at scenes in the Hippodrome; the triple serpent column, which stood originally at Delphi, to commemorate the victory of Plataea 479 B.C.; a lofty pile of masonry, built in the form of an obelisk, and once covered with plates of gilded bronze. Under the Turkish buildings along the western side of the arena, some arches against which seats for the spectators were built are still visible.

The city was supplied with water mainly from two sources; from the streams immediately to the west, and from the springs and rain impounded in reservoirs in the forest of Belgrade, to the north-west, very much on the system followed by the Turks. The water was conveyed by aqueducts, concealed below the surface, except when crossing a valley. Within the city the water was stored in covered cisterns, or in large open reservoirs. The aqueduct of Justinian, the Crooked aqueduct, in the open country, and the aqueduct of Valens that spans the valley between the 4th and 3rd hills of the city, still carry on their beneficent work, and afford evidence of the attention given to the water-supply of the capital during the Byzantine period. The cistern of Arcadius, to the rear of the mosque of Sultan Selim (having, it has been estimated, a capacity of 6,571,720 cubic ft. of water), the cistern of Aspar, a short distance to the east of the Gate of Adrianople, and the cistern of Mokius, on the 7th hill, are specimens of the open reservoirs within the city walls. The cistern of Bin Bir Derek (cistern of Illus) with its 224 columns, each built up with three shafts, and the cistern Yen Batan Serai (Cisterna Basilica) with its 420 columns show what covered cisterns were, on a grand scale. The latter is still in use.[1]

Byzantine Constantinople was a great commercial centre. To equip it more fully for that purpose, several artificial harbours were constructed along the southern shore of the city, where no natural haven existed to accommodate ships coming up the Sea of Marmora. For the convenience of the imperial court, there was a small harbour in the bend of the shore to the east of Chatladi Kapu, known as the harbour of the Bucoleon. To the west of that gate, on the site of Kadriga Limani (the Port of the Galley), was the harbour of Julian, or, as it was named later, the harbour of Sophia (the empress of Justin II.). Traces of the harbour styled the Kontoscalion are found at Kum Kapu. To the east of Yeni Kapu stood the harbour of Kaisarius or the Heptascalon, while to the west of that gate was the harbour which bore the names of Eleutherius and of Theodosiur I. A harbour named after the Golden Gate stood on the shore to the south-west of the triumphal gate of the city.

_The Modern City._--As the capital of the Ottoman empire, the aspect of the city changed in many ways. The works of art which adorned New Rome gradually disappeared. The streets, never very wide, became narrower, and the porticoes along their sides were almost everywhere removed. A multitude of churches were destroyed, and most of those which survived were converted into mosques. In race and garb and speech the population grew largely oriental. One striking alteration in the appearance of the city was the conversion of the territory extending from the head of the promontory to within a short distance of St Sophia into a great park, within which the buildings constituting the seraglio of the sultans, like those forming the palace of the Byzantine emperors, were ranged around three courts, distinguished by their respective gates--Bab-i-Humayum, leading into the court of the Janissaries; Orta Kapu, the middle gate, giving access to the court in which the sultan held state receptions; and Bah-i-Saadet, the Gate of Felicity, leading to the more private apartments of the palace. From the reign of Abd-ul-Mejid, the seraglio has been practically abandoned, first for the palace of Dolmabagché on the shore near Beshiktash, and now for Yildiz Kiosk, on the heights above that suburb. It is, however, visited annually by the sultan, to do homage to the relics of the prophet which are kept there. The older apartments of the palace, such as the throne-room, the Bagdad Kiosk, and many of the objects in the imperial treasury are of extreme interest to all lovers of oriental art. To visit the seraglio, an imperial iradé is necessary. Another great change in the general aspect of the city has been produced by the erection of stately mosques in the most commanding situations, where dome and minarets and huge rectangular buildings present a combination of mass and slenderness, of rounded lines and soaring pinnacles, which gives to Constantinople an air of unique dignity and grace, and at the same time invests it with the glamour of the oriental world. The most remarkable mosques are the following:--The mosque of Sultan Mahommed the Conqueror, built on the site of the church of the Holy Apostles, in 1459, but rebuilt in 1768 owing to injuries due to an earthquake; the mosques of Sultan Selim, of the Shah Zadeh, of Sultan Suleiman and of Rustem Pasha--all works of the 16th century, the best period of Turkish architecture; the mosque of Sultan Bayezid II. (1497-1505); the mosque of Sultan Ahmed I. (1610); Yeni-Validé-Jamissi (1615-1665); Nuri-Osmanieh (1748-1755); Laleli-Jamissi (1765). The Turbehs containing the tombs of the sultans and members of their families are often beautiful specimens of Turkish art.

In their architecture, the mosques present a striking instance of the influence of the Byzantine style, especially as it appears in St Sophia. The architects of the mosques have made a skilful use of the semi-dome in the support of the main dome of the building, and in the consequent extension of the arched canopy that spreads over the worshipper. In some cases the main dome rests upon four semi-domes. At the same time, when viewed from the exterior, the main dome rises large, bold and commanding, with nothing of the squat appearance that mars the dome of St Sophia, with nothing of the petty prettiness of the little domes perched on the drums of the later Byzantine churches. The great mosques express the spirit of the days when the Ottoman empire was still mighty and ambitious. Occasionally, as in the case of Laleli Jamissi, where the dome rests upon an octagon inscribed in a square, the influence of SS. Sergius and Bacchus is perceptible.

For all intents and purposes, Constantinople is now the collection of towns and villages situated on both sides of the Golden Horn and along the shores of the Bosporus, including Scutari and Kadikeui. But the principal parts of this great agglomeration are Stamboul (from Gr. [Greek: eis tên polin], "into the city"), the name specially applied to the portion of the city upon the promontory, Galata and Pera. Galata has a long history, which becomes of general interest after 1265, when it was assigned to the Genoese merchants in the city by Michael Palaeologus, in return for the friendly services of Genoa in the overthrow of the Latin empire of Constantinople. In the course of time, notwithstanding stipulations to the contrary, the town was strongly fortified and proved a troublesome neighbour During the siege of 1453 the inhabitants maintained on the whole a neutral attitude, but on the fall of the capital they surrendered to the Turkish conqueror, who granted them liberal terms. The walls have for the most part been removed. The noble tower, however, which formed the citadel of the colony, still remains, and is a striking feature in the scenery of Constantinople. There are also churches and houses dating from Genoese days. Galata is the chief business centre of the city, the seat of banks, post-offices, steamship offices, &c. Pera is the principal residential quarter of the European communities settled in Constantinople, where the foreign embassies congregate, and the fashionable shops and hotels are found.

Since the middle of the 19th century the city has yielded more and more to western influences, and is fast losing its oriental character. The sultan's palaces, and the residences of all classes of the community, adopt with more or less success a European style of building. The streets have been widened and named. They are in many instances better paved, and are lighted at night. The houses are numbered. Cabs and tramways have been introduced. Public gardens have been opened. For some distance outside the Galata bridge, both shores of the Golden Horn have been provided with a quay at which large steamers can moor to discharge or embark their passengers and cargo. The Galata quay, completed in 1889, is 756 metres long and 20 metres wide; the Stamboul quay, completed in 1900, is 378 metres in length. The harbour, quays and facilities for handling merchandise, which have been established at the head of the Anatolian railway, at Haidar Pasha, under German auspices, would be a credit to any city. It is true that most of these improvements are due to foreign enterprise and serve largely foreign interests; still they have also benefited the city, and added much to the convenience and comfort of local life. There has been likewise progress in other than material respects. The growth of the imperial museum of antiquities, under the direction of Hamdy Bey, within the grounds of the Seraglio, has been remarkable; and while the collection of the sarcophagi discovered at Sidon constitutes the chief treasure of the museum, the institution has become a rich storehouse of many other valuable relics of the past. The existence of a school of art, where painting and architecture are taught, is also a sign of new times. A school of handicrafts flourishes on the Sphendoné of the Hippodrome. The fine medical school between Scutari and Haidar Pasha, the Hamidieh hospital for children, and the asylum for the poor, tell of the advance of science and humanity in the place.

Considerable attention is now given to the subject of education throughout the empire, a result due in great measure to the influence of the American and French schools and colleges established in the provinces and at the capital. More than thirty foreign educational institutions flourish in Constantinople itself, and they are largely attended by the youth belonging to the native communities of the country. The Greek population is provided with excellent schools and gymnasia, and the Armenians also maintain schools of a high grade. The Turkish government itself became, moreover, impressed with the importance of education, and as a consequence the whole system of public instruction for the Moslem portion of the population was, during the reign of Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid II., more widely extended and improved. Beside the schools of the old type attached to the mosques, schools of a better class were established under the direct control of the minister of education, which, although open to improvement, certainly aimed at a higher standard than that reached in former days. The progress of education became noticeable even among Moslem girls. The social and political influence of this intellectual improvement among the various communities of the empire soon made itself felt, and had much to do with the startling success of the constitutional revolution carried out, under the direction of the Committee of Union and Progress, in the autumn of 1908.

_Climate._--The climate of the city is healthy, but relaxing. It is damp and liable to sudden and great changes of temperature. The winds from the north and those from the south are at constant feud, and blow cold or hot in the most capricious manner, often in the course of the same day. "There are two climates at Constantinople, that of the north and that of the south wind." The winters may be severe, but when mild they are wet and not invigorating. In summer the heat is tempered by the prevalence of a north-east wind that blows down the channel of the Bosporus. Observations at Constantinople and at Scutari give the following results, for a period of twenty years.

+------------------------+-----------------+--------------+ | | Constantinople. | Scutari. | +------------------------+-----------------+--------------+ | Mean temperature | 57° 7' | 58° 1' | | Maximum | 99° 1' | 103° 6' | | Minimum | 17° 2' | 13° 0' | | Rain | 28.3 in. | 29.29 in. | | Number of rainy days | 112 | 128.6 | +------------------------+-----------------+--------------+

The sanitation of the city has been improved, although much remains to be done in that respect. No great epidemic has visited the city since the outbreak of cholera in 1866. Typhoid and pulmonary diseases are common.

_Population._--The number of the population of the city is an uncertain figure, as no accurate statistics can be obtained. It is generally estimated between 800,000 and 1,000,000. The inhabitants present a remarkable conglomeration of different races, various nationalities, divers languages, distinctive costumes and conflicting faiths, giving, it is true, a singular interest to what may be termed the human scenery of the city, but rendering impossible any close social cohesion, or the development of a common civic life. Constantinople has well been described as "a city not of one nation but of many, and hardly more of one than of another." The following figures are given as an approximate estimate of the size of the communities which compose the population.

Moslems 384,910 Greeks 152,741 Greek Latins 1,082 Armenians 149,590 Roman Catholics (native) 6,442 Protestants (native) 819 Bulgarians 4,377 Jews 44,361 Foreigners 129,243 -------- 873,565

_Water-Supply._--Under the rule of the sultans, the water-supply of the city has been greatly extended. The reservoirs in the forest of Belgrade have been enlarged and increased in number, and new aqueducts have been added to those erected by the Byzantine emperors. The use of the old cisterns within the walls has been almost entirely abandoned, and the water is led to basins in vaulted chambers (_Taxim_), from which it is distributed by underground conduits to the fountains situated in the different quarters of the city. From these fountains the water is taken to a house by water-carriers, or, in the case of the humbler classes, by members of the household itself.

For the supply of Pera, Galata and Beshiktash, Sultan Mahmud I. constructed, in 1732, four bends in the forest of Belgrade, N.N.W. and N.E. of the village of Bagchekeui, and the fine aqueduct which spans the head of the valley of Buyukderé. Since 1885, a French company, La Compagnie des Eaux, has rendered a great service by bringing water to Stamboul, Pera, and the villages on the European side of the Bosporus, from Lake Dercos, which lies close to the shore of the Black Sea some 29 m. distant from the city. The Dercos water is laid on in many houses. Since 1893 a German company has supplied Scutari and Kadikeui with water from the valley of the Sweet Waters of Asia.

_Trade._--The trade of the city has been unfavourably affected by the political events which have converted former provinces of the Turkish empire into autonomous states, by the development of business at other ports of the empire, owing to the opening up of the interior country through the construction of railroads, and by the difficulties which the government, with the view of preventing political agitation, has put in the way of easy intercourse by natives between the capital and the provinces. Most of the commerce of the city is in hands of foreigners and of Armenian and Greek merchants. Turks have little if anything to do with trade on a large scale. "The capital," says a writer in the _Konstantinopler Handelsblatt_ of November 1904, "produces very little for export, and its hinterland is small, extending on the European side only a few kilometres--the outlet for the fertile Eastern Rumelia is Dedeagach--and on the Asiatic side embracing the Sea of Marmora and the Anatolian railway district. Even part of this will be lost to Constantinople when the Anatolian railway is connected with the port of Mersina and with the Kassaba-Smyrna railway. Some 750 tons of the sweetmeat known as 'Turkish delight' are annually exported to the United Kingdom, America and Rumelia; embroideries, &c., are sold in fair quantities to tourists. Otherwise the chief articles of Constantinople's export trade consist of refuse and waste materials, sheep's wool (called _Kassab bashí_) and skins from the slaughter-houses (in 1903 about 3,000,000 skins were exported, mostly to America), horns, hoofs, goat and horse hair, guts, bones, rags, bran, old iron, &c., and finally dogs' excrements, called in trade 'pure,' a Constantinople speciality, which is used in preparing leather for ladies' gloves. From the hinterland comes mostly raw produce such as grain, drugs, wool, silk, ores and also carpets. The chief article is grain."

The average value of the goods passing through the port of Constantinople at the opening of the 20th century was estimated at about £T 11,000,000. From the imperfect statistics available, the following tables of the class of goods imported and exported, and their respective values, were drawn up in 1901 by the late Mr Whittaker, _The Times_ correspondent.

_Imports._

Manufactured goods (cotton, woollen, silk, &c.) £T[2] 3,500,000 Haberdashery, ironmongery 90,000 Sugar 500,000 Petroleum 400,000 Flour 400,000 Coffee 300,000 Rice 250,000 Cattle 100,000 Various 850,000 --------- Total £T 7,000,000

_Exports._

Cereals £T 1,000,000 Mohair 800,000 Carpets 700,000 Silk and cocoons 500,000 Opium 400,000 Gum tragacanth 150,000 Wool 100,000 Hides 100,000 Various 250,000 --------- Total £T 4,100,000

About 40% of the import trade of Constantinople is British. According to the trade report of the British consulate, the share of the United Kingdom in the value of £7,142,000 on the total imports to Constantinople during the year 1900-1901 was £1,811,000; while the share of the United Kingdom in the value of £2,669,000 on the total exports during the same year was £998,000. But it is worthy of note that while British commerce still led the way in Turkey, the trade of some other countries with Turkey, especially that of Germany, was increasing more rapidly. Comparing the average of the period 1896-1900 with the total for 1904, British trade showed an increase of 33%, Austro-Hungarian of nearly 60%, Germany of 130%, Italian of 98%, French of 8%, and Belgian of nearly 33%. The shipping visiting the port of Constantinople during the year 1905, excluding sailing and small coasting vessels, was 9796, representing a total of 14,785,080 tons. The percentage of steamers under the British flag was 37.1; of tonnage, 45.9.

_Administration._--For the preservation of order and security, the city is divided into four divisions (Belad-i-Selassi), viz. Stamboul, Pera-Galata, Beshiktash and Scutari. The minister of police is at the head of the administration of the affairs of these divisions, and is _ex-officio_ governor of Stamboul. The governors of the other divisions are subordinate to him, but are appointed by the sultan. Each governor has a special staff of police and gendarmery and his own police-court. In each division is a military commander, having a part of the garrison of the city under his orders, but subordinate to the commander-in-chief of the troops guarding the capital.

The municipal government of the four divisions of the city is in the hands of a prefect, appointed by the sultan, and subordinate to the minister of the interior. He is officially styled the prefect of Stamboul, and is assisted by a council of twenty-four members, appointed by the sultan or the minister of the interior. All matters concerning the streets, the markets, the bazaars, the street-porters (_hamals_), public weighers, baths and hospitals come under his jurisdiction. He is charged also with the collection of the city dues, and the taxes on property. The city is furthermore divided into ten municipal circles as follows. In Stamboul: (1) Sultan Bayezid, (2) Sultan Mehemet, (3) Djerah Pasha (Psamatia); on the European side of the Bosporus and the northern side of the Golden Horn: (4) Beshiktash, (5) Yenikeui, (6) Pera, (7) Buyukderé; on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus: (8) Anadol Hissar, (9) Scutari, (10) Kadikeui. Each circle is subdivided into several wards (_mahalleh_). "The outlying parts of the city are divided into six districts (_Cazas_), namely, Princes' Islands, Guebzeh, Beicos, Kartal, Kuchuk-Chekmedjé and Shilé, each having its governor (_kaimakam_), who is usually chosen by the palace. These districts are dependencies of the ministry of the interior, and their municipal affairs are directed by agents of the prefecture."

In virtue of old treaties, known as the Capitulations (q.v.), foreigners enjoy to a large extent the rights of exterritoriality. In disputes with one another, they are judged before their own courts of justice. In litigation between a foreigner and a native, the case is taken to a native court, but a representative of the foreigner's consulate attends the proceedings. Foreigners have a right to establish their own schools and hospitals, to hold their special religious services, and even to maintain their respective national post-offices. No Turkish policeman may enter the premises of a foreigner without the sanction of the consular authorities to whose jurisdiction the latter belongs. A certain measure of self-government is likewise granted to the native Christian communities under their ecclesiastical chiefs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--On Constantinople generally, besides the regular guide-books and works already mentioned, see P. Gyllius, _De topographia Constantinopoleos, De Bosporo Thracio_ (1632); Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_ (1680); J. von Hammer, _Constantinopolis und der Bosporos_ (1822); Mordtmann, _Esquisse topographique de Constantinople_ (1892); E. A. Grosvenor, _Constantinople_ (1895); van Millingen, _Byzantine Constantinople_ (1899); Paspates, [Greek: Byzantinai Meletai] (1877); Scarlatos Byzantios, [Greek: Hê Kônstantinou polis] (1851); E. Pears, _Fall of Constantinople_ (1885), _The Destruction of the Greek Empire_ (1903); Gibbon, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_; Salzenberg, _Altchristliche Baudenkmale von Konstantinopel_; Lethaby and Swainson, _The Church of Sancta Sophia_; Pulgher, _Les Anciennes Églises byzantines de Constantinople_; Labarte, _Le Palais impérial de Constantinople et ses abords_. (A. van M.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For full information on the subject of the ancient water-supply see Count A. F. Andréossy, _Constantinople et le Bosphore_; Tchikatchev, _Le Bosphore et Constantinople_ (2nd ed., Paris, 1865); Forchheimer and Strzygowski, _Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter_; also article AQUEDUCT.

[2] A Turkish lira = 18 shillings (English).

CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF. Of the numerous ecclesiastical councils held at Constantinople the most important are the following:

1. The second ecumenical council, 381, which was in reality only a synod of bishops from Thrace, Asia and Syria, convened by Theodosius with a view to uniting the church upon the basis of the Orthodox faith. No Western bishop was present, nor any Roman legate; from Egypt came only a few bishops, and these tardily. The first president was Meletius of Antioch, whom Rome regarded as schismatic. Yet, despite its sectional character, the council came in time to be regarded as ecumenical alike in the West and in the East.

The council reaffirmed the Nicene faith and denounced all opposing doctrines. The so-called "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed," which has almost universally been ascribed to this council, is certainly not the Nicene creed nor even a recension of it, but most likely a Jerusalem baptismal formula revised by the interpolation of a few Nicene test-words. More recently its claim to be called "Constantinopolitan" has been challenged. It is not found in the earliest records of the acts of the council, nor was it referred to by the council of Ephesus (431), nor by the "Robber Synod" (449), although these both confirmed the Nicene faith. It also lacks the definiteness one would expect in a creed composed by an anti-Arian, anti-Pneumatomachian council. Harnack (Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopädie_, 3rd ed., s.v. "Konstantinopolit. Symbol.") conjectures that it was ascribed to the council of Constantinople just before the council of Chalcedon in order to prove the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the second ecumenical council. At all events, it became the creed of the universal church, and has been retained without change. Save for the addition of _filioque_.

Of the seven reputed canons of the council only the first four are unquestionably genuine. The fifth and the sixth probably belong to a synod of 382, and the seventh is properly not a canon. The most important enactments of the council were the granting of metropolitan rights to the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Thrace, Pontus and Ephesus; and according to Constantinople the place of honour after Rome, against which Rome protested. Not until 150 years later, and then only under compulsion of the emperor Justinian, did Rome acknowledge the ecumenicity of the council, and that merely as regarded its doctrinal decrees.

See Mansi iii. pp. 521-599; Hardouin i. pp. 807-826; Hefele, 2nd ed., ii. pp. 1 sqq. (English translation, ii. pp. 340 sqq.); Hort, _Two Dissertations_ (Cambridge, 1876); and the article Creeds.

2. The council of 553, the fifth ecumenical, grew out of the controversy of the "Three Chapters," an adequate account of which, up to the time of the council, may be found in the articles JUSTINIAN and VIGILIUS. The council convened, in response to the imperial summons, on the 4th of May 553. Of the 165 bishops who subscribed the acts all but the five or six from Egypt were Oriental; the pope, Vigilius, refused to attend (he had made his escape from Constantinople, and from his retreat in Chalcedon sent forth a vain protest against the council). The synod was utterly subservient to the emperor. The "Three Chapters" were condemned, and their authors, long dead, anathematized, without, however, derogating from the authority of the council of Chalcedon, which had given them a clean bill of orthodoxy. Vigilius was excommunicated, and his name erased from the diptychs. The Orthodox faith was set forth in fourteen anathemas. Opinion is divided as to whether Origen was condemned. His name occurs in the eleventh anathema, but some consider it an interpolation; Hefele defends the genuineness of the text, but finds no evidence for a special session against Origen, as some have conjectured.

The council was confirmed by the emperor, and was generally received in the East. Vigilius was soon coerced into submission, but the West repudiated his pusillanimous surrender, and rejected the council. A schism ensued which lasted half a century and was not fully healed until the synod of Aquileia, about 700. But the ecumenicity of the council was generally acknowledged by 680.

See Mansi ix. pp. 24-106, 149-658, 712-730; Hardouin iii. pp. 1-328, 331, 414, 524; Hefele, 2nd ed., ii. pp. 798-924 (English translation, iv. pp. 229-365).

3. The sixth ecumenical council, 680-681, which was convened by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus to terminate the Monothelitic controversy (see Monothelites). All the patriarchates were represented, Constantinople and Antioch by their bishops in person, the others by legates. The number of bishops present varied from 150 to 300. The council approved the first five ecumenical councils and reaffirmed the Nicene and "Niceno-Constantinopolitan" creeds. Monothelitism was unequivocally condemned; Christ was declared to have had "two natural wills and two natural operations, without division, conversion, separation or confusion." Prominent Monothelites, living or dead, were anathematized, in particular Sergius and his successors in the see of Constantinople, the former pope, Honorius, and Macarius, the patriarch of Antioch. An imperial decree confirmed the council, and commanded the acceptance of its doctrines under pain of severe punishment. The Monothelites took fright and fled to Syria, where they gradually formed the sect of the Maronites (q.v.).

The anathematizing of Honorius as heterodox has occasioned no slight embarrassment to the supporters of the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is not within the scope of this article to pass judgment upon the various proposed solutions of the difficulty, e.g. that Honorius was not really a Monothelite; that in acknowledging one will he was not speaking _ex cathedra_; that, at the time of condemning him, the council was no longer ecumenical; &c. One thing is certain, however, he was anathematized; and the notion of interpolation in the acts of the council (Baronius) may be dismissed as groundless.

See Mansi xi. pp. 190-922; Hardouin iii. pp. 1043-1644; Hefele, 2nd ed. iii. pp. 121-313.

4. The "Quinisext Synod" (692), so-called because it was regarded by the Greeks as supplementing the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, was held in the dome of the Imperial Palace ("In Trullo," whence the synod is called also "Trullan"). Its work was purely legislative and its decisions were set forth in 102 canons. The sole authoritative standards of discipline were declared to be the "eighty-five apostolic canons," the canons of the first four ecumenical councils and of the synods of Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Antioch, Changra, Laodicea, Sardica and Carthage, and the canonical writings of some twelve Fathers,--all canons, synods and Fathers, Eastern with one exception, viz. Cyprian and the synod of Carthage; the bishops of Rome and the occidental synods were utterly ignored.

The canons of the second and fourth ecumenical councils respecting the rank of Constantinople were confirmed; the rank of a see was declared to follow the civil rank of its city; unenthroned bishops were guaranteed against diminution of their rights; metropolitans were forbidden to alienate the property of vacant suffragan sees.

The provisions respecting clerical marriage were avowedly more lenient than the Roman practice. Ordination was denied to any one who after baptism had contracted a second marriage, kept a concubine, or married a widow or a woman of ill-repute. Lectors and cantors might marry after ordination; presbyters, deacons and sub-deacons, if already married, should retain their wives; a bishop, however, while not dissolving his marriage, should keep his wife at a distance, making suitable provision for her. An illegally married cleric could not perform sacerdotal functions. Monks and nuns were to be carefully separated, and were not to leave their houses without permission.

It was forbidden to celebrate baptism or the eucharist in private oratories; neither might laymen give the elements to themselves, nor approach the altar, nor teach. Offerings for the dead were authorized, and the mixed chalice made obligatory. Contrary to the occidental custom, fasting on Saturday was forbidden. The mutilation of the Scriptures and the desecration of sacred places were severely condemned; likewise the use of the lamb as the symbol for Christ (a favourite symbol in the West).

The synod legislated also concerning marriage, bigamy, adultery, rape, abortion, seductive arts and obscenity. The theatre, the circus and gambling were unsparingly denounced, and soothsayers and jugglers, pagan festivals and customs, and pagan oaths were placed under the ban.

The council was confirmed by the emperor and accepted in the East; but the pope protested against various canons, chiefly those respecting the rank of Constantinople, clerical marriage, the Saturday fast, and the use of the symbol of lamb; and refused, despite express imperial command and threat, to accept the "Pseudo-Sexta." So that while the synod adopted a body of legislation that has continued to be authoritative for the Eastern Church, it did so at the cost of aggravating the irritation of the West, and by so much hastening the inevitable rupture of the church.

See Mansi xi. pp. 921-1024; Hardouin iii. pp. 1645-1716; Hefele, 2nd ed., iii. pp. 328-348.

5. The iconoclastic synods of 754 and 815, both of which promulgated harsh decrees against images and neither of which is recognized by the Latin Church, and the synod of 842, which repudiated the synod of 815, approved the second council of Nicaea, and restored the images, are all adequately treated in the article Iconoclasts.

See Mansi xii. pp. 575 sqq., xiii. pp. 210 sqq., xiv. pp. 111 sqq., 787 sqq.; Hardouin iv. pp. 330 sqq., 1045 sqq., 1457 sqq.; Hefele, 2nd ed. iv. pp. 1 sqq., 104 sqq.

6. The synods of 869 and 879, of which the former, regarded by the Latin Church as the eighth ecumenical council, condemned Photius as an usurper and restored Ignatius to the see of Constantinople; the latter, which the Greeks consider to have been the true eighth ecumenical council, held after the death of Ignatius and the reconciliation of Photius with the emperor, repudiated the synod of 869, restored Photius, and condemned all who would not recognize him. (For further details of these two synods see Photius.)

See Mansi xv. pp. 143-476 et passim, xvi. pp. 1-550, xvii. pp. 66-186, 365-530; Hardouin v. pp. 119-390, 749-1210, et passim, vi. pp. 19-87, 209-334; Hefele, 2nd ed., iv. pp. 228 sqq., 333 sqq., 435 sqq.; Hergenröther, _Photius_ (Regensburg, 1867-1869). (T. F. C.)

CONSTANTINUS, pope from 708 to 715, was a Syrian by birth and was consecrated pope in March 708. He was eager to assert the supremacy of the papal see; at the command of the emperor Justinian II. he visited Constantinople; and he died on the 9th of April 715.

CONSTANTIUS, FLAVIUS VALERIUS, commonly called CHLORUS (the Pale), an epithet due to the Byzantine historians, Roman emperor and father of Constantine the Great, was born about A.D. 250. He was of Illyrian origin; a fictitious connexion with the family of Claudius Gothicus was attributed to him by Constantine. Having distinguished himself by his military ability and his able and gentle rule of Dalmatia, he was, on the 1st of March 293, adopted and appointed Caesar by Maximian, whose step-daughter, Flavia Maximiana Theodora, he had married in 289 after renouncing his wife Helena (the mother of Constantine). In the distribution of the provinces Gaul and Britain were allotted to Constantius. In Britain Carausius and subsequently Allectus had declared themselves independent, and it was not till 296 that, by the defeat of Allectus, it was re-united with the empire. In 298 Constantius overthrew the Alamanni in the territory of the Lingones (Langres) and strengthened the Rhine frontier. During the persecution of the Christians in 303 he behaved with great humanity. He obtained the title of Augustus on the 1st of May 305, and died the following year shortly before the 25th of July at Eboracum (York) during an expedition against the Picts and Scots.

See Aurelius Victor, _De Caesaribus_, 39; Eutropius ix. 14-23; Zosimus ii. 7.

CONSTANTZA (_Constanta_), formerly known as Kustendji or Kustendje, a seaport on the Black Sea, and capital of the department of Constantza, Rumania; 140 m. E. by S. from Bucharest by rail. Pop. (1900) 12,725. When the Dobrudja was ceded to Rumania in 1878, Constantza was partly rebuilt. In its clean and broad streets there are many synagogues, mosques and churches, for half the inhabitants are Roman Catholics, Moslems, Armenians or Jews; the remainder being Orthodox Rumans and Greeks. In the vicinity there are mineral springs, and the sea-bathing also attracts many visitors in summer. The chief local industries are tanning and the manufacture of petroleum drums. The opening, in 1895, of the railway to Bucharest, which crosses the Danube by a bridge at Cerna Voda, brought Constantza a considerable transit trade in grain and petroleum, which are largely exported; coal and coke head the list of imports, followed by machinery, iron goods, and cotton and woollen fabrics. The harbour, protected by breakwaters, with a lighthouse at the entrance, is well defended from the north winds, but those from the south, south-east, and south-west prove sometimes highly dangerous. In 1902 it afforded 10 alongside berths for shipping. It had a depth of 22 ft. in the old or inner basin, and of 26 ft. in the new or outer basin, beside the quays. The railway runs along the quays. A weekly service between Constantza and Constantinople is conducted by state-owned steamers, including the fast mail and passenger boats in connexion with the Ostend and Orient expresses. In 1902, 576 vessels entered at Constantza, with a net registered tonnage of 641,737. The Black Sea squadron of the Rumanian fleet is stationed here.

Constantza is the Constantiana which was founded in honour of Constantia, sister of Constantine the Great (A.D. 274-337). It lies at the seaward end of the Great Wall of Trajan, and has evidently been surrounded by fortifications of its own. In spite of damage done by railway contractors (see Henry C. Barkley, _Between the Danube and the Black Sea_, 1876) there are considerable remains of ancient masonry--walls, pillars, &c. A number of inscriptions found in the town and its vicinity show that close by was Tomi, where the Roman poet Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 17) spent his last eight years in exile. A statue of Ovid stands in the main square of Constantza.

In regard to the Constantza inscriptions in general, see Allard, _La Bulgarie orientale_ (Paris, 1866); Desjardins in _Ann. dell' istit. di corr. arch._ (1868); and a paper on Weickum's collection in _Sitzungsbericht_ of the Munich Academy (1875).

CONSTELLATION (from the Lat. _constellatus_, studded with stars; _con_, with, and _stella_, a star), in astronomy, the name given to certain groupings of stars. The partition of the stellar expanse into areas characterized by specified stars can be traced back to a very remote antiquity. It is believed that the ultimate origin of the constellation figures and names is to be found in the corresponding systems in vogue among the primitive civilizations of the Euphrates valley--the Sumerians, Accadians and Babylonians; that these were carried westward into ancient Greece by the Phoenicians, and to the lands of Asia Minor by the Hittites, and that Hellenic culture in its turn introduced them into Arabia, Persia and India. From the earliest times the star-groups known as constellations, the smaller groups (parts of constellations) known as asterisms, and also individual stars, have received names connoting some meteorological phenomena, or symbolizing religious or mythological beliefs. At one time it was held that the constellation names and myths were of Greek origin; this view has now been disproved, and an examination of the Hellenic myths associated with the stars and star-groups in the light of the records revealed by the decipherment of Euphratean cuneiforms leads to the conclusion that in many, if not all, cases the Greek myth has a Euphratean parallel, and so renders it probable that the Greek constellation system and the cognate legends are primarily of Semitic or even pre-Semitic origin.

The origin and development of the grouping of the stars into constellations is more a matter of archaeological than of astronomical interest. It demands a careful study of the myths and religious thought of primitive peoples; and the tracing of the names from one language to another belongs to comparative philology.

The Sumerians and Accadians, the non-Semitic inhabitants of the Euphrates valley prior to the Babylonians, described the stars collectively as a "heavenly flock"; the sun was the "old sheep"; the seven planets were the "old-sheep stars"; the whole of the stars had certain "shepherds," and _Sibzianna_ (which, according to Sayce and Bosanquet, is the modern Arcturus, the brightest star in the northern sky) was the "star of the shepherds of the heavenly herds." The Accadians bequeathed their system to the Babylonians, and cuneiform tablets and cylinders, boundary stones, and Euphratean art generally, point to the existence of a well-defined system of star names in their early history. From a detailed study of such records, in their nature of rather speculative value, R. Brown, junr. (_Primitive Constellations_, 1899) has compiled a Euphratean planisphere, which he regards as the mother of all others. The tablets examined range in date from 3000-500 B.C., and hence the system must be anterior to the earlier date. Of great importance is the _Creation Legend_, a cuneiform compiled from older records during the reign of Assur-bani-pal, c. 650 B.C., in which there occurs a passage interpretable as pointing to the acceptance of 36 constellations: 12 northern, 12 zodiacal and 12 southern. These constellations were arranged in three concentric annuli, the northern ones in an inner annulus subdivided into 60 degrees, the zodiacal ones into a medial annulus of 120 degrees, and the southern ones into an outer annulus of 240 degrees. Brown has suggested a correlation of the Euphratean names with those of the Greeks and moderns. His results may be exhibited in the following form:--the central line gives the modern equivalents of the names in the Euphratean zodiac; the upper line the modern equivalents of the northern paranatellons; and the lower line those of the southern paranatellons. The zodiacal constellations have an interest peculiarly their own; placed in or about the plane of the ecliptic, their rising and setting with the sun was observed with relation to weather changes and the more general subject of chronology, the twelve subdivisions of the year being correlated with the twelve divisions of the ecliptic (see Zodiac).

+----------------+---------------+--------------------+ | Northern | Zodiacal | Southern | +----------------+---------------+--------------------+ | Cassiopeia | Aries | Eridanus | | Auriga | Taurus | Orion | | Cepheus | Gemini | Canis major | | Ursa minor | Cancer | Argo | | Ursa major | Leo | Hydra Crater | | Boötes | Virgo | Corvus | | Serpentarius | Libra | Centaurus | | Hercules | Scorpio | Lupus | | Lyra | Sagittarius | Ara | | Aquila | Capricornus | ? | | Pegasus | Aquarius | Piscis australis | | Andromeda | Pisces | Cetus | +----------------+---------------+--------------------+

The Phoenicians--a race dominated by the spirit of commercial enterprise--appear to have studied the stars more especially with respect to their service to navigators; according to Homer "the stars were sent by Zeus as portents for mariners." But all their truly astronomical writings are lost, and only by a somewhat speculative piecing together of scattered evidences can an estimate of their knowledge be formed. The inter-relations of the Phoenicians with the early Hellenes were frequent and far-reaching, and in the Greek presentation of the legends concerning constellations a distinct Phoenician, and in turn Euphratean, element appears. One of the earliest examples of Greek literature extant, the _Theogonia_ of Hesiod (c. 800 B.C.), appears to be a curious blending of Hellenic and Phoenician thought. Although not an astronomical work, several constellation subjects are introduced. In the same author's _Works and Days_, a treatise which is a sort of shepherd's calendar, there are distinct references to the Pleiades, Hyades, Orion, Sirius and Arcturus. It cannot be argued, however, that these were the only stars and constellations named in his time; the omission proves nothing. The same is true of the Homeric epics wherein the Pleiades, Hyades, Ursa major, Orion and Boötes are mentioned, and also of the stars and constellations mentioned in Job. Further support is given to the view that, in the main, the constellations were transmitted to the Greeks by the Phoenicians from Euphratean sources in the fact that Thales, the earliest Greek astronomer of any note, was of Phoenician descent. According to Callimachus he taught the Greeks to steer by Ursa minor instead of Ursa major; and other astronomical observations are assigned to him. But his writings are lost, as is also the case with those of Phocus the Samian, and the history of astronomy by Eudemus, the pupil of Aristotle; hence the paucity of our knowledge of Thales's astronomical learning.

From the 6th century B.C. onwards, legends concerning the constellation subjects were frequently treated by the historians and poets. Aglaosthenes or Agaosthenes, an early writer, knew Ursa minor as [Greek: Kynosoura], Cynosura, and recorded the translation of Aquila; Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) recorded the translation of Capricornus and the star Capella; Pherecydes of Athens (c. 500-450 B.C.) recorded the legend of Orion, and stated the astronomical fact that when Orion sets Scorpio rises; Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) and Hellanicus of Mytilene (c. 496-411 B.C.) narrate the legend of the seven Pleiades--the daughters of Atlas; and the latter states that the Hyades are named either from their orientation, which resembles [upsilon] (upsilon), "or because at their rising or setting Zeus rains"; and Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 470 B.C.) treated the legend of the Hydra.

In the 5th century B.C. the Athenian astronomer Euctemon, according to Geminus of Rhodes, compiled a weather calendar in which Aquarius, Aquila, Canis major, Corona, Cygnus, Delphinus, Lyra, Orion, Pegasus, Sagitta and the asterisms Hyades and Pleiades are mentioned, always, however, in relation to weather changes. The earliest Greek work which purported to treat the constellations _qua_ constellations, of which we have certain knowledge, is the [Greek: Phainomena] of Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 403-350 B.C.). The original is lost, but a versification by Aratus (c. 270 B.C.), a poet at the court of Antigonus Gonatas, king of Macedonia, and an [Greek: Exêgêsis] or commentary by Hipparchus, are extant. In the [Greek: Phainomena] of Aratus 44 constellations are enumerated, viz. 19 northern:--Ursa major, Ursa minor, Boötes, Draco, Cepheus, Cassiopeia, Andromeda, Perseus, Triangulum, Pegasus, Delphinus, Auriga, Hercules, Lyra, Cygnus, Aquila, Sagitta, Corona and Serpentarius; 13 central or zodiacal:--Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces and the Pleiades; and 12 southern:--Orion, Canis, Lepus, Argo, Cetus, Eridanus, Piscis australis, Ara, Centaurus, Hydra, Crater and Corvus. In this enumeration Serpens is included in Serpentarius and Lupus in Centaurus; these two constellations were separated by Hipparchus and, later, by Ptolemy. On the other hand, Aratus kept the Pleiades distinct from Taurus, but Hipparchus reduced these stars to an asterism. Aratus was no astronomer, while Hipparchus was; and from the fact that the latter adopted, with but trifling exceptions, the constellation system portrayed by Aratus, it may be concluded that the system was already familiar in Greek thought. And three hundred years after Hipparchus, the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy adopted a very similar scheme in his uranometria, which appears in the seventh and eighth books of his _Almagest_, the catalogue being styled the [Greek: Ekthesis kanonikê] or "accepted version."

The _Almagest_ has a dual interest: first, being the work of one primarily a commentator, it presents a crystallized epitome of all earlier knowledge; and secondly, it has served as a basis of subsequent star-catalogues.[1] The Ptolemaic catalogue embraces only those stars which were visible at Rhodes in the time of Hipparchus (c. 150 B.C.), the results being corrected for precession "by increasing the longitudes by 2° 40', and leaving the latitudes undisturbed" (Francis Baily, _Mem. R.A.S._, 1843). The names and orientation of the constellations therein adopted are, with but few exceptions, identical with those used at the present day; and as it cannot be doubted that Ptolemy made only very few modifications in the system of Hipparchus, the names were adopted at least three centuries before the _Almagest_ was compiled. The names in which Ptolemy differs from modern usage are:--Hercules ([Greek: en gonasin]), Cygnus ([Greek: Hornis]), Eridanus ([Greek: Potamos]), Lupus ([Greek: Thêrion]), Pegasus ([Greek: Hippos]), Equuleus ([Greek: Hippou protomê]), Canis minor ([Greek: Prokyôn]), and Libra ([Greek: Chêlai], although [Greek: zygos] is used for the same constellation in other parts of the _Almagest_). The following table gives the names of the constellations as they occur in (1) modern catalogues; (2) Ptolemy (A.D. 150); (3) Ulugh Beg (1437); (4) Tycho Brahe (1628); the last column gives the English equivalent of the modern name.

The reverence and authority which was accorded the famous compilation of the Alexandrian astronomer is well evidenced by the catalogue of the Tatar Ulugh Beg, the Arabian names there adopted being equivalent to the Ptolemaic names in nearly every case; this is also shown in the Latin translations given below. Tycho Brahe, when compiling his catalogue of stars, was unable to observe Lupus, Ara, Corona australis and Piscis australis, on account of the latitude of Uranienburg; and hence these constellations are omitted from his catalogue. He diverged from Ptolemy when he placed the asterisms Coma Berenices and Antinous upon the level of formal constellations, Ptolemy having regarded these asterisms as unformed stars ([Greek: amorphôtoi]). The next innovator of moment was Johann Bayer, a German astronomer, who published a _Uranometria_ in 1603, in which twelve constellations, all in the southern hemisphere, were added to Ptolemy's forty-eight, viz. Apis (or Musca) (Bee), Avis Indica (Bird of Paradise), Chameleon, Dorado (Sword-fish), Grus (Crane), Hydrus (Water-snake), Indus (Indian), Pavo (Peacock), Phoenix, Piscis volans (Flying fish), Toucan, Triangulum australe. According to W. Lynn (_Observatory_, 1886, p. 255), Bayer adapted this part of his catalogue from the observations of the Dutch navigator Petrus Theodori (or Pieter Dirchsz Keyser), who died in 1596 off Java. The _Coelum stellatum Christianum_ of Julius Schiller (1627) is noteworthy for the attempt made to replace the names connoting mythological and pagan ideas by the names of apostles, saints, popes, bishops, and other dignitaries of the church, &c. Aries became St Peter; Taurus, St Andrew; Andromeda, the Holy Sepulchre; Lyra, the Manger; Canis major, David; and so on. This innovation (with which the introduction of the twelve apostles into the solar zodiac by the Venerable Bede may be compared) was shortlived. According to Charles Hutton [_Math. Dict._ i. 328 (1795)] the editions published in 1654 and 1661 had reverted to the Greek names; on the other hand, Camille Flammarion (_Popular Astronomy_, p. 375) quotes an illuminated folio of 1661, which represents "the sky delivered from pagans and peopled with Christians." A similar confusion was attempted by E. Weigelius, who sought to introduce a _Coelum heraldicum_, in which the constellations were figured as the arms or insignia of European dynasties, and by symbols of commerce.

CONSTELLATION

+----------------+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+ | Modern. | Ptolemy. [Greek] | Ulugh Beg. | Tycho Brahe. | Meaning. | +----------------+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+ | | | Northern constellations (21). | | ----------------------------- | | | | Ursa minor Arktou mikras Stellae Ursi minoris Ursa minor, Cynosura Little Bear | | asterismhost | | | | Ursa major Arktou megalês a. S. Ursi majoris Ursa major, Helice Great Bear | | | | Draco Drakontos a. S. Draconis Draco Dragon | | | | Cepheus Kêpheôs a. S. Cephei Cepheus Cepheus | | | | Boötes Boôtou a. S. Vociferatoris Boötes, Arctophylax Ploughman | | | | | Corona borealis Stephanou Boreiou a. S. Coronae or Phecca Corona borea Northern Crown | | | | Hercules Tou en gonasin a. S. Incumbentis genubus Engonasi, Hercules Man kneeling | | | | Lyra Lyras a. S. [tou] Shelyak or Lyra, Vultur cadens Lyre | | Testudo | | | | Cygnus Ornithos a. S. Gallinae Olor, Cygnus Bird, Swan | | | | Cassiopeia Kassiepeias a. S. Inthronatae Cassiopeia Cassiopeia | | | | Perseus Perseôs a. S. Bershaush or Portans Perseus Perseus | | Caput Larvae | | | | Auriga Hêniochou a. S. Tenentis habenas Auriga, Heniochus, Charioteer | | Erichthonius | | | | Serpentarius Ophiouchou a. S. Serpentarii Ophiuchus, Serpentarius Serpent-holder | | | | Serpens Oreôs ophiouchou a. S. Serpentis Serpens ophiuchi Serpent | | | | Sagitta Oistou a. S. Sagittae Sagitta or Telum Arrow | | | | Aquila Aetou a. S. Aquilae Aquila or Vultur volans Eagle | | | | Delphinus Delphinos a. S. Delphini Delphinus Dolphin | | | | Equuleus Hippou protomês a. S. Sectionis equi Equuelus, Equi sectio Colt | | | | Pegasus Hippou a. S. Equi majoris Pegasus, Equus alatus Pegasus, Horse | | | | Andromeda Andromedas a. S. Mulieris catenatae Andromeda Andromeda | | | | Triangulum Trigônou a. S. Trianguli Triangulus, Deltoton Triangle | | | | | | Zodiacal constellations (12). | | ----------------------------- | | | | Aries Kriou a. S. Arietis Aries Ram | | | | Taurus Taurou a. S. Tauri Taurus Bull | | | | Gemini Didymôn a. S. Gemellorum Gemini Twins | | | | Cancer Karkinou a. S. Cancri Cancer Crab | | | | Leo Leontos a. S. Leonis Leo Lion | | | | Virgo Parthenou a. S. Virginis, Sumbela Virgo Virgin | | | | Libra Chêlôn a. S. Librae Libra Balance | | | | Scorpio Skorpiou a. S. Scorpionis Scorpius Scorpion | | | | Sagittarius Toxotou a. S. Sagittarii, Arcum Sagittarius Archer | | | | Capricornus Aigokerôtos a. S. Capricorni Capricornus Goat | | | | Aquarius Hydrochoou a. S. Effusoris aquae, Aquarius Water-pourer | | Situla | | | | Pisces Ichthyôn a. S. Piscis Pisces Fishes | | | | | | Southern constellations (15). | | ----------------------------- | | | | Cetus Kêtous a. S. Ceti Cete Sea-monster, | | Whale | | | | Orion Ôrionos a. S. Gigantis Orion Orion | | | | Eridanus Potamou a. S. Fluminis Eridanus fluvius River | | | | Lepus Lagôou a. S. Leporis Lepus Hare | | | | Canis major Kynos a. S. Canis majoris Canis major Great Dog | | | | Canis minor Prokynos a. S. Canis minoris Canis minor, Procyon Little Dog | | | | Argo Argous a. S. Navis Argo navis Ship | | | | Hydra Hydrou a. S. Hydri Hydra Sea-serpent | | | | Crater Kratêros a. S. Craterae Crater Bowl | | | | | Corvus Korakos a. S. Corvi Corvus Crow | | | | Centaurus Kentaurou a. S. Centauri Centaurus, Chiron Centaur | | | | Lupus Thêriou a. S. Ferae Wild beast | | | | Ara Thymiatêriou a. S. Thuribuli Censer, Altar | | | | Corona australis Stephanou notiou a. S. Coronae australis Southern Crown | | | | Piscis australis Ichthyos notiou a. S. Piscis australis Southern Fish | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In Edmund Halley's southern catalogue (_Catalogus stellarum australium_), published in 1679 and incorporated in Flamsteed's _Historia coelestis_ (1725), the following constellations are named:--Piscis australis, Columba Noachi, Argo navis, Robur Caroli, Ara, Corona australis, Grus, Phoenix, Pavo, Apus or Avis Indica, Musca apis, Chameleon, Triangulum australe, Piscis volans, Dorado or Xiphias, Toucan or Anser Americanus, and Hydrus. Flamsteed's maps also contained Mons Menelai. This list contains nothing new except Robur Caroli, since Columba Noachi (Noah's dove) had been raised to the skies by Bartschius in 1624. The constellation Robur Caroli and also the star Cor Caroli ([alpha] Canum Venaticorum) were named by Halley in honour of Charles II. of England.

In 1690 two posthumous works of Johann Hevelius (1611-1687), the _Firmamentum sobiescianum_ and _Prodromus astronomiae_, added several new constellations to the list, viz. Canes venatici (the Greyhounds), Lacerta (the Lizard), Leo minor (Little Lion), Lynx, Sextans Uraniae, Scutum or Clypeus Sobieskii (the shield of Sobieski), Vulpecula et Anser (Fox and Goose), Cerberus, Camelopardus (Giraffe), and Monoceros (Unicorn); the last two were originally due to Jacobus Bartschius. In 1679 Augustine Royer introduced the most interesting of the constellations of the southern hemisphere, the Crux australis or Southern Cross. He also suggested Nubes major, Nubes minor, and Lilium, and re-named Canes venatici the river Jordan, and Vulpecula et Anser the river Tigris, but these innovations met with no approval. The Magellanic clouds, a collection of nebulae, stars and star-clusters in the neighbourhood of the south pole, were so named by Hevelius in honour of the navigator Ferdinand Magellan.

Many other star-groupings have been proposed from time to time; in some cases a separate name has been given to a part of an authoritatively accepted constellation, e.g. Ensis Orionis, the sword of Orion, or an ancient constellation may be subdivided, e.g. Argo (ship) into Argo, Malus (mast), Vela (sails), Puppis (stern), Carina (keel); and whereas some of the rearrangements, which have been mostly confined to the southern hemisphere, have been accepted, many, reflecting nothing but idiosyncrasies of the proposers, have deservedly dropped into oblivion. Nicolas Louis de Lacaille, who made extended observations of the southern stars in 1751 and in the following years, and whose results were embodied in his posthumous _Coelum australe stelliferum_ (1763), introduced the following new constellations:--Apparatus sculptoris (Sculptor's workshop), Fornax chemica (Chemical furnace), Horologium (Clock), Reticulus rhomboidalis (Rhomboidal net), Caela sculptoris (Sculptor's chisels), Equuleus pictoris (Painter's easel), Pyxis nautica (Mariner's compass), Antlia pneumatica (Air pump), Octans (Octant), Circinus (Compasses), Norma _alias_ Quadra Euclidis (Square), Telescopium (Telescope), Microscopium (Microscope) and Mons Mensae (Table Mountain). Pierre Charles Lemonnier in 1776 introduced Tarandus (Reindeer), and Solitarius; J. J. L. de Lalande introduced Le Messier (after the astronomer Charles Messier) (1776), Quadrans muralis (Mural quadrant) (1795), Globus aerostaticus (Air balloon) (1798), and Felis (the Cat) (1799). Martin Poczobut introduced in 1777 Taurus Poniatovskii; Bode introduced the Honores Frederici (Honours of Frederick) (1786), Telescopium Herschelii (Telescope of Herschel) (1787), Machina electrica (Electrical machine) (1790), Officina typographica (Printing press) (1799), and Lochium funis (Log line); and M. Hell formed the Psalterium Georgianum (George's lute).

The following list gives the names of the constellations now usually employed: they are divided into three groups:--north of the zodiac, in the zodiac, south of the zodiac. Those marked with an asterisk have separate articles.

_Northern_ (28).

*Andromeda *Cepheus *Hercules Pegasus *Aquila *Coma Berenices Lacerta *Perseus *Auriga *Corona borealis *Leo minor *Sagitta *Boötes *Cygnus Lynx Serpens Camelopardus *Delphinus *Lyra Triangulum *Canes venatici Draco { Ophiuchus *Ursa major *Cassiopeia Equuleus {*Serpentarius *Ursa minor *Vulpecula et Anser

_Zodiacal_ (12).

*Aquarius *Capricornus *Libra *Scorpio *Aries *Gemini *Pisces *Taurus *Cancer *Leo *Sagittarius *Virgo.

_Southern_ (49).

Antlia Columba Noachi Lupus Puppis (pneumatica) Corona australis Malus Recticulum Apus Corvus Microscopium Sculptor *Ara Crater Monoceros (Apparatus Argo Crux Musca australis sculptoris) Caela sculptoris Dorado Norma Scutum Sobieskii (Caelum) *Eridanus Octans Sextans *Canis major Fornax chemica *Orion Telescopium Canis minor Grus Pavo Toucan Carina Horologium Phoenix Triangulum australe *Centaurus *Hydra Pictor Vela *Cetus Hydrus (Equuleus Volans Chameleon Indus pictoris) (Piscis volans) Circinus Lepus Piscis australis (C. E.*)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The historical development of star-catalogues in general, regarded as statistics of the co-ordinates, &c., of stars, is given in the historical section of the article Astronomy. See also E. B. Knobel, "Chronology of Star Catalogues," _Mem. R.A.S._ (1877).

CONSTIPATION (from Lat. _constipare_, to press closely together, whence also the adjective "costive"), the condition of body when the faeces are unduly retained, or there is difficulty in evacuation, tightness of the bowels (see Digestive Organs; and Therapeutics). It may be due to constitutional peculiarities, sedentary or irregular habits, improper diet, &c. The treatment varies with individual cases, according to the cause at work, laxatives, dieting, massage, &c., being prescribed.

CONSTITUENCY (from "constituent," that which forms a necessary part of a thing; Lat. _constituere_, to create), a political term for the body of electors who choose a representative for parliament or for any other public assembly, for the place or district possessing the right to elect a representative, and for the residents generally, apart from their voting powers, in such a locality. The term is also applied, in a transferred sense, to the readers of a particular newspaper, the customers of a business and the like.

CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The word constitution (_constitutio_) in the time of the Roman empire signified a collection of laws or ordinances made by the emperor. We find the word used in the same sense in the early history of English law, _e.g._ the Constitutions of Clarendon. In its modern use constitution has been restricted to those rules which concern the political structure of society. If we take the accepted definition of a law as a command imposed by a sovereign on the subject, the constitution would consist of the rules which point out where the sovereign is to be found, the form in which his powers are exercised, and the relations of the different members of the sovereign body to each other where it consists of more persons than one. In every independent political society, it is assumed by these definitions, there will be found somewhere or other a sovereign, whether that sovereign be a single person, or a body of persons, or several bodies of persons. The commands imposed by the sovereign person or body on the rest of the society are positive laws, properly so called. The sovereign body not only makes laws, but has two other leading functions, viz. those of judicature and administration. Legislation is for the most part performed directly by the sovereign body itself; judicature and administration, for the most part, by delegates. The constitution of a society, accordingly, would show how the sovereign body is composed, and what are the relations of its members _inter se_, and how the sovereign functions of legislation, judicature and administration are exercised. Constitutional law consists of the rules relating to these subjects, and these rules may either be laws properly so called, or they may not--i.e. they may or may not be commands imposed by the sovereign body itself. The English constitutional rule, for example, that the king and parliament are the sovereign, cannot be called a law; for a law presupposes the fact which it asserts. And other rules, which are constantly observed in practice, but have never been enacted by the sovereign power, are in the same way constitutional laws which are not laws. It is an undoubted rule of the English constitution that the king shall not refuse his assent to a bill which has passed both Houses of Parliament, but it is certainly not a law. Should the king veto such a bill his action would be unconstitutional, but not illegal. On the other hand the rules relating to the election of members to the House of Commons are nearly all positive laws strictly so called. Constitutional law, as the phrase is commonly used, would include all the laws dealing with the sovereign body in the exercise of its various functions, and all the rules, not being laws properly so called, relating to the same subject.

The above is an attempt to indicate the meaning of the phrases in their stricter or more technical uses. Some wider meanings may be noticed. In the phrase constitutional government, a form of government based on certain principles which may roughly be called popular is the leading idea. Great Britain, Switzerland, the United States, are all constitutional governments in this sense of the word. A country where a large portion of the people has some considerable share in the supreme power would be a constitutional country. On the other hand, constitutional, as applied to governments, may mean stable as opposed to unstable and anarchic societies. Again, as a term of party politics, constitutional has come to mean, in England, not obedience to constitutional rules as above described, but adherence to the existing type of the constitution or to some conspicuous portions thereof,--in other words, conservative.

The ideas associated with constitution and constitutionalism are thus, it will be seen, mainly of modern and European origin. They are wholly inapplicable to the primitive and simple societies of the present or of the former times. The discussion of forms of government occupies a large space in the writings of the Greek philosophers,--a fact which is to be explained by the existence among the Greeks of many independent political communities, variously organized, and more or less democratic in character. Between the political problems of the smaller societies and those of the great European nations there is no useful parallel to be drawn, although the predominance of classical learning made it the fashion for a long time to apply Greek speculations on the nature of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to public questions in modern Europe. Representation (q.v.), the characteristic principle of European constitutions, has, of course, no place in societies which were not too large to admit of every free citizen participating personally in the business of government. Nor is there much in the politics or the political literature of the Romans to compare with the constitutions of modern states. Their political system, almost from the beginning of empire, was ruled absolutely by a small assembly or by one man.

The impetus to constitutional government in modern times has to a large extent come from England, and it is from English politics that the phrase and its associations have been borrowed. England has offered to the world the one conspicuous example of a long, continuous, and orderly development of political institutions. The early date at which the principle of self-government was established in England, the steady growth of the principle, the absence of civil dissension, and the preservation in the midst of change of so much of the old organization, have given its constitution a great influence over the ideas of politicians in other countries. This fact is expressed in the proverbial phrase--"England is the mother of parliaments." It would not be difficult to show that the leading features of the constitutions now established in other nations have been based on, or defended by, considerations arising from the political history of England.

In one important respect England differs conspicuously from most other countries. Her constitution is to a large extent _unwritten_, using the word in much the same sense as when we speak of unwritten law. Its rules can be found in no written document, but depend, as so much of English law does, on precedent modified by a constant process of interpretation. Many rules of the constitution have in fact a purely legal history, that is to say, they have been developed by the law courts, as part of the general body of the common law. Others have in a similar way been developed by the practice of parliament. Both Houses, in fact, have exhibited the same spirit of adherence to precedent, coupled with a power of modifying precedent to suit circumstances, which distinguishes the judicial tribunals. In a constitutional crisis the House of Commons appoints a committee to "search its journals for precedents," just as the court of king's bench would examine the records of its own decisions. And just as the law, while professing to remain the same, is in process of constant change, so, too, the unwritten constitution is, without any acknowledgment of the fact, constantly taking up new ground.

In contrast with the mobility of an unwritten constitution is the fixity of a constitution written out, like that of the United States or Switzerland, in one authoritative code. The constitution of the United States, drawn up at Philadelphia in 1787, is contained in a code of articles. It was ratified separately by each state, and thenceforward became the positive and exclusive statement of the constitution. The legislative powers of the legislature are not to extend to certain kinds of bills, e.g. _ex post facto_ bills; the president has a veto which can only be overcome by a majority of two-thirds in both Houses; the constitution itself can only be changed in any particular by the consent of the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the several states; and finally the judges of the Supreme Court are to decide in all disputed cases whether an act of the legislature is permitted by the constitution or not.

The constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land as to the matters which it embraces. The constitution of each state is the supreme law of the state, except so far as it may be controlled by the constitution of the United States. Every statute in conflict with the constitution to which it is subordinate is void so far as this conflict extends. If it concerns only a distinct and separable part of the statute, that part only is void. Every court before which a statutory right or defence is asserted has the power to inquire whether the statute in question is or is not in conflict with the paramount constitution. This power belongs even to a justice of the peace in trying a cause. He sits to administer the law, and it is for him to determine what is the law. Inferior courts commonly decline to hold a statute unconstitutional, even if there may appear to be substantial grounds for such a decision. The presumption is always in favour of the validity of the law, and they generally prefer to leave the responsibility of declaring it void to the higher courts.

The judges of the state courts are bound by their oath of office to support the constitution of the United States. They have an equal right with those of the United States to determine whether or how far it affects any matter brought in question in any action. So, vice versa, the judges of the United States courts, if the point comes up on a trial before them, have the right to determine whether or how far the constitution of a state invalidates a statute of the state. They, however, are ordinarily bound to follow the views of the state courts on such a question. They are not bound by any decision of a state court as to the effect of the constitution of the United States on a state statute or any other matter. This judicial power of declaring a statute void because unconstitutional has been not infrequently exercised, from the time when the first state constitutions were adopted.

Juries in criminal causes are sometimes made by American statutes or recognized by American practice as judges of the law as well as the fact. The better opinion is that this does not make them judges of whether a law on which the prosecution rests violates the paramount constitution and is therefore void (_United States_ v. _Callender_, Wharton's _State Trials_, 688; _State_ v. _Main_, 69 Connecticut Reports, 123, 128).

If a state court decides a point of constitutional law, set up under the constitution of the United States, against the party relying upon it, and this decision is affirmed by the state court of last resort, he may sue out a writ of error, and so bring his case before the Supreme Court of the United States. If the state decision be in his favour, the other side cannot resort to like proceedings.

A decree of the Supreme Court of the United States on a point of construction arising under the constitution of the United States settles it for all courts, state and national.

The salient characteristic of the United States constitution is, perhaps, its formidable apparatus of provisions against change; and, in fact, only 15 constitutional amendments had been adopted from 1789 up to 1909, the last being in 1870. In the same period the unwritten constitution of England has made a most marked advance, chiefly in the direction of democratizing the monarchy, and diminishing the powers of the House of Lords. The House of Commons has continuously asserted its legislative predominance, and has reduced the other House to the position of a revising chamber, which in the last resort, however, can produce a legislative deadlock, subject to the results of a new general election (see Parliament). And the cabinet, which depends on the support of the House of Commons, has become more and more the executive council of the realm. One conspicuous feature of the English constitution, by which it is broadly distinguished from written or artificial constitutions, is the presence throughout its entire extent of legal fictions. The influence of the lawyers on the progress of the constitution has already been noticed, and is nowhere more clearly shown than in this peculiarity of its structure. As in the common law, so in the constitution, change has been effected in substance without any corresponding change in terminology. There is hardly one of the phrases used to describe the position of the crown which can be understood in its literal sense, and many of them are currently accepted in more senses than one. The American constitution of 1789 reproduced, however, in essentials, and with necessary modifications, the contemporary British model, and, where it did so, has preserved the old conception of what was then the British system of Government. The position and powers of the president were a fair counterpart of the royal prerogative of that day; the two houses of Congress corresponded sufficiently well to the House of Lords and the House of Commons, allowing for the absence of the elements of hereditary rank and territorial influence. While the English constitution has changed much, the American constitution has changed very little in these respects. Allowing for the more democratic character of the constituencies, the organization of the supreme power in the United States is nearer the English type of the 18th century--is, in fact, less elastic than in the United Kingdom.

On the other hand, it is not uncommon to misinterpret the rigidity of the United States constitution, from a regard rather to the theory which its text suggests than to the practical working of the machine. For the letter of the constitution has to some extent been modified, if not technically amended, in various respects by judicial interpretation, and by use and wont (e.g. as regards the election of the president). This side of the matter may be studied in C. G. Tiedeman's work cited below. Moreover, even in respect of the 18th-century British character attaching to the constitution, as drawn up in 1787, it has to be remembered that this was not taken direct from England. As several American constitutional historians have elaborately shown (e.g. A. C. McLaughlin, in _The Confederation and the Constitution_, 1905), the English idea had already been developed in various directions during the preceding colonial period, and the constitution really represented the English constitutional usage _as known in America_, into which the Philadelphia convention introduced new features corresponding to the prevailing civil conditions or suggested by English analogy. It is important to emphasize this point, since the resemblance of the American constitution of 1789 to the contemporary English constitution has sometimes been exaggerated; but the fact remains that the written constitution has been less susceptible of development than the unwritten.

Between England and some other constitutional countries a difference of much constitutional importance is to be found in the terms on which the component parts of the country were brought together. All great societies have been produced by the aggregation of small societies into larger and larger groups. In England the process of consolidation was completed before the constitution settled down into its present form. In the United States, on the other hand, in Switzerland, and in Germany the constitution is in form an alliance among a number of separate states, each of which may have a constitution and laws of its own for local purposes. In federal governments it remains a question how far the independence of individual states has been sacrificed by submission to a constitution. In the United States constitutional progress is hampered by the necessity thus created of having every amendment ratified by the separate vote of three-fourths of the states.

See also Government; Sovereignty; Cabinet; Prerogative, &c., and the section on Government or Constitution in the articles on the various countries. The standard work on the English constitution is Sir William Anson's _Law and Custom of the Constitution_ (1st ed. 1886; 3rd ed. 1909); see also A. L. Lowell, _The Government_ _of England_ (1908); W. Bagehot, _The English Constitution_; S. Low, _The Governance of England_ (1904); A. V. Dicey, _The Law of the Constitution_ (7th ed. 1909); W. Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_ (1878); R. Gneist, _History of the English Constitution_ (Engl. trans. 1886); J. Macy, _The English Constitution_ (New York, 1897); E. W. Ridges, _Constitutional Law of England_ (1905); F. W. Maitland, _Constitutional History of England_ (1908); G. B. Adams and H. M. Stephens, _Select Documents of English Constitutional History_ (New York, 1901). For America, see C. E. Stevens, _Sources of the Constitution of the United States_ (London and New York, 1894); G. T. Curtis, _Constitutional History of the United States_ (2 vols., New York, 1889-1896); T. McI. Cooley, _General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States_ (Boston, 1880; 3rd ed. 1898); S. G. Fisher, _Evolution of the Constitution of the United States_ (Philadelphia, 1897); J. I. C. Hare, _American Constitutional Law_ (2 vols., Boston, 1889); J. F. Jameson (ed.), _Essays on the Constitutional History of the United States in the Formative Period, 1775-1789_ (Boston, 1889); W. M. Meigs, _Growth of the Constitution in the Federal Convention of 1787_ (Philadelphia, 1900); and C. G. Tiedeman, _Unwritten Constitution of the United States_ (New York, 1890). Also A. L. Lowell, _Government and Parties in Continental Europe_ (2 vols., 1896); W. F. _Dodd, Modern Constitutions_ (2 vols., Chicago, 1909), a collection of the fundamental laws of twenty-two of the most important countries.

"CONSTITUTION OF ATHENS" ([Greek: Athênaiôn politeia]), a work attributed to the philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), forming one of a series of _Constitutions_ ([Greek: politeiai]), 158 in number, which treated of the institutions of the various states in the Greek world. It was extant until the 7th century of our era, or to an even later date, but was subsequently lost. A copy of this treatise, written in four different hands upon four rolls of papyrus, and dating from the end of the 1st century A.D., was discovered in Egypt, and acquired by the trustees of the British Museum, for whom it was edited by F. G. Kenyon, assistant in the manuscript department, and published in January 1891. Some very imperfect fragments of another copy had been acquired by the Egyptian Museum at Berlin, and were published in 1880.

_Authorship._--It may be regarded as now established that the treatise discovered in Egypt is identical with the work upon the constitution of Athens that passed in antiquity under the name of Aristotle. The evidence derived from a comparison of the British Museum papyrus with the quotations from the lost work of Aristotle's which are found in scholiasts and grammarians is conclusive. Of fifty-eight quotations from Aristotle's work, fifty-five occur in the papyrus. Of thirty-three quotations from Aristotle, which relate to matters connected with the constitution, or the constitutional history of Athens, although they are not expressly referred to the [Greek: Athênaiôn politeia], twenty-three are found in the papyrus. Of those not found in the papyrus, the majority appear to have come either from the beginning of the treatise, which is wanting in the papyrus, or from the latter portion of it, which is mutilated. The coincidence, therefore, is as nearly as possible complete. It may also be regarded as established by internal evidence that the treatise was composed during the interval between Aristotle's return to Athens in 335 B.C. and his death in 322. There are two passages which give us the latter year as the _terminus ad quem_, viz. c. 42. 1 and c. 62. 2. In the former passage the democracy which is about to be described is spoken of as the "present constitution" ([Greek: ê nun katastasis tês politeias]). The democratic constitution was abolished, and a timocracy established, on the surrender of Athens to Antipater, at the end of the Lamian War, in the autumn of 322. At the same time Samos was lost; it is still reckoned, however, among the Athenian possessions in the latter passage. On the other hand, the foreign possessions of Athens are limited to Lemnos, Imbros, Scyros, Delos and Samos. This could only apply to the period after Chaeronea (338 B.C.). In c. 61. 1, again, mention is made of a special Strategus [Greek: epi tas symmorias]; but it can be proved from inscriptions that down to the year 334 the generals were _collectively_ concerned with the symmories. Finally, in c. 54. 7 an event is dated by the archonship of Cephisophon (329). We thus get the years 329 and 322 as fixing the limits of the period to which the composition of the work must be assigned. It follows that, whether it is by Aristotle or not, its date is later than that of the _Politics_, in which there is no reference to any event subsequent to the death of Philip in 336.

The only question as to authorship that can fairly be raised is the question whether it is by Aristotle or by a pupil; i.e. as to the sense in which it is "Aristotelian." The argument on the two sides may be summarized as follows:--

_Against._--(i.) The occurrence of non-Aristotelian words and phrases and the absence of turns of expression characteristic of the undisputed writings of Aristotle. (ii.) The occurrence of statements contradictory of views found in the _Politics_; e.g. c. 4 (Constitution of Draco) compared with _Pol._ 1274 b 15 ([Greek: Drakontos nomoi men eisi, politeia d' hyparchousê tous nomous ethêken]); c. 8. 1 (the archons appointed by lot out of selected candidates) compared with _Pol._ 1274 a 17, and 1281 b 31 (the archons elected by the _demos_); c. 17. 1 (total length of Peisistratus' reign, 19 years) compared with _Pol._ 1315 b 32 (total length, 17 years); c. 21. 6 (Cleisthenes left the clan and phratries unaltered) compared with _Pol._ 1319 b 20 (Cleisthenes increased the number of the phratries); c. 21. 2 and 4 compared with _Pol._ 1275 b 37 (different views as to the class admitted to citizenship by Cleisthenes). It will be observed that the instances quoted relate to the most famous names in the early history of Athens, viz. Draco, Solon, Peisistratus and Cleisthenes. (iii.) Arguments drawn from the style, composition and general character of the work, which are alleged to be unworthy of the author of the undoubtedly genuine writings. There is no sense of proportion (contrast the space devoted to Peisistratus and his sons, or to the Four Hundred and the Thirty, with the inadequate treatment of the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars); there is a lack of historical insight and an uncritical acceptance of erroneous views; and the anecdotic element is unduly prominent. These considerations led several of the earlier critics to deny the Aristotelian authorship, e.g. the editors of the Dutch edition of the text, van Herwerden and van Leeuwen; Rühl, Cauer and Schvarcz in Germany; H. Richards and others in England.

_For._--(i.) The consensus of antiquity. Every ancient writer who mentions the _Constitution_ attributes it to Aristotle, while no writer is known to have questioned its genuineness. (ii.) The coincidence of the date assigned to its composition on internal grounds with the date of Aristotle's second residence in Athens. (iii.) Parallelisms of thought or expression with passages in the _Politics_; e.g. c. 16. 2 and 3 compared with _Pol._ 1318 b 14 and 1319 a 30; the general view of Solon's legislation compared with _Pol._ 1296 b 1; c. 27. 3 compared with _Pol._ 1274 a 9. To argument (i.) against the authorship, it is replied that the _Constitution_ is an historical work, intended for popular use; differences in style and terminology from those of a philosophical treatise, such as the _Politics_, are to be expected. To argument (ii.) it is replied that, as the _Constitution_ is a later work than the _Politics_, a change of view upon particular points is not surprising. These considerations have led the great majority of writers upon the subject to attribute the work to Aristotle himself. On this side are found Kenyon and Sandys among English scholars, and in Germany, Wilamowitz, Blass, Gilbert, Bauer, Bruno Keil, Busolt, E. Meyer, and many others. On the whole, it can hardly be doubted that the view which is supported by so great a weight of authority is the correct one. The arguments advanced on the other side are not to be lightly set aside, but they can scarcely outweigh the combination of external and internal evidence in favour of the attribution to Aristotle. An attentive study of the parallel passages in the _Politics_ will go a long way towards carrying conviction. It is true that a series such as the _Constitutions_ might well be entrusted to pupils working under the direction of their master. It is also true, however, that the _Constitution of Athens_ must have been incomparably the most important of the series and the one that would be most naturally reserved for the master's hand. There are no traces in the treatise either of variety of authorship or of incompleteness, though there are evidences of interpolation.

_Contents._--The treatise consists of two parts, one historical, and the other descriptive. The first forty-one chapters compose the former part, the remainder of the work the latter. The first part comprised an account of the original constitution of Athens, and of the eleven changes through which it successively passed (see c. 41). The papyrus, however, is imperfect at the beginning (the manuscript from which it was copied appears to have been similarly defective), the text commencing in the middle of a sentence which relates to the trial and banishment of the Alcmeonidae for their part in the affair of Cylon. The missing chapters must have contained a sketch of the original constitution, and of the changes introduced in the time of Ion and Theseus.

The following is an abstract of Part I. in its present form. Chapters 2, 3, description of the constitution before the time of Draco. 4, Draco's constitution. 5-12, reforms of Solon. 13, party feuds after the legislation of Solon. 14-19, the rule of Peisistratus and his sons. 20, 21, the reforms of Cleisthenes. 22, changes introduced between Cleisthenes and the invasion of Xerxes. 23, 24, the supremacy of the Areopagus, 479-461 B.C. 25, its overthrow by Ephialtes. 26, 27, changes introduced in the time of Pericles. 28, the rise of the demagogues. 29-33, the revolution of the Four Hundred. 34-40, the government of the Thirty. 41, list of the successive changes in the constitution. It may be noted that the reforms of Solon, the tyranny of Peisistratus and his sons, and the revolutions of the Four Hundred and the Thirty, together occupy considerably more than two-thirds of