I

When Constantine, by his defeat of Licinius in 330 A.D., gained for the Roman Empire control over the Balkan peninsula, he set himself the task of learning what was the best position in which to establish the capital of his empire. Finally, with a statesmanlike grasp of the question, he decided on Byzantium on the shore of the Bosphorus. It was in Europe, and while easily accessible from Asia Minor and the Ægean, could be made to command the trade, then in its infancy but already developing, from the Danube and the Black Sea. Thereupon Constantine made it the capital of the Empire, and on its formal inauguration he called it New Rome, though the more popular name of its founder has been more generally used. It is interesting to note that from that time to this, the Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church has described himself as 'Patriarch of New Rome.'

The city steadily grew in importance, and this by reason of its then incomparable position. My friend Sir William Ramsay is fond of saying that while the English people have made London, and the Americans, New York and Chicago, it is the position of Constantinople which has made that city.

Two centuries later Justinian, 'the Law-Giver,' gained equal renown as a road- and bridge-maker. We can readily recognize what were the ideas in the

minds of Justinian and his colleagues and successors in their system of roadconstruction. During many centuries, perhaps even millenniums, the countries which obtained the traffic between East and West have been the most prosperous. Justinian contrived that his roads should go up the Euphrates, some of them through Cilicia, others to the north of it, and that they should terminate either at Smyrna or at Ismidt for Constantinople. By this time the pax romana had largely cleared the Black Sea of pirates, and the enterprising Greeks were exploring its coasts and bringing down cargoes from the great rivers, the Danube, the Dniester, and others, which had to pass by Constantinople in order to be distributed in the countries of western Europe.

It was owing to these causes that Constantinople flourished and became, during the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, far and away the wealthiest city in Europe. She had many bad rulers as well as able ones, but her situation prevented her from losing her advantages, no matter how incompetent the ruler.

The first deadly blow to the prosperity of Constantinople was struck by the Latin Crusaders of the West, who in 1204 captured the city, enriched Western Europe from its plunder, and held it until 1258, when the Greeks recaptured it. Villehardouin, who was one of the chiefs of the Fourth Crusade, speaks of Constantinople as 'a city at

least ten times as large as Our Lord's city of Paris.' The Crusade in question was a filibustering expedition, and no layman could use stronger words in condemnation of its members than did Pope Innocent III. The great injury that the expedition did to the city was that it destroyed the security of commerce in the Black Sea, the Marmora, and neighboring waters. The government was weak and the destruction of the city was nearly complete. It recovered, however, much of its trade; but until 1453, when it was captured by Mahomet, the Ottoman Turk, it never attained to its former prosperity.

Since 1453 its position has always secured a share of commerce. But the absolute ineptitude of the Turk for everything commercial did everything that could be done, short of destroying the city, to render it of less importance. This state of things continued for upwards of three centuries. During the past hundred years, owing partly to the influence of foreign states, partly to that of the education of the Christian population and to a lesser extent of the Moslems, Constantinople has somewhat increased its commerce.

I have given the above general sketch of the growth of Constantinople to explain how its reputation as a great commercial city was obtained. The enormous commerce in hides, slaves, furs, and other produce which passed through the Bosphorus had enriched the city. This traffic was not merely in the heavy goods mentioned, but in spices, and objects of art and industry, produced in all the lands of south central Asia between China and the Black Sea, and coming through Asia Minor. For the continuation of such a trade absolute security was essential, and this no longer existed. It is not too much to say that during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and down even to 1800, the seas were unsafe. Pirates

everywhere abounded. The Turk, after the battle of Lepanto in 1571, when Don John of Austria inflicted a crushing blow upon the Turkish fleet, seemed to have settled down into a singular apathy in reference to his power at sea, an apathy which is summed up in the Turkish saying which continues to this hour, that 'Allah has given power over the waters to the unbelievers, but over land to the faithful.' The Turk also has never shown any inclination for commerce or appreciation of its advantages. To this day the number of Moslems in Turkey who engage in trade is surprisingly limited; and when an inquiry is made as to who are the Moslem traders in Turkey, it will generally be found that they are Arabs without any Turkish blood in them. In Constantinople and in all the harbors of the Empire any notion that assistance should be given to merchants in order that trade into or through the country should be facilitated is foreign to the Turkish idea. In my own experience I have known merchants who, dealing with Western Europe and America, have been compelled to find means to send their goods from Persia through Russia, or by sea via India, so as to avoid the obstructions placed in the way of commerce by the official Turk. The outrageous exactions of Turkish customhouses have been notorious for centuries, and even in the seventeenth century were proverbial.

In the matter of customhouse exactions, Turkey has changed little. Thirty years ago Sir John Gorst, an admirer, at a distance, of the Turk, was sent on a special mission to Constantinople by the British government, and determined to disprove the common allegation that even passengers' luggage could not be got through without bribery. When he returned to England he related in the House of Commons how he had honestly tried to obtain his bag

gage by regular means, but how, having need of it, he had been compelled after some weeks' delay to give the 'bakshish' demanded. Facts such as these, related by hundreds in books of English and American travel, lead to the conclusion that the Turk in matters of commerce is hopeless.

But it will be asked, supposing, as looks probable, that Constantinople passes into other hands, will not its incomparable position bring back its importance as a commercial city of the first rank? My answer is that it will not. Modern science has changed the situation. The steamer works under different conditions from the sailing vessel. Constantinople was for centuries a centre for the collection of merchandise. Many small sailing vessels collected even half a century ago their small cargoes in Greek islands, along the shores of the Black Sea and in the Danube, and discharged them at Constantinople into large steamers which conveyed them westward. Such steamers brought manufactured goods and other European products with which the small fleets obtained return cargoes. This procedure has been largely changed. Two facts have to be borne in mind in reference to sea carriage. First, that under normal conditions it is very much cheaper than land carriage, and second, that the great cost in the transit of goods is in their handling or manutention. To avoid the cost of manutention, fairly large ships now go round to the ports and collect or discharge their cargoes. In hundreds of cases ships passing through the Bosphorus do not stop at Constantinople, except to purchase necessaries, and consequently hardly enrich the city at all. The produce of South Russia, of the north coast of Anatolia, and of the Danubian states, can be shipped directly in steamers and carried to Western ports without stopping at Constantinople.

And though the Bagdad Railway follows the line chosen by Justinian for the transportation to the West of the produce of the East, it does not follow that results will be obtained by that railway such as had followed the efforts of the great road-makers of Justinian's time. It is in the highest degree improbable that it will bring any considerable amount of traffic from India to Europe. The cost of carriage between Calcutta or Bombay and Europe by water will necessarily be much less than by railway between Bagdad and the Bosphorus. Steamers are yearly increasing their speed, and with ships that do their fifteen to twenty knots an hour, very little time would be saved if trans-shipment from the ports above mentioned were made at Basra and again at Constantinople. The cutting of the Suez Canal has made the route much shorter in time between India and the West than it could have been before the construction of railways, or than it is likely to be when the Bagdad Railway is completed. Readers will recognize that this is a case where land carriage cannot compete with that by water.

Lest it should be thought that I have any prejudice against the Bagdad Railway, I may mention that eight years ago I pronounced very strongly in its favor. Every mile of railway in Turkey is a gain for civilization, and a great trunk line, as the Bagdad Railway will be, will prove of immense value for the people of the country through which it passes. For Constantinople its value will be comparatively slight.

II

Now comes the question, what is to become of Constantinople after the present war? The general opinion is that, if the Entente powers succeed, the Turk will no longer be allowed to

hold it. I may recall here a statement made by General Grant on his visit to Constantinople, in the year 1879, I think. It was shortly after the time when a British fleet was anchored at Prinkipo, about ten miles from the capital. The general had visited Alexandria and various places in Syria and Asia Minor, and had formed a just estimate of Turkish government. The statement in question may have been published, though I have not seen it. 'Had I been in command,' said he, 'of the Russian army at San Stefano, notwithstanding the protests of the British government and the presence of its fleet, I would have taken possession of Constantinople and disarmed Europe the next day.' The question was naturally asked how the second part of such a task would have been accomplished. 'I would have issued a proclamation which would have said to Europe, "Here I am and here I remain until Europe has decided what shall be done with this city. I make only one condition: the Turk shall no longer reign here."

The statement was a bold one, and worthy of General Grant's reputation. Possibly he overlooked the fact that such conduct required the sacrifice of Russia's dream of becoming the ruler on the Bosphorus. However this may be, it looks now as if Europe will consent to Russia's becoming the owner of Constantinople. My own impression is that if Russia has set her mind upon having it, neither England nor France will make serious opposition. She has done so much in the present war and has been so loyal to her allies, while on the other hand Turkey has thrown herself into the hands of the Germans,

that few would begrudge her the possession of Constantinople.

Nevertheless I sincerely hope that Russia will not put forward a claim to the occupation of the city. With an ex

ceptional knowledge of the East, I do not believe that it is to her interest to do so. I admit that the sentiment among Russians is in favor of her taking possession. Every Russian seems to be born with the belief that it is the destiny of his country to occupy Constantinople. They claim that the rightful succession to Constantine is theirs. It is a sentimental claim; but, to explain or to justify it, it must be remembered that under the Greek emperors the imperial sovereignty was to a considerable extent in commission, as indeed was the case for long centuries with the Holy Roman Empire of the West. Just as the rulers of the latter were the Emperor, in things temporal, and the Pope, in things spiritual, so in the East the Emperor at Constantinople ruled in the first capacity, and the Patriarch of New Rome, though nominally only primus inter pares, shared the sovereignty in things spiritual. The insignia still possessed by the Patriarch are only one of many pieces of evidence in support of this view. The Russian Church, which, although autonomous, has always highly respected the traditional functions and position of the Patriarch, has largely aided in the development of the opinion, not only that the two churches are one, but that the temporal portion of sovereignty should be vested in the ruler of the most important state which adheres to the Orthodox Church.

There are many statesmen in Russia, however, who agree that it is not to the interest of the Empire that she should be in possession of Constantinople. The advantage of such possession is that she will have a free road to the Mediterranean for her men of war and merchant ships. If she were in possession simply on the same terms as the Turk, she could close the passage to all warships except her own, and there are publicists in Petrograd who boldly

take up the position that Russia must have Constantinople in order that she may so secure the monopoly of the passage. Such a contention would inevitably lead to war and is not likely openly to be put forward.

The disadvantages to Russia are however great. She is respected by every Balkan state, and justly regarded by each one as its deliverer from the Turkish yoke. If she were at Constantinople, probably every Balkan state would look upon her occupation with suspicion. Greece believes, with a fervency even greater than that of the Russians, that she alone is the true heir to the Imperial City. It is alleged that Ferdinand of Bulgaria hoped to be crowned in Saint Sophia as emperor.

But a more serious disadvantage than those named will be seen from a glance at the map. If Russia were in possession of the city she could pass her troops there only by sea, which in winter is usually dangerous, or by land with the consent of Roumania and Bulgaria. There would certainly arise an attitude of hostility toward her on the part of Roumania, Bulgaria, and Greece. Inasmuch as the desire of Europe is to provide a settlement in the Balkan Peninsula which will last a good many years, those who wish well for such a settlement hope that Russia will not insist upon being allowed to occupy Constantinople. For her it would be only an isolated port in a remote corner of her empire; it would be a constant source of irritation for her Balkan neighbors. Indeed the Russian occupation will be a European calamity. It will raise as many and as difficult questions as it will solve, and will therefore not conduce to European peace. The Emperor Nicholas saw the objections half a century ago; the present Czar sees them; and it may yet be hoped that the sager counsels of Russian statesmen will prevail.

VOL. 116 - NO. 1

When it is decided that the Turk shall no longer rule on the Bosphorus, the only practical alternative which has been suggested is that a small internationalized state should be created which should include the Marmora, the Bosphorus, and the Dardanelles-with a back country on the European side extending from Enos to Media on the Black Sea, and on the Asiatic side following the line known as the False Bosphorus, running almost due north from Ismidt and southward to a point near Adramyttium on the Egean. This state should be governed by an international commission, corresponding to a similar commission which has regulated the navigation of the Danube with success during many years. Probably the powers would gladly consent to allow Russia the presidency of the commission. In the international agreement which would establish it, one of the most important provisions would be that no fortification of any kind should be erected on either the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus. The state itself would be under the guaranty of the European powers. Various suggestions have been made as to who should be at its head. King Albert of Belgium was proposed. Another suggestion was that its government should be under the United States. The majority of those who are in favor of the creation of an internationalized state do not, however, see the necessity of having any permanent head. A president of the commission would be sufficient.

III

But now I come to the second part of my subject, namely, what will be the probable results of the great war on the countries of the Balkan Peninsula? To answer this question, the ambitious aims of Austria must be stated.

Looking backwards over the history