The greater part of his political tractates have been collected by himself under the title of Cours de Politique Constitutionelle. J. P. Pagès collected the speeches delivered at the Chamber of Deputies, 3 vols, in 8vo. (1832— 1833). His great philosophical work was De la religion considérée dåns sa source, ses formes, et ses développements.

The most important of his purely literary productions are the novels, Adolphe and Cecile, and the translation of Wallenstein. His philosophical work on religion, which occupied him more or less almost all his life, is an attempt to trace the successive transformations of the religious sentiment, his conclusion being that, while the religious instinct is imperishable, the doctrinal and ceremonial forms by which it expresses itself are transitory. A quotation or two will suffice to indicate his attitude towards the liberalism of the 18th century. “Christianity has introduced moral and political liberty into the world.” “If Christianity has been often despised, it is because men have not understood it. Lucian was incapable of understanding Homer; Voltaire has never understood the Bible.”

Constantine, or as it was originally called, Cirta or Kirtha, from the Phoenician word or a city, was in ancient times one of the most important towns of Numidia, and the residence of the kings of the Massylii. Under Micipsa 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 to be considered an important military post, and consequently its name 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. I n the war of Maxentius against Alexander, the Numidian usurper, it was laid in ruins; and on its restoration in 313 by Constantine it received the name which it still retains. It was left uncaptured during the Vandal invasion of Africa, but on the conquest of the Arabians it shared the same fate as the surrounding country. 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, it finally became under their dominion the seat of a bey subordinate to the dey of Algiers. In 1826 it asserted its independence of that potentate, and was governed by Hadj Ahmed, the choice of the Kabyles. In 1837 the French under Marshal Valée took possession of the place, and about ten years afterwards it was occupied as a regular colony.

CONSTANTINE. Of the thirteen emperors of this name, two are here noticed separately. For the others see Roman History and Greek Empire.

CONSTANTINE, a Roman soldier who, in the time of Honorius, in the 5th century a.d., rose to the dignity of emperor of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, but was finally conquered and put to death by Honorius. See Roman History.

The events of the next few years showed clearly the essential instability of the arrangement devised by Diocletian for the partition of the imperial power among Augustuses and Caesars. It was in the very nature of the plan that under it those who were nominally colleagues should be in reality rivals, constantly plotting and counter-plotting for the sole supremacy. Accordingly the history of the empire from the period of the division of the imperial power by Diocletian to that of its reconsolidation under Constantine is mainly a record of the struggle for that supremacy. The narrative is necessarily intricate, and can only be fully given in a general historical article. The state of matters was complicated by a rebellion at Rome against Galerius, which had for its final result the contemporaneous reign of no less than six emperors,—Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin in the East, and Maximian, Maxentius, and Constantine in the West (308). Maxentius was the son of Maximian, and Constantine was his son-in-law, having married his daughter Fausta at Arles in 307, on which occasion he received the title of Augustus; but this family relationship did not prevent a conflict of interests. Maxentius claimed to be the sole rightful sovereign of Italy, and being supported by the praetorian guards compelled his father to quit Rome. Maximian, after a brief residence in Illyricum, from which he was driven by Galerius, took refuge at the court of his son-in-law, Constantine, who received him with the respect due to his rank. For the second time he resigned the purple, and affected to have no longer any desire of power. Very soon after, however, he was tempted, during the absence of Constantine on the Rhine, to reassume the imperial dignity and to enter into a plot with Maxentius for the overthrow of his son-in-law. Constantine, on receiving the news, acted with the necessary promptitude. He appeared at once with his troops before Arles, and compelled Maximian to retreat to Marseilles, whither he followed him. The town might have stood a protracted siege, but it preferred to deliver up the usurper, who avoided the execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon him by committing suicide (February 310).

The death of Maximian was the first of a series of events which ended in the establishment of Constantine as the sole emperor of the West. It was seized upon by Maxentius as a pretext for hostile measures, which Constantine, unwilling to engage in war, ignored as long as he safely could. When the time came for action, however, he acted, as was his wont, with decision. Maxentius was preparing to invade Gaul, when Constantine, encouraged by an embassy from Rome, anticipated him by entering Italy at the head of a large and well-disciplined army. He had crossed the Cottian Alps (Mont Cenis), and was in the plains of

Piedmont before Maxentius knew that he had set out. A series of successes at Susa, Turin, and Verona culminated in the decisive victory of the Miívian Bridge, near Rome (28th October 312), which left the capital open to the invader. In the hurried retreat of the defeated army Maxentius was pressed by the throng over the bridge into the river, and was drowned. The conduct of the conqueror was marked on the whole by wisdom and moderation. The slaughter of the two sons and of the more intimate favourites of the fallen emperor was a measure deemed essential if the fruits of the victory were to be retained, and cannot be imputed to wanton cruelty, especially as Constantine seems to have abstained from the too common practice of an indiscriminate massacre. The final disbanding of the praetorian guards and the destruction of their camp, th 3 imposition of a poll-tax on the senators, and the assumption of the title of Pontifex Maximus were the other chief events of Constantine’s first residence in Rome, which lasted only a few weeks,—a fact in itself significant of the decaying importance of the capital, if not prophetic of the early rise of a Nova Roma.

It was in the course of the expedition that ended with the victory of the Milvian Bridge that the celebrated incident occurred, which is said to have caused Constantine’s conversion,—the appearance of a flaming cross in the sky at noon-day with the motto ’Ey τovrω viκa (By this conquer), The story is told by Eusebius, who professes to have had it from the lips of the emperor himself, and also with considerable variation in the details by Lactantius, Nazarius, and Philostorgius. In order to understand the true relation of Constantine to Christianity, however, it is necessary to consider all the incidents bearing upon that relation together, and this, therefore, along with the others. There is the less violence to chronological order in delaying the critical examination of the story, inasmuch as it was first communicated by Constantine to Eusebius several years later, and as the Labarum, or standard of the cross, made in obedience to the heavenly vision was not exhibited to the army, according to Gibbon, till 323. The conversion, whatever its nature and whatever its cause, was followed, indeed, by one more immediate result of a significant kind in the important Edict of Milan (March 313), issued by Constantine and Licinius conjointly, restoring all forfeited civil and religious rights to the Christians, and securing them full and equal toleration throughout the empire.

By the victory of the Milvian Bridge Constantine became the sole emperor of the West. Very soon after a like change took place in the East. Galerius had died in May 311, and a war ensued between the two surviving emperors in which Maximin was the aggressor and the loser, as Maxentius had been in the West. After a decisive defeat near Heraclea (April 313) he took to flight, and died at Tarsus, probably by his own hand, in August of the same year. Licinius thus attained the same place in the East as Constantine held in the West. The interests of the two who now divided between them the empire of the world had been apparently identified by the marriage of Licinius to Constantine’s sister Constantia, which was celebrated with great pomp at Milan in March 313. But iu little more than a year they were engaged in a war, the origin of which is somewhat obscure, though it probably arose from the treachery of Licinius. After two battles, iu which the Eastern emperor suffered severely, he was fain to sue for peace, which Constantine granted only on condition that Illyricum, Pannonia, and Greece should be transferred to his territory.

The peace lasted for nine years, a period during which Constantine’s position grew stronger while that of Licinius grew weaker, wise and humane legal reforms and vigorous measures against the barbarians of the north marking the policy of the one, and caprice, indolence, and cruelty being the most conspicuous features in the conduct of the other. When the inevitable struggle for the supremacy came, though the army of Licinius was the larger, the issue was scarcely doubtful. The origin of the war which broke out in 323 is, like that of the previous one in 314, not quite clear; but it is probable that Constantine, having determined to make himself the sole master of the world, did not think it necessary to wait for provocation. The campaign was short but decisive. Licinius was totally defeated in a battle fought at Adrianople on the 3d July 323. This was followed by the siege of Byzantium, in which Crispus, Constantine’s eldest son, who was in command of the fleet, co-operated with his father by entering the Hellespont and defeating Amandus, the admiral of Licinius, after a two days’ engagement. In a final battle fought at Chrysopolis (now Scutari) Licinius was totally routed, and he fled to Nicomedia. On the intercession of his wife Constantia, the sister of Constantine, the emperor promised to spare his life; but the promise was not kept. In 324 the defeated monarch was put to death by Constantine’s orders at Thessalonica, which had been fixed as the place of his exile. A treasonable conspiracy was alleged against him, but there is no evidence in support of the charge; and possible danger in the future rather than any plot actually discovered seems to have prompted Constantine to a deed which cannot escape the censure of bad faith, if not of wanton cruelty.

With the war against Licinius the military career of Constantine may be said to have closed. He was now the sole emperor of both East and West. His enlightened policy had made his power throughout the empire so secure that any attempt to usurp it would have been utterly vain. Accordingly the remainder of his reign was passed in undisturbed tranquillity. The period of peace was not inglorious, including among lesser events the convocation of the Council of Nicaea (325) and the foundation of Constantinople (328). But unfortunately it was disgraced by a series of bloody deeds that have left an indelible stain on the emperor’s memory. In 326 Constantine visited Rome to celebrate the twentieth anniversary (vicennalia) of his accession. During the festivities his eldest son Crispus was accused of treason by Fausta, and banished to Pola, in Istria, where he was put to death. Licinius, the emperor’s nephew, being included in the same charge, likewise fell a victim, and a number of the courtiers also suffered. According to another version of the story Fausta accused her step-son of attempting incestuous intercourse, and Constantine, discovering when it was too late that the accusation was false, caused her to be suffocated in her bath. The whole circumstances of Fausta’s death, however, are involved in uncertainty owing to the contradictions of the different narratives. The bloody tragedy struck horror into the minds of the citizens, and it was amid ominous indications of unpopularity that Constantine quitted Rome for the last time.

It had probably been for some time clear to his mind that the empire required in its new circumstances a new political centre. A Nova Roma would mark in a visible and concrete form the new departure in imperial policy which it had been the main object of the emperor’s life to initiate. At least two other places—Sardica in Maesia, and Troy—had been thought of ere his choice was fixed upon Byzantium. No happier selection has ever been made. The natural advantages of the site are probably unsurpassed by those of any capital either in the Old or in the New World, and its political importance is evidenced by the frequency with which it has been the key to the situation in European diplomacy. The new capital, the building of which had been commenced in 328, was solemnly inaugurated on the 11th May 330, being dedicated to the Virgin Mary. The fact that the ceremonial was performed exclusively by Christian ecclesiastics, and that no pagan temple was permitted to be erected in the new city, marks in an emphatic way the establishment of Christianity as the state religion.

The closing years of Constantine’s life were uneventful. One of his last schemes was that for the partition of the empire after his death among his three sons by Fausta,— Constantine, Constantius, and Constans; but it proved even less stable than the analogous scheme of Diocletian. In 337 Sapor II. of Persia asserted by force his claim to the provinces that had been taken from him by Galerius. Constantine was preparing to meet him at the head of an army, when he was taken ill, and after a brief and vain trial of the baths of Helenopolis retired to Nicomedia. Here he died on the 22d May 337. The significance of his baptism on his deathbed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, will be indicated afterwards. His body was taken to Constantinople, and buried according to his own instructions in the Church of the Apostles with imposing ceremony.

The most interesting and the most disputed subject in connection with the life of Constantine is the nature of his relation to Christianity. The facts bearing upon it are clear enough, and the controversy must therefore be entirely attributed to the manipulation and distortion of partisans. A brief statement of these facts will suffice to show how far his acceptance of Christianity was a matter of personal conviction, and how far, on the other hand, it was a matter of statesmanship. The generous conduct of Constantius towards the Christians betokens a certain measure of sympathy, and the term Xριστιavoφpωv (Christian-minded) applied to him by Theophanes gives some ground for supposing that the paternal influence may have acted as a sort of praeparatio eυangelica in the mind of Constantine. But whatever may have been due to this, it did not bring him over to the new faith. His own narrative to Eusebius attributed his conversion to the miraculous appearance of a flaming cross in the sky at noon-day under the circumstances already indicated. The story has met with nearly every degree of acceptance from the unquestioning faith of Eusebius himself to the incredulity of Gibbon, who treats it as a fable, while not denying the sincerity of the conversion. On the supposition that Constantine narrated the incident in good faith, the amount of objective reality that it possesses is a question of altogether secondary importance. There is nothing improbable in the theory that accounts for the appearance of the cross by the not infrequent natural phenomenon of a parhelion. It seems likelier, however, that Constantine gave external reality to what was nothing more than an optical delusion or a dream. Eusebius, it is true, narrates both the appearance at noon-day and a dream on the following night, in which the appearance was interpreted; but the very strength of the impression made on Constantine’s mind may have led him to magnify the incident without conscious misrepresentation. Whatever the nature of the appearance may have been, its effect upon the emperor, to judge from his subsequent conduct, fell far short of a true or thorough conversion; it probably did not amount to more than the creation of a superstitious belief in the symbol of the cross. This is sufficient to account for the edict of toleration and for all his legislation that seems to be based upon sympathy with Christian ideas. On the other hand, the notion of conversion in the sense of a real acceptance of the new religion, and a thorough rejection of the old, is inconsistent with the hesitating attitude in which he stood towards both. Much of this may indeed be due to motives of political expediency, but there is a good deal that cannot be so explained. Paganism mus'; still have been an operative belief with the man who, down almost to the close of his life, retained so many pagan superstitions. He was at best only half heathen, half Christian, who could seek to combine the worship of Christ with the worship of Apollo, having the name of the oue and the figure of the other impressed upon his coins, and ordaining the observance of Sunday under the name Dies Solis in his celebrated decree of March 321, though such a combination was far from uncommon in the first Christian centuries. Perhaps the most significant illustration of the ambiguity of his religious position is furnished by the fact that in the same year in which he issued the Sun day decree he gave orders that, if lightning struck the imperial palace or any other public building, “the haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as to what it might signify, and a careful report of the answer should be drawn up for his use.” From the time of the Council of Nicaea there are fewer signs of halting between two opinions, but the interest of the emperor in Christianity was still primarily political and official rather than personal. He summoned the council, presided over its first meeting, and took a prominent part in its proceedings both before and behind the scenes. The year before it met he had, in a noteworthy letter to the Alexandrian bishops, urged such a scheme of comprehension as might include Arians and orthodox in the one church; and on this ground he has been claimed as the earliest of broad churchmen. When the result of its deliberations was the adoption, for the first time in the history of the church, of a written creed, he cordially approved of the proposal, and was thus the earliest to enforce uniformity by means of subscription. The two plans were incompatible, but the conduct of Constantine in supporting first the one and then the other was perfectly consistent. Throughout he acted in the interest of the state. The splitting up of the church into a number of bitterly contending factions would be a constant source of danger to the unity of the empire, while on the other hand the empire might gain fresh strength from the growing power of Christianity if that power were embodied in a campact and united organization. It was by this consideration, probably, that Constantine was guided in dealing with the Arian controversy; there are no traces of any engrossing personal interest on his part in the cardinal question of the homoousìon. There...

Meanwhile Constantine, though powerless, had been well treated, and had married Helena, the daughter of Romanus. On the deposition of his colleague, the people gave willing aid to Constantine’s cause; and having banished his brothcrs-in-law, he became emperor in reality. Though wanting in strength of will, Constantine had intelligence and many other good qualities, and his reign on the whole was not unsatisfactory. (See Greek Empire.) He was poisoned by his son Romanus in 959. Constantine was a painter and a patron of art, a literary man and a patron of literature; and herein consists his real importance. Unable as he was to sift out the really important from the unimportant, and the credible from the incredible, it is yet from his pages that we gain the only knowledge of any extent which we possess of his time. He is the author of several works of considerable size :—1. ∏∈pi τωv θeμfiτωv, an account of the provinces (themata) of the empire; 2. De Administrando Imperio, an account of the condition of the empire, and an exposition of the author’s view of government, written for the use of his son Romanus; it also contains most valuable information as to the condition and history of various foreign nations with which the Eastern empire had been brought into connection,—as tho Arabs, Iberians, Armenians, and the tribes north of tho Danube—the Russians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Chazars, and Patzinacitae; 3. v Eκ0∈σιs rýs βaσιXeiov τ<⅛∈ως, which describes the customs of tho Eastern Church and court; 4. A life of Basilius I., his grandfather; 5. Two treatises on warfare, of which his father Leo was perhaps part or sole author. The Γ∈ωτroiΙκ<z, a treatise on agriculture with which his namo is connected, is generally supposed to have been executed at his command by Bassus Cassianus; and under his patronage many other works— including collections of the ancient historians (of which fragments are extant), lives of saints, and treatises on medicine—were compiled. Several Latin translations of the works of Constantine have been made, and his complete works were published at Leyden, 1617, and Paris, 1711.

This peculiar harbour has always, by reason both of its form and its fulness, been called the Golden Horn. It is “like a stag’s horn,” Strabo says, “for it is broken into wavy creeks like so many branches, into which the fish pelamys (τryλoφt,υς) running is easily snared.” In former times this fish was, and at the present day might be, a source of rich revenue—ever from time immemorial rushing down from the Sea of Azoff and the Black Sea, and when it approaches the white rock, on which stands the Maiden’s (miscalled Leander’s) Tower, glancing off it, and shooting straight into the Horn, but never enriching the rival city on the coast of Asia—Chalcedon, “the City of the Blind.” If the figure of a stag’s horn resembles the harbour, that of an ancient drinking-horn would represent the general form of Constantinople proper—the Seraglio point being turned inward like the sculptured mouth-piece. On this knot the Megarian city stood gathered about its Acropolis, and occupying the easternmost hill on the verge of Europe. Constantine aimed at building his new capital, after the old, on seven hills; his wish was fulfilled—not at first, however, but a century after its dedication,—and he wished it to be in name, as in foundation, a counterpart of the ancient city. But it is the founder, not the model, that is commemorated in the name Constantinople, while its designation as “New Rome” lingers nowhere but in the official language of the Orthodox Eastern Church. Its Turkish name of Istamboul, ol ’ Stamboul, is said to be a corruption of the Greek words cìç r fqv About the end of the 18th century it was corrupted by a fanatical fancy into Islambol, or the city of Islam. Like the name, the emblem also of the city was adopted from the Greeks by the Ottomans. The crescent and star formed its device from the earliest times, and is found on Byzantine coins and on the statues of Hecate. So the body-guard of the Sultan retain insignia of the Varangian Guard of the Greek empire, of which traces seem to have been discovered in the Crimea. The sign manual of the sultans, rudely representing a left hand, originated with the action of a sultan who is said to have signed with a bloody hand a treaty with the republic of Ragusa.

Under Constantine, who founded it on the site of Byzantium (q.v.), the city was more than doubled. His forum was fixed on the second hill; the walls were extended till a new inclosure was made, which spanned the peninsula from about the end of the old bridge to the mouth of the River Lycus in Vlanga Bostan; the line of his walls was not direct, but made a compass round the Polyandrion, or Heroon. It is said that 40,000 Goths were employed in first raising and afterwards manning these works; the seven gates separated the eight cohorts, each of 5000 men. Being Arians, the Goths were allowed no room within the city which they made safe for the Orthodox, but had assigned to them a quarter outside, which was called, either from several columns or from the one of Constantine that stood thereabout, Exokionion (the region without the columns), and the Gothic inhabitants of the quarter were styled Exolcionitae. So noble was this body or guild accounted among their countrymen, that many illustrious Goths were enrolled in it,—with others, the kings of Italy. In the course of time, after Anastasius had drawn a longer line of defences higher up, from the neighbourhood of Lake Dercon on the Euxine to Selymbria on the Propontis, and many of the Gothic cohorts were called away to defend these fortifications, the meaning of the name was by degrees forgotten, until it was changed into Hexe-Kionia, or Hexe-Marmora (six marble columns); and at last this corrupt form was rendered literally by the new occupants in their tongue Alti-Mermer (six columns), which name remains to the present day. As this is a landmark showing the limit of Constantine’s walls on the south, another sign is extant bearing witness to their extent on the north. This is a mosque, once a church, which is visible from the Golden Horn. Its Turkish name, Kahireh, or Kahrieh, is thought to have been formed into a resemblance of that of the capital of Egypt from the Greek χωpα. The monastery to which this church of the Saviour belonged was 'Ni.ovη τrj<s χωρaς, or, as we say, “in the fields.” This was an ancient establishment, and its church, the oldest church in the city, dates from the 3d century. Hither were brought, and entombed in sarcophagi, the remains of St Babylas and two other martyrs who suffered under Decius in the persecution of 250 a.d. At the beginning of the 5th century the Goths, being pressed by Attila and his Huns out of their settlements below the Balkan, flocked towards Constantinople to join their countrymen there and find refuge in its suburbs. It then became necessary to entrench this extra-mural camp. Accordingly in 412, under Theodosius IL, the first Theodosian wall was raised by the prefect Anthemius; and in 447 a second was added by the prefect Cyrus Constantinus, who advanced the fosse, and of the earth dug out of it formed an artificial terrace between two lines of defence. The Goths were long subjected to exclusion from the city; Justinian exempted the Exocionites, indeed, from the penalties which he exacted from all other Arians in the empire, but required them still to meet for public worship outside the walls. Some monuments to members of the body of Faederati, found outside the fifth gate, and perhaps the name Cerco-porta, a memento of their round church, or one of their circular forts, may mark the residence, as they intimate the heresy, of the noble guards of the Greek emperor. Arianism had died out when this body was reinforced by the Varangians—Anglo-Danes—in the 11th century; accordingly, it is not surprising to recognize in a Byzantine church in a quarter called Bogdan-Serai, within the walls on the fifth hill, the church of St Nicholas and Augustine, founded by an Anglo-Saxon who fled from the Normans to take service under the Greek emperor. It is maintained that most of the numbers distinguishing the cohorts attached to the several regions and walls remain to this day, as Deuteron, Triton, Pempton, and Hebdomon. Upon the completion of these Theodosian walls there ensħed a double arrangement of gates; towngates, communicating with the public roads, alternated with military gates which opened upon the terraces only. These town-gates, to the number of seven, communicated with the seven gates of Constantine’s wall each by a broad street, which separated the cohorts and their quarters. These gates were opened in peace but shut in time of war, and then the bridges connecting them with the country roads and crossing the fosse in front were taken down at the approach of the enemy. The military gates had no such bridges leading from them; they served only to give egress to that part of the garrison which was required to work the engines of war planted upon the terraces outside and below. The city gates in the Theodosian walls had for the most part the same names as the gates in the wall of Constantine which corresponded to them—with this difference, that they were styled “New.” Thus the gate “Roussion,” so named from the “demus” of the “Reds,” in the latter, answered to the “New” Roussion in the former. It is on this accouut that the existing gate is to this day called Yeni Kapu (New gate) as well as Mevlanelι Kapusi (gate of the Dervishes). The gate of Adrianople (Edreneh Kapusi) was formerly that of Polyandrion, and took its title from the corresponding gate in the wall of Constantine, called so because it stood near the Polyandrion or Heroon adjoining it, which was attached to the church of the Holy Apostles; the site is now occupied by the mosque of Mahomet the Conqueror (Mehmedieh).

The landward walls of Constantinople bear marks of the labour of many hands, and represent different and distant epochs. Their construction is unique. If the outer defence of tûe fosse is reckoned they are quadruple; the two inner lines are furnished with a series of towers, the smaller below, the larger above—round, octagonal, or square—at about 150 feet apart. As the gaunt array of castles droops into the valley, or seems to climb the hill beyond, one may decipher some of its now obscure inscriptions on marble or in tile work (one seems to be a prayer to Christ), and wonder at the contrivance which appears to defy a natural law. The great ditch, now a productive vegetable garden, is divided into a number of compartments or open cisterns, which used to be filled with water brought by pipes, carried along each partition-wall, and furnishing the supply from cisterns from within and without the city.

Equally remarkable with these fortifications is the system of large cisterns, which are said to have furnished water to 1,000,000 men during four months; they were a necessity to a city subject to perpetual assault. One seems to have been annexed to every considerable monastery and palace— imperial and patrician. They may be reckoned the more ancient portion of the city, which is thus subterraneous;— for while the buildings above ground are scarcely any of them, in the condition now visible, older than the time of Justinian, the cisterns that can be distinguished date from the times of Arcadius, Theodosius, and Constantine.

The position assigned to the old imperial palace is, generally speaking, that of the mosque of Ahmed, which adjoins the Hippodrome. It was not one large edifice, but a scattered group of buildings within gardens, spreading to the Hippodrome on the one side, and on the other to the sea-shore; the northernmost point of its inclosure reached the site occupied now by the fountain of Ahmed III., then by the Geranion. This palace was gradually abandoned after the 12th century for that of Blachernae within the Horn. It was separated from the church of St Sophia by the Augusteum—the square in which stood the statue of Justinian looking towards Persia, the Milliarium, and among other monuments the column that bore the silver statue of the Empress Eudoxia, which occasioned the remonstrances of St Chrysostom. Ma homet IL, built his new palace (the seraglio) on the site of the Acropolis, about which ancient Byzantium had clustered, a situation specially favourable to his purpose, as it afforded the combined advantages of a lovely prospect, a perfect retreat from the noise of the city, and a facility for observing all the movements in the harbour. In erecting it he followed the three divisions of the palace of the Byzantine emperors—(1) the Chalce, the defensive part held by the guards; (2) the Daphne, which touched the Hippodrome and was used for receptions; and (3) the private chambers occupied by the imperial household. The three corresponding portions of the Ottoman palace are distinguished by their several gates :—(1) Babi Houmaioum, the Imperial Gate, opening into the court of the Janissaries; (2) Orta-Kapusi, Middle Gate, in which the sultan receives on high festivals; and (3) Babi Saadet, Gate of Felicity, where he formerly received ambassadors. Of late years the sovereign has resided in winter at Dolma-bakcheh or Tcheragan; in summer at Begler-beg on the Asiatic shore, or at some inland kiosk.

The main streets of the Stamboul of the present day follow the lines of the city of Constantine; thus the tramway, which turns from the New Bridge towards Serai Bournou, upon reaching the platform of St Sophia, enters upon the direction of the M«n? (Mése, middle street), now called Divan Yoli. The Mése parted into two branches, of which the one went to the gate Roussion ,or new gate, the other to the Polyandrion. On the north of the middle street one branch passed along the shore of the Golden Horn from the place where the railway station is, and issued at the gate Xy]ocircus near Balata. On the south, another street passed through the two Golden Gates. These three main lines were distinguished from the smaller tortuous streets by their adornment as well as by their breadth. They were bordered by rows or covered ways and arcades called tμβoλoι, some of them double, with pavements above, decorated with statues, &c. A few traces of the emboli still remain in silu, just as there are fragments of the ancient bazaars, khans, and baths. Imperial gates closed the lines of these principal thoroughfares.

The following is an outline of the modern city, divided according to the seven hills and the intervening valleys. On the 1st hill, the most easterly, are situated the remains of the Seraglio, former palace of the Ottoman sultans; the great church-mosque St Sophia; St Irene; the imperial mint; the Atmeidan (Hippodrome), with three of its numerous monuments remaining; the mosque of Ahmed, &c. Along the 1st valley are traced the walls of the Seraglio on the west, made up of ancient materials, and the Babi Ali or Sublime Porte. The tramway runs along this valley. On the 2d hill stands the Burnt Column, that of Constantine the Great (which stood in the centre of his forum, and under which are said to be the instruments of the Crucifixion and a Palladium of Troy), and the Mosque of Osman. The 2d valley is occupied by the bazaars, several khans, and the mosque of Valideh Sultan, or Yeni Jami, overlooking the bridge and the head of the tramway. On the 3d hill are the Seraskierat (War Office) on the site of the cemetery of the Byzantines and the forum of Theodosius; the fire-tower, and the mosque of Suliman. Along the 3d valley is carried the Aqueduct of Valens, built out of the walls of Chalcedon destroyed for the citizens’ rebellion; near it is At-Bazar (horse-market). On the 4th hill rises the mosque of Mahomet II., where stood the church of the Holy Apostles and the church of the Pantocrator. South of this mosque, in a garden, is seen Kiz-tash, the Maiden’s Column, or column of Marcian, once that of Venus. On the 5th hill follows the mosque of Selim, on the edge of a large open cistern, south of which is the covered cistern of Arcadius. Below on the north lies the Phanar (so named from a lighthouse), the Greek quarter which reaches to the Golden Horn. This division includes the church of the Patriarchate, the great school of the Greek nation, the church-mosque Fetiyeh Jamisi (Pammacaristou), and the church of the Mongols (Mougloutissa). The 6th hill is distinguished by the palace of the Hebdomon, with its coronation hall, built, it is said, by Constantine I., and known vulgarly as Tekfur-Serai—palace of the lord (τoυ κvpiov). At its foot appears the church-mosque Kahrieh, or Kahireh, formerly Mone tes Choras (Mow) της χωpας). Below this hill, the quarter called Balata, from Palatium, now occupied by Jews, follows the Phanar, then the ancient suburb of Blachernae. Here are seen some remains of the Pentapyrgion, —five towers used by the Greeks of the Lower Empire as a political prison. This quarter is succeeded by Eyoub, celebrated for its mosque—which no Christian may enter— and for its cemetery. In this quarter, after Greek precedent, the sovereign is invested. On the hill near, in the Cosmidion, the first crusaders pitched their tents. The

7th hill is to be looked for in the most southern corner of the city. It is occupied by the fortress of the Seven Towers, the political prison of the sultans. It is isolated by the River Lycus.

Of the ecclesiastical buddings of Constantinople by far the most important is the Mosque of St Sophia, or Aya Sofia Jamisi, which ranks as perhaps the finest example of the Byzantine style. In striking contrast with the nobler specimens of Gothic architecture, it presents from the outside an uncouth and disproportionate appearance, even the effect of its unusual dimensions being destroyed by its lack of symmetry. But within the visitor cannot fail to be impressed by the bold span of the arches and the still bolder sweep of the dome, while his eye is at once bewildered and charmed by the rich, if not altogether harmonious variety of decoration, from the many-coloured pillars down to the mosaics and inscriptions on the walls. The dome is raised at the centre 180 feet above the ground, and has a diameter of 107 feet; its curve is so slight that the depth is only 46 feet, and round the rim it is relieved by a row of forty windows. The arrangement of the building may be understood from the plan on next page; and the magnificent volumes of Fossati and Salzenburg furnish all that can be desired in the way of views of the different parts of the interior. The first stone of St Sophia, or the Church of the Divine Wisdom, was laid in Õ32 on the site of several successive churches of the same name, the first of which had been erected by Constantine the Great. Anthemius of Tralles and Isidores of Miletus were the architects employed by the emperor Justinian, at whose command the enterprlze was commenced. No fewer than 10,000 workmen are said to have been engaged under the direction of 100 master builders; and when the woιk was completed it had cost tho imperial treasury about £1,000,000. The principal material of the walls was brick, but the whole interior was lined with costly marbles; and to add to its spléndours the temples of the ancient gods at Heliopolis and Ephesus, at Delos and Baalbec, at Athens and Cyzicus, were plundered of their columns. To render the dome as light as possible it was constructed of pumice-stone and Rhodian bricks, and to secure the building from the ravages of fire no wood was employed except for the doors. Not long after its completion the dome was shaken by an earthquake, but it was repaired by Isidore, the grandson of the original architect. In 1453 Mahomet converted tho church into a mosque, arid since that date numerous minor alterations have been made in the less essential parts of the building. A pretty complete restoration was effected in 1847-49 by Fossati, who found that the weight of the dome was too great for the Supporting walls, threatening the whole with destruction.

The most remarkable of the church-mosques, besides St

Sophia, are the following:—(1) Kutfihuk Aya Sophia, the original model of the great church. It was built for Justinian before his accession, and dedicated to martyrs of his own Illyrian race—SS. Sergius and Bacchus. The lower stage is the original fabric. Here, according to Mahometan tradition, Messiah appeared among the worshippers. (2) Pqntocrator (the Almighty), now Zeirek Jamisi, a triple church of the Comneni. Its monastery became the headquarters of the Latins in the 13th century. (3) St John of the Studium — Emer-ahor—a basilica. Here was the famous monastery of Acaemeti (watchers) and a school of church poets. (4) The Church of the Saviour, with the monastery of the Chora, as being not only ìv τfi χ<μpa (“in the fields,”) but η χωpα rωv ζωvτωv the (land of the living), a gem of beauty still, even in its decay, rich with mosaic of the 14th century of a style purer and more refined than that which is more often seen and admired at Ravenna and Palermo. In this church, alternately with the Hodegetria, was kept the Holy Robe of the Virgin, which was...