Chapter 3: , page 89 (65)

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

_L. J. Jennings,
The Croker Papers,
volume 2, page 198._

CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CONSISTORY, The Papal.

See CURIA, PAPAL.

CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.

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

_J. A. Froude.
History of England,
chapter 3._

CONSPIRACY BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

CONSTABLE, The.

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

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

{505}

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.

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

_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
volume 1, page 94._

CONSTANCE, The Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

CONSTANCE, Peace of (1183).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

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

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

CONSTANTINA, The taking of (1837).

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

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

The Conversion.

See ROME: A. D. 323.

The Forged Donation of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constantine the Usurper.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

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

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

_E. L. Cutts,
Constantine the Great,
chapter 29._

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

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 17.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{506}

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

_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2._

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

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

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

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

See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

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

See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

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

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

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 10._

See, also, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

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

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 542.
The Plague.

See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 553.
General Council.

See THREE CHAPTERS, THE DISPUTE OF THE.

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

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

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

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

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{507}

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 680.
General Council.

See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

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

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

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

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

See PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.

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

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

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

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

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 62-63.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 68.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

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

{511}

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

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

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

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

----------CONSTANTINOPLE: End----------

CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

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

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

CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.

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

CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

----------CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

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