Appendix

Appendix

THE FOUNDER OF MONTENEGRO

The parentage of Stephen Crnojevich, the founder of the like-named Montenegrin dynasty, has hitherto rested merely on conjecture. The two oldest writers on South Slavonic history, Orbini[863] and Luccari[864], identified him with Stefano Maramonte, an adventurer from Apulia, who is known from Venetian sources[865] to have been a totally different person. Subsequent writers, such as Ducange[866], Fallmerayer[867], Milakovich[868], and Lenormant[869], have usually adopted without question this identification; while the first native historian of Montenegro, the Vladika Vasilj Petrovich[870], made him the son of a certain John Crnojevich, who was descended from the Serbian royal family of Nemanja. According to these respective theories, he first appeared in Montenegrin history in 1419, 1421 or 1423. Hopf[871], and Count de Mas Latrie[872], who were far nearer the truth, asserted him to have been a son of Raditch Crnoje, who is described as “lord of the Zeta and Budua and of the other parts of Slavonia” in 1392, as “baron of the parts of the Zeta” in 1393, and as having fallen in battle in 1396, after having been a “very powerful man” and an honorary citizen of Venice[873].

The Venetian documents, published by Ljubich, prove beyond all doubt that Stephen Crnojevich was the son of George Jurash, or Jurashevich—a name first mentioned[874] in a Ragusan document of 1403. Three years later George Jurashevich and his brother Alexius dominated the Upper Zeta; in 1420 they were “barons of the Zeta” and were promised the possession of Budua[875]—the very same places that Raditch Crnoje had held. These facts might have suggested that they were his next-of-kin, not, as Hopf[876] and Miklosich[877] supposed, members of a distinct clan. The identity of the two families is proved by a document[878] of 1426, which mentions for the first time Stefaniza fiol del Zorzi Juras, while subsequent documents prove conclusively that this Stefaniza was none other than Stephen Crnojevich. He had three brothers, one “lately dead” in 1443, and in the next year mention is made of the three survivors as Jurassin, Stefanice, et Coicini, fratrum de Zernoievich[879].

The exact relationship of Stephen’s father, George Jurashevich, to Raditch Crnoje can only be surmised. We know however that Raditch had several brothers[880]; if we assume that one was called George, or Jurash, this man’s son would then be called Jurashevich; thus Stephen would be Raditch’s grand-nephew—a degree of relationship which would correspond with his death[881] in 1466, two generations after that of his great-uncle. As the legitimate heirs of Raditch, the Jurashevich naturally reverted to the more distinguished surname of Crnojevich, a name found in that region in 1351, while Crnagora, the Serb name for Montenegro, occurs in a Ragusan document[882] of 1362. There is a tradition[883] that the family came originally from Zajablje in the Herzegovina.

3. BOSNIA BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST[884]

I. THE HISTORY OF BOSNIA DOWN TO 1180.

The earliest known inhabitants of Bosnia and the Herzegovina belonged to that Illyrian stock which peopled the western side of the Balkan peninsula at the close of the fifth century B.C. At that period we find two Illyrian tribes, the Ardiæi and the Autariatæ, in possession of those lands. The former occupied West Bosnia, while the latter extended to the south and gave their name to the river Tara, which forms for some distance the present frontier between Montenegro and the Herzegovina. Few characteristics of these remote tribes have been preserved by the Greek and Roman writers, but we are told that the Ardiæi were noted even among the Illyrians for their drunken habits, and that they were the proprietors of a large body of slaves, who performed all their manual offices for them. Of the Autariatæ we know nothing beyond the fact of their power at that epoch.

But the old Illyrian inhabitants had to acknowledge the superiority of another race. About 380 B.C. the Celts invaded the peninsula, and, by dint of continual pushing, ousted the natives of what is now Serbia, and so became neighbours of the Ardiæi. Their next step was to drive the latter southward into the modern Herzegovina, and to seize their possessions in North Bosnia. Instead of uniting against the Celtic invaders the Illyrian tribes fell to quarrelling among themselves over some salt springs, which were unfortunately situated at the spot where their confines met. This fratricidal struggle had the effect of so weakening both parties that they fell an easy prey to the common foe. The victorious Celts pursued their southward course, and by 335 B.C. both Bosnia and the Herzegovina were in their power, and the Illyrians either exiles or else subject to the Celtic sway. This is the first instance of that fatal tendency to disunion which has throughout been the curse of these beautiful lands. The worst foes of Bosnia and the Herzegovina have been those of their own household.

The Celtic supremacy left few traces behind it. While in the south a powerful Illyrian state was formed, which offered a stubborn resistance to Rome herself, the Celtic and Illyrian inhabitants of Bosnia and the Herzegovina remained in the happy condition of having no history. But when the South Illyrian state fell before the Romans, in 167 B.C., and the legionaries encamped on the river Narenta, upon which the present Herzegovinian capital stands, the people who dwelt to the north felt that the time had come to defend themselves. One of their tribes had already submitted to the Romans, but the others combined in a confederation, which had its seat at Delminium, a fortress near the modern town of Sinj, in Dalmatia, from which the confederates took the common name of Dalmatians. The first struggle lasted for nearly a century, in spite of the capture and destruction of Delminium by Scipio Nasica in 155 B.C., and it was reserved for Caius Cosconius in 78 B.C. to subdue the Dalmatian confederates and bring Bosnia and the Herzegovina for the first time beneath the Roman sway. Those lands were then merged in the Roman province of Illyricum, which stretched from the Adriatic to the western frontier of modern Serbia and from the Save into North Albania. But the spirit of the brave Dalmatians was still unbroken, and they never lost an opportunity of rising against their Roman masters. Aided by their winter climate, they resisted the armies of Cæsar’s most trusted lieutenants, and the Emperor Augustus was twice wounded in his youthful campaign against them. One of their revolts in the early years of the Christian era was, in the words of Suetonius, “the greatest danger which had threatened Rome since the Punic wars.” Under their chiefs Bato and Pines they defied the legions of Tiberius for four long years, and it was only when their last stronghold had fallen, and Bato had been taken captive, that they submitted. Their power as an independent nation was broken for ever, their country was laid waste, and in A.D. 9 finally incorporated with the Roman Empire. North Bosnia became part of the province of Pannonia; the Herzegovina and Bosnia south of a line drawn from Novi through Banjaluka and Doboj to Zvornik, were included in the province of Dalmatia. The Romans divided up the latter in their usual methodical manner into three districts, grouped round three towns, where was the seat of justice, and whither the native chieftains came to confer with the Roman authorities. Thus Salona, near Spalato, once a city half as large as Constantinople, but now a heap of ruins, was made the centre of government for South Bosnia, while the Herzegovina fell within the jurisdiction of Narona, a fortress which has been identified with Vid, near Metkovich.

The Roman domination, which lasted till the close of the fifth century, has left a permanent mark upon the country. The interior, it is true, never attained to such a high degree of civilisation as the more accessible towns on the Dalmatian coast, and no such magnificent building as the palace at Spalato in which Diocletian spent the evening of his days adorned the inland settlements. But the conquerors developed, much as the Austrians have done in our own time, those natural resources which the natives had neglected. Three great Roman roads united Salona and the sea with the principal places up country. One of these highways skirted the beautiful lake Jezero, traversed the now flourishing town of Banjaluka, which derives its modern name, “the Baths of St Luke,” from the ruins of a Roman bath, and ended at Gradishka, on the Save. Another connected Salona with the plain of Sarajevo, even then regarded as the centre of the Bosnian trade, and the valley of the Drina, while a branch penetrated as far as Plevlje, in the sandjak of Novibazar, then a considerable Roman settlement. The third, starting also from Salona, crossed the south of the Herzegovina, where traces of it may still be seen. Then, too, the mineral wealth of Bosnia was first exploited—the gold workings near the source of the river Vrbas and the rich deposits of iron ore in the north-west. The natives, hitherto occupied in fighting or farming, were now forced to work at the gold diggings. Roman authors extolled the Bosnian gold, the “Dalmatian metal” of Statius, of which as much as 50 lbs. were obtained in a single day, and a special functionary presided at Salona over the administration of the Bosnian gold mines. The salt springs of Dolnja Tuzla, now a busy manufacturing town, were another source of wealth, and the numerous coins of the Roman period discovered up and down the country show that a considerable amount of money was in circulation there. Many a Roman colonist must have been buried in Bosnian soil, for numbers of tombstones with Latin inscriptions have been found, and the national museum at Sarajevo is full of Roman cooking utensils, Roman vases, and Roman instruments of all kinds. Most important of all, it was during the Roman period that the first seeds of Christianity were sown in these remote Balkan lands. The exact date of this event, which was to exercise paramount influence for evil as well as good upon the future history of Bosnia, is unknown, but we may safely assume that the Archbishopric of Salona was the seat of the new doctrine, from which it rapidly spread throughout the Dalmatian province. Several bishoprics, which are mentioned as subordinate to the archiepiscopal See of Salona in the sixth century, are to be found in Bosnia, and one in particular, the bishopric of Bistue, lay in the very heart of that country.

But the power of Rome on the further shore of the Adriatic and in the mountains behind it did not long survive the break-up of the Western Empire in 476. Bosnia and the Herzegovina experienced the fate of the provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, of which they had so long formed a part. Twenty years earlier Marcellinus, a Roman general, had carved out for himself an independent principality in Dalmatia, and his nephew and successor, Julius Nepos, maintained his independence there for a short space after the fall of the Empire. But Odoacer soon made himself master of the old Roman province, and in 493 the Ostrogoths under Theodoric overran the country, and for the next forty years Bosnia and the Herzegovina owned their sway. This change of rulers made little difference in the condition of the people. The Ostrogoths did not interfere with the religious institutions which they found already in existence. Under their government two ecclesiastical councils were held at Salona, and two new bishoprics founded, bringing the total number up to six. Theodoric, like the Romans before him, paid special attention to the mineral wealth of Bosnia, and a letter is extant in which he appoints an overseer of “the Dalmatian iron ore mines.” But in 535 began the twenty years’ war between the Ostrogoths and the Emperor Justinian. These lands at once became the prey of devastating armies, the battle-field of Gothic and Byzantine combatants. In the midst of the general confusion a horde of new invaders appeared, probably at the invitation of the Gothic King, and in 548 we hear of the Slavs for the first time in the history of the country. Further Slavonic detachments followed in the next few years, and before the second half of the sixth century was far advanced there was a considerable Slav population in the western part of the Balkan peninsula. Even when the war had ended with the overthrow of the Gothic realm, and Bosnia and the Herzegovina had fallen under the Byzantine sway, the inroads of the Slavs did not cease. Other savage tribes came too, and the Avars in particular were the terror of the inhabitants. This formidable race, akin to the Huns, whom they rivalled in ferocity, soon reduced the once flourishing province of Dalmatia to a wilderness. During one of their marches through Bosnia they destroyed nearly forty fortified places on the road from the Save to Salona, and finally reduced that prosperous city to the heap of ruins which it has ever since remained, while the citizens formed out of Diocletian’s abandoned palace the town which bears the name of Spalato, or the Palace, to this day. But the Avars were not to have an unchallenged supremacy over the country. In the first half of the seventh century the Emperor Herakleios summoned to his aid two Slavonic tribes, the Croats and Serbs, and offered them the old Illyrian lands as his vassals if they would drive out the Avars. Nothing loth they at once accepted the invitation, and, after a fierce struggle, subdued the barbarians, whose hands had been as heavy upon the Slavonic as upon the Roman settlers. The Croats, who came somewhat earlier than the Serbs, took up their abode in what is still known as Croatia, and in the northern part of Dalmatia, as far as the river Cetina; the Serbs occupied the coast line from that river as far south as the present Albanian town of Durazzo, and inland the whole of modern Serbia (as it was before 1912), Montenegro, Bosnia, the Herzegovina, and the sandjak of Novibazar. From that time onwards these regions have, under various alien dominations, never lost their Slavonic character, and to this day even the Bosniaks who profess the faith of Islâm, no less than their Orthodox brothers, are of Serbian stock.

The history of Bosnia and the Herzegovina from this Slavonic settlement in the first half of the seventh down to the middle of the tenth century is very obscure. We have few facts recorded, and nothing is gained by repeating the names of mythical rulers, whose existence has been disproved by the researches of critical historians. But it is possible to form some general idea of the state of the country during this period of transition. Nominally under the suzerainty of the Byzantine Empire, much in the same sense as modern Bulgaria was till 1908 under that of the Sultan, Bosnia and its neighbouring lands were practically independent and formed a loose agglomeration of small districts, each of which was called by the Slavonic name of jupa and was governed by a headman known as a jupan. The most important of these petty chiefs was awarded the title of great jupan, and the various districts composed a sort of primitive confederation under his auspices. Two of the districts received names which attained considerable importance in subsequent history. The Slavonic settlers in the valley of the Upper Bosna adapted the Latin designation of that river, Basante, to their own idiom by calling the stream Bosna and themselves Bosniaks, and the name of the river was afterwards extended to the whole country, which from that time onwards was known as Bosnia—a term first found in the form “Bosona,” of Constantine Porphyrogenitus[885]. Similarly Mount Hum, above the present town of Mostar, gave its name to the surrounding district, which was called the Land of Hum, or Zahumlje, until in the middle of the fifteenth century it was re-christened the “Land of the Duke,” or the Herzegovina, from the German Herzog. These derivations are much more probable than the alternatives recently offered, according to which Bosnia means the “land of salt” in Albanian, and the Herzegovina means the “land of stones” in Turkish[886].

The Slavs, with the adaptability of many other conquerors, soon accepted the religion which they found already established in these countries. The Serbs, who settled at the mouth of the Narenta, alone adhered to paganism, and erected on the ruins of the old Roman town of Narona a shrine of their god Viddo, from whom the modern village of Vid derives its name. Here heathen rites were celebrated for more than two hundred years, and as late as the beginning of the last century the inhabitants of Vid cherished ancient idols, of which the original significance had long passed away.

The political history of Bosnia was determined for many generations by its geographical position on the boundary line between the Croatian and Serbian settlements. It was here that these two branches of the Slavonic race met, and from the moment when two rival groups were formed under Croatian and Serbian auspices Bosnia became the coveted object of both. That country accordingly submitted to Croatian and Serbian rulers by turns. Early in the tenth century it seems to have acknowledged the sway of Tomislav, first King of the Croats, and was administered as a dependency by an official known as a ban, the Croatian name for a “governor,” which survived to our own day. A little later the Serbian Prince Tchaslav incorporated it in the confederation which he welded together, and defended it against the Magyars, who now make their first appearance in its history. Under a chieftain named Kés these dangerous neighbours had penetrated as far as the upper waters of the river Drina, where the Serbian Prince inflicted a crushing defeat upon them. But, in his zeal to carry the war into the enemy’s country, he perished himself, and with his death his dominions fell asunder, and Bosnia became for a brief period independent. But Kreshimir, King of the Croats, recovered it in 968, and for the next half-century it belonged to the Croatian crown. But about 1019 the Emperor Basil II restored for a time the dormant Byzantine sovereignty over the whole Balkan peninsula. After the bloody campaigns which earned him the title of “the Bulgar-slayer” and ended in the destruction of the first Bulgarian Empire, he turned his arms against the Serbs and Croats, forcing the latter to receive their crown from Constantinople and reducing Bosnia to more than nominal subjection to his throne.

Meanwhile the Herzegovina, or the “Land of Hum,” as it was then called, had had a considerable history of its own. Early in the tenth century, at the time when the Croatian King Tomislav was extending his authority over Bosnia, we hear of a certain Michael Vishevich, who ruled over the sister land and held his court in the ancient fortress of Blagaj, above the source of the river Buna. Vishevich was evidently a prince of considerable importance. The Pope addressed him as “the most excellent Duke of the people of Hum”; the Byzantine Emperor awarded him the proud titles of “proconsul and Patrician.” The Republic of Ragusa paid him an annual tribute of thirty-six ducats for the vineyards of her citizens which lay within his territory. His fleet, starting from the seaport of Stagno, then the seat of a bishopric as well as an important haven, ravaged the Italian coast opposite, and made the name of “Michael, King of the Slavs,” as a chronicler styles him, a terror to the inhabitants of Apulia. The great Bulgarian Tsar Symeon was his ally, and on two occasions during his struggle with the Byzantine Empire he received aid or advice from him. We find him seconding Tomislav’s proposal for summoning the famous ecclesiastical council which met at Spalato in 925 and prohibited the use of the Slavonic liturgy. In short, nothing of importance occurred in that region during his reign in which he had not his say[887]. But after his death his dominions seem to have been included, like Bosnia, in the Serbian confederation of Tchaslav; and, when that collapsed, they were annexed by the King of Dioklitia, whose realm derived its name from the town of Doclea in what is now Montenegro, and took its origin in the valley of the Zeta, which divides that kingdom in two. About the end of the tenth century however, the powerful Bulgarian Tsar Samuel established his supremacy over the Kingdom of Dioklitia, and the treacherous murder of its King a few years later completed the incorporation of Dioklitia, and consequently of the Herzegovina, in the Bulgarian Empire. But its connexion with Bulgaria was short-lived. When Basil “the Bulgar-slayer” destroyed the sovereignty of the Bulgarian Tsars he added the Herzegovina as well as Bosnia to his own domains. Thus the twin provinces fell at the same moment beneath the Byzantine sway, and from 1019 remained for a space parts of that Empire, governed sometimes by imperial governors, sometimes by native princes acting as imperial viceroys. Bosnia was the first to raise the standard of revolt, and no sooner was the Emperor Basil II dead than it regained its independence under bans of its own, who raised it to an important position among the petty states of that time. The Herzegovina, less fortunate, only exchanged the sovereignty of the Emperor at Constantinople for that of the King of Dioklitia, who in 1050 made himself master of the land. For exactly a century it remained an integral portion of that kingdom, and had therefore no separate history. Even Bosnia succumbed a generation later to the monarchs of Dioklitia, for about 1085 all the three neighbouring lands, Serbia, Bosnia and the Herzegovina, had to accept governors from King Bodin of the Zeta, and thus a great Serb state existed under his sceptre.

But in the early years of the twelfth century a new force made itself felt in South Slavonic lands, a force which even in our own day has till lately exercised a powerful influence over the fortunes of the Balkan peninsula. Since their unsuccessful incursion in the time of Tchaslav the Hungarians had never abandoned their cherished object of gaining a foothold there. But it was not till the union of Croatia in 1102, and of Dalmatia in 1105, with the Hungarian Crown by Koloman, that this object was attained. The Hungarian Kings thus came into close contact with Bosnia, and were not long in extending their authority over that country. So far from meeting with opposition they were regarded by the people as valuable allies in the common struggle against the Byzantine Emperors of the family of the Comnenoi, who aimed at restoring the past glories and dimensions of their realm. Accordingly in 1135 we find an Hungarian King, Béla II, for the first time styling himself “King of Rama”—the name of a river in Bosnia, which Magyar chroniclers applied first to the surrounding district and then to the whole country. From that time onward, whoever the actual possessors of Rama, or Bosnia, might be, it was always included among the titles of the Hungarian monarchs, and, till our own time, the Emperor Francis Joseph in his capacity of King of Hungary called himself also “King of Rama.” In his case the phrase had certainly a more practical significance than it possessed in earlier centuries.

The precise manner in which this close connexion between Hungary and Bosnia was formed is obscure. According to one theory Béla received the country as the dowry of his Serbian wife; according to another the Bosnian magnates, seeing the increasing power of Hungary and the revived pretensions of the Byzantine Emperors, decided to seek the protection of the former against the latter. At any rate a little later Béla assigned Bosnia as a duchy to his second son, Ladislaus, leaving, however, the actual government of that land in the hands of native bans. It is now that we hear the name of one of these rulers for the first time. Hitherto the Bosnian governors have been mere shadowy figures, flitting unrecognised and almost unnoticed across the stage of history. But ban Borich, who now comes into view, is a man of flesh and blood. In the wars between the Emperor Manuel Comnenos and the Hungarians he was the staunch ally of the latter, and when a disputed succession to the Hungarian throne took place he aspired to play the part of a king-maker and supported the claims of Ladislaus, the titular “duke” of Bosnia. But he made the mistake of choosing the losing side and, after being conquered by the troops of the successful candidate, disappeared mysteriously in 1163. Short, however, as was his career, he had extended the eastern borders of Bosnia to the river Drina, and we learn from the contemporary Greek historian Cinnamus[888] that his country was “independent of Serbia and governed in its own fashion.” Three years after his disappearance from the scene Bosnia shared the fate of Croatia and Dalmatia, and fell into the hands of Manuel Comnenos. But upon the death of that powerful Emperor in 1180 the fabric which he had laboriously erected collapsed; the Balkan peoples had nothing more to fear from the Byzantine Empire, and Bosnia under her famous ban Kulin attained to greater freedom and prosperity than she had yet enjoyed. But the same period which witnessed this political and material progress witnessed also the development of that ecclesiastical schism which was one day destined to cause the loss of all freedom and the suspension of all progress by facilitating the Turkish conquest of the land.

II. THE GREAT BOSNIAN BANS (1180-1376).

Kulin is the first great figure in Bosnian history. By nature a man of peace, he devoted his attention to the organisation of the country, which in his time was a ten days’ journey in circumference, the development of its commerce, and the maintenance of its independence. He allowed foreigners ready access to his dominions, employed two Italian painters and goldsmiths at his court, and gave liberal mining concessions to two shrewd burghers of Ragusa, which during the middle ages was the chief emporium of the inland trade. He concluded in 1189 a treaty of commerce with that city—the earliest known Bosnian document—in which he swore to be its “true friend now and for ever, and to keep true peace and genuine troth” with it all his life. Ragusan merchants were permitted to settle wherever they chose in his territory, and no harm was to be done them by his officials. Agriculture flourished under his rule, and years afterwards, whenever the Bosnian farmer had a particularly prosperous year, he would say to his fellows, “The times of Kulin are coming back again.” Even to-day the people regard him as a favourite of the fairies, and his reign as a golden age, and to “talk of ban Kulin” is a popular expression for one who speaks of the remote past, when the Bosnian plum-trees always groaned with fruit and the yellow corn-fields never ceased to wave in the fertile plains. Kulin’s position was strengthened too by his powerful connections; for his sister was the wife of Miroslav, Prince of the Herzegovina, which, as we have seen, had formed part of the Kingdom of Dioklitia down to 1150, when it was conquered by the Serbian great jupan, Desa. Some twenty years later Stephen Nemanja made his brother Miroslav its prince, and thus was closely connected with Kulin. The latter, like Nemanja in Serbia, threw off all ties of allegiance to the Byzantine Empire on the death of Manuel Comnenos, and at the same time ignored the previous relations which had existed between the Kings of Hungary and the Bosnian bans.

But it was Kulin’s ecclesiastical policy which rendered his reign most memorable in the after history of Bosnia. In the tenth century there had appeared in Bulgaria a priest named “Bogomil,” or the “Beloved of God,” who preached a mystical doctrine, peculiarly attractive to the intellect of a Slavonic race. From the assumption that there existed in the universe a bad as well as a good deity the Bogomiles, as his disciples were called, deduced a complete system of theology, which explained all phenomena to their own satisfaction. But the Bogomiles did not content themselves with metaphysics alone. They descended from the serene atmosphere of abstract reasoning to the questions of ritual and the customs of society. Appropriating to themselves the title of “good Christians,” they regarded the monks as little short of idolators, set at naught the authority of bishops, and defied the thunders of the popes. Their worship was characterised by extreme simplicity and often conducted in the open air, while in their lives they aimed at a plain and primitive ideal. A “perfect” Bogomile, one who belonged to the strictest of the two castes into which they were divided, looked upon marriage as impure and bloodshed as a deadly sin; he despised riches, and owned allegiance to no one save God alone, while he had the quaker’s objection to an oath. No wonder that popes, trembling for their authority, branded them as heretics and pursued them with all the horrors of fire and sword; no wonder that potentates found them sometimes intractable subjects, and sometimes useful allies in a struggle against ecclesiastical pretensions.

The Bogomiles appear to have entered Bosnia about the middle of the twelfth century, and speedily gained a hold upon the country. Kulin at first remained uninfluenced by their teachings. Thus, in 1180, we find the papal legate writing to him in the most courteous terms, and addressing him as the “noble and powerful man, the great ban of Bosnia.” The legate sends him a letter and the Holy Father’s blessing, and begs him to give him in return, as a token of his devotion, “two servants and marten skins.” But Kulin found it politic later on to secede from the Roman Church. For some time past the rival Archbishoprics of Spalato and Ragusa had striven for ecclesiastical supremacy over Bosnia. Béla III, King of Hungary, who had now time to devote to his ambitious schemes against that country, warmly supported the claims of the See of Spalato, to which he had appointed a creature of his own. Kulin was naturally on the side of Ragusa, and was encouraged by his sister, whose late husband, Miroslav, Prince of the Herzegovina, had had a similar contest with the Archbishop of Spalato, and had concluded a treaty with the Ragusans. The Pope took the part of Spalato, and Kulin retorted by defying him, as Miroslav had done before. The latter had probably been a Bogomile for some time before his death; the former now formally abandoned the Roman Church, with his wife, his sister, his whole family, and ten thousand of his subjects. The force of so potent an example was at once felt. The Bogomile or Patarene heresy, as it was called by the Bosniaks of other creeds, now spread apace, not only over Bosnia, but in the neighbouring lands. The two Italian painters, whom we have mentioned as residing at Kulin’s court, carried it to Spalato, where it extended to the other Dalmatian coast towns; and the destruction of Zara by the crusaders in 1202 was regarded by pious chroniclers as a judgment upon that city for its heretical opinions.

King Béla III was not slow to make Kulin’s defection the excuse for posing as defender of the true faith. But his death and the quarrels between his heirs gave Kulin a little breathing space, and it was not till 1200 that he was in actual danger. By that time Béla’s sons, Emerich and Andrew, had established themselves respectively as King of Hungary and Duke of the Herzegovina, and accordingly threatened Bosnia from two sides. Emerich, following his father’s policy, endeavoured to induce the Pope to preach a crusade against the Bosnian heretics, and Innocent III, who then occupied the chair of St Peter, hailed the King of Hungary as overlord of Bosnia, and bade him summon Kulin to recant, or if the latter remained obdurate invade Bosnia and occupy it himself. Thus menaced by a combination of the spiritual and the temporal power, Kulin bowed before the storm. He felt that at all costs Hungarian intervention must be avoided, so he made the rather lame excuse that he had “regarded the Patarenes not as heretics, but as Catholics,” and begged the Pope to send him some safe adviser, who should guide his erring feet into the right way. Innocent, pleased at Kulin’s submission, sent two ecclesiastics to Bosnia to inquire into the religious condition of the country and to bring back its ruler to the true fold. The mission was temporarily successful. Early in the spring of 1203 the ban, his great nobles, and the heads of the Bogomile community met in solemn assembly in the “white plain,” or Bjelopolje, on the river Bosna, confessed their errors, and drew up a formal document embodying their recantation. “We renounce the schism of which we are accused”—so runs the deed—“we promise to have altars and crosses in all our churches, to receive the sacrament seven times a year, to observe the fasts ordained by the church, and to keep the festivals of the saints. Henceforth we will no more call ourselves ‘Christians,’ but ‘brothers,’ so as not to cast a slur upon other Christians.” The oath thus taken was renewed by representatives of the Bogomiles in the presence of the King of Hungary, who bade Kulin observe his promises for the future. The cloud had passed away, but with its disappearance Kulin too disappears from the scene. An inscription, said to be the oldest in the country and ascribed to the year 1203-04, which was found in 1898 at Muhashinovichi, on the river Bosna, refers to a church erected by him to prove the sincerity of his re-conversion, and prays God to grant health to him and his wife, Voyslava. We hear no more of him after 1204; but his memory was not soon forgotten[889]. Two centuries later a Bosnian King desired to have confirmed to him all the “customs, usages, privileges and frontiers, which existed in the time of Kulin,” and the rich Bosnian family of Kulenovich of our own time (whose ancestral castle of Jaskopolje may be seen near Jajce, almost on the spot where, in 1878, the great fight between the Austrians and the insurgents took place) is said to derive its name and lineage from him.

But the recantation of Kulin did not check the growth of the Bogomile heresy. Under his successor, Stephen, the numbers of the sect increased, and the efforts of Pope Honorius III and his legate to preach a crusade against the heretics remained fruitless. The Holy Father might exclaim that “the unbelievers in Bosnia, just as witches in a cave nourish their offspring with their bare breasts, publicly preach their abominable errors, to the great harm of the Lord’s flock”; but even this mixture of metaphors failed to stimulate the flagging zeal of the Hungarian Catholics. Even when the King of Hungary had pacified his rebellious nobles by the golden bull, and was therefore able to turn his attention to Bosnian affairs, the proposed crusade fell flat. The King worked upon the cupidity of the Archbishop of Kalocsa by granting him spiritual authority over Bosnia; but the only result was to stiffen the backs of the recalcitrant Bosniaks. Imitating their neighbours in the Herzegovina, who had lately made a Bogomile their Prince, they deposed the weak-kneed Stephen and put Matthew Ninoslav, a Bogomile by birth and education, in his place. The new ban proved, however, more pliant than his poorer subjects. Alarmed at the threatening attitude of the King of Hungary, he recanted, as Kulin had done before him, and placed his country under the protection of St Peter. But the conversion of their Prince had little effect upon the masses. The monks of the Dominican order might boast that they had converted, if not convinced, Ninoslav, but it was felt that stronger measures must be taken against his people. In 1234 a crusade was at last organised, and for the next five years the Bogomiles of Bosnia experienced all those horrors of fire and sword which their fellows, the Albigenses, had suffered in the south of France. Under different names and in widely different spheres the two bodies of heretics had adopted similar doctrines. Indeed, the Albigenses had looked to the Bogomile “pope,” or primate, of Bosnia for spiritual instruction and advice, and accepted their “vicar” at his hands. But while historians and poets of renown have cast lustre upon the struggles and sufferings of the martyrs of Provence the probably equally heroic resistance of the Bosnian Bogomiles has made little impression upon literature. Yet it is clear that they possessed all the stubborn valour of our own puritans. In spite of the conquest of both Bosnia and the Herzegovina in 1237 by the Hungarian King’s son, Koloman, who received the former country from the King and the Pope as the reward of his labours, in spite of the erection of forts and a Catholic Cathedral to keep the unruly passions and heretical inclinations of the people in order, the spirit of the Bogomiles remained unbroken. Ninoslav, furious at the arbitrary substitution of Koloman for himself, once more appeared as their champion, and the great defeat of the Hungarians by the Tartars in 1241 not only rid him of his rival, Koloman, but freed his land from all fear of Hungarian intervention for some time to come. Even the incursion of the Tartars into Bosnia was a small disadvantage as compared with the benefits which that country had derived from their previous victory over its foes. Ninoslav now felt himself strong enough to assist Spalato in its struggle against the King of Hungary and to offer an alliance to Ragusa against the growing power of the Serbian monarchy. A second crusade in Bosnia in 1246 was not more successful than the first, and the Pope in placing the Bosnian See under the authority of the Archbishop of Kalocsa, expressly gave as his reason “the utter hopelessness of a voluntary conversion of that country to the true faith.” Even the papal permission to use the Slavonic tongue and the Glagolitic characters in the Catholic service did not win over the Bogomiles to Rome. Crusades and concessions had alike failed[890].

Ninoslav passes out of sight in 1250, and the next two generations are, with the exception of the Turkish supremacy, the gloomiest period of Bosnian history. Religious differences and a disputed succession made the country an easy prey to the ambitious designs of the Hungarian monarchs, who, after a brief support of Ninoslav’s relative, the Catholic Prijesda I, in 1254 subdued not only Bosnia but the Herzegovina beneath their sway. While the latter about 1284 fell under Serbian influence the former was split up into two parts. The Upper, or hill-country, Bosnia properly so-called, was allowed to retain native bans—Prijesda I and his sons[891], Prijesda II and Stephen Kotroman, till 1302; Lower Bosnia, i.e. the “salt” district of Soli (the modern Tuzla) with Usora, for the sake of greater security, was at first entrusted to Hungarian magnates, and then combined with a large slice of northern Serbia, known as Matchva, in a compact duchy, which was conferred upon near relatives of the Hungarian King. During this period the history of this distracted land is practically a blank. Beyond the names of its successive rulers we have little handed down to us by the chroniclers. “A sleep as of death,” in the words of a Croatian writer, “had fallen upon the country. The whole national and religious life of Bosnia had perished beneath the cold blasts of the wind from beyond the Save.” Now and again we come upon traces of the old Bogomile spirit and the old zeal of the persecutors. Stephen Dragutin, who had been driven by lameness from the Serbian throne and had become under Hungarian auspices Duke of Matchva and Bosnia in 1284, was specially noted for his “conversion and baptism of many heretics,” and it was in answer to his request that the Franciscans, who have since played such an important part in Bosnian history, settled in the country. But still the Pope complained that “the churches were deserted and the priesthood uprooted.” Meanwhile two powerful families began to make their influence felt, the Croatian clan of Shubich and the race of Kotromanich, whose legendary founder (according to Orbini), a German knight, had entered Bosnia in the Hungarian service and was the ancestor of the Bosnian Kings. We now know, however, from a document of the great Tvrtko[892], quoted by Pope Gregory XI, that Tvrtko’s uncle, Stephen Kotromanich, was grandson of “the great” Prijesda I. The latest authority on the subject[893] accordingly believed the Kotroman family to have sprung from Upper Bosnia and to have been very probably related to Borich and Kulin. The legend of its German, or Gothic, origin arose out of its matrimonial connections with great families of Central Europe. The family of Shubich was at first in the ascendant, and became lords of part and then the whole of the land. In fact Paul Shubich, in 1299, styled himself “lord of Bosnia” and early in the fourteenth century his son, Mladen, ruled, under the title of “ban of the Croats and all Bosnia,” a vast tract of territory extending from the Save to the Narenta and from the Drina to the Adriatic. But in 1322 he fell before a combination of rivals, and young Stephen Kotromanich, who had been his deputy in Bosnia, became independent and united both Upper and Lower Bosnia under his sway[894].

Stephen Kotromanich proved himself to be the ablest ruler whom Bosnia had had since Kulin, and laid the foundations upon which his successor built up the Bosnian kingdom. His reign of over thirty years was marked by a series of successes. He began in 1325 by annexing the Herzegovina, which, as we have seen, had been under Serbian authority for the last two generations, as well as the sea-coast from the river Cetina as far south as the gates of Ragusa. Thus, for the first time in its history, Bosnia had gained an outlet on the sea, and was not entirely dependent upon foreigners for its imports. The Dalmatian coast with its fine harbours is the natural frontage of the country behind, which even under the Austrians touched the sea at only two small points. But in the first half of the fourteenth century Bosnia had gained a considerable coast-line. Kotromanich even coveted the islands as well, and specially Curzola, then under the overlordship of Venice. But here his plans failed, although the Ragusans were ready to lend him ships for the purpose. He rewarded them by confirming all their old trading rights in his country and granting them some territorial concessions near the mouth of the Narenta. He took an active, if somewhat insidious, part in the operations which King Charles Robert of Hungary and his successor, Louis the Great, conducted for the restoration of their authority in Croatia and Dalmatia. Charles Robert, who had bestowed upon Kotromanich a relative of his own wife in marriage, found him a useful ally; but in the war between Louis the Great and the Venetians for the possession of Zara the Bosnian ruler was desirous of standing well with both sides. At the famous siege of Zara in 1345 and the following year he went, at the bidding of Louis, to rescue the town from its Venetian besiegers. But the crafty Venetians knew their man. They gave him a heavy bribe, and offered him a much heavier one if he would persuade Louis to abandon the relief of the beleaguered city. The money was well spent. At a critical moment of the siege, when it had been arranged that the Hungarian and Bosnian army should support the besieged in a sally from the gates, Kotromanich and his Bosniaks hung back and the Venetians won the day. The quaint chronicle of this famous siege expressly ascribes the defeat of the allies to the perfidy of “that child of Belial, Stephen, ban of Bosnia,” and it was largely owing to his subsequent mediation that Zara ultimately surrendered to Venice. But Kotromanich soon found that he required the good offices of Venice himself. While he had been engaged in the west of the Balkan peninsula there had grown up in the east under the mighty auspices of Stephen Dushan the great Serbian Empire, which threatened at one moment to swallow up Constantinople itself. Dushan is the greatest name in the whole history of the peninsula, a name cherished to this day by every patriotic Serb. But just as the restoration of Dushan’s Empire, the daydream of Serbian enthusiasts, jeopardised the existence of Austrian Bosnia, so the conquests of the great Serbian Tsar alarmed the Bosnian ruler of that day. For the first half of his reign Dushan was too much occupied with his eastern conquests and his law reforms to interfere with his western neighbour. But he had not forgotten that the Herzegovina, which Kotromanich had annexed, had once belonged to the Serbian monarchy, and, as soon as he had leisure, he pressed his claims. Both parties accepted the mediation of Venice, and for a time peace was preserved. But in 1349 Kotromanich assumed the offensive, invaded Dushan’s dominions, and penetrated as far south as the beautiful town of Cattaro, at that time part of the Serbian Empire and now at last restored to its natural owners, the Southern Slavs. Dushan retaliated next year by descending upon Bosnia and laying siege to the strong castle of Bobovatz, the residence of many Bosnian rulers. As has usually happened in the history of the country, the persecuted Bogomiles flocked to the standard of the invader, and Bosnia seemed to be at his feet. But the walls of Bobovatz, behind which lay the lovely daughter of the ban, whom Dushan had demanded in marriage for his son, resisted his attacks, and he marched away southward through the Herzegovina to Cattaro. Next year the hostilities ceased, and as a further security Kotromanich found a husband for his daughter in King Louis the Great of Hungary, his old ally.

The internal condition of Bosnia was less fortunate, however, in the hands of Kotromanich than its external relations. The power of the Bogomiles had greatly increased before his accession; they had a complete organisation—a spiritual head called djed, or “grandfather,” with a seat at Janjichi, and twelve “teachers” under him—while there was not a single Catholic bishop living in the country. Moreover the rival orders of Dominicans and Franciscans had begun to fight for the exclusive privilege of applying the tortures of the Inquisition to the Bosnian heretics—a conflict which naturally favoured the growth of that heresy. Under these circumstances Kotromanich began his reign by openly favouring the Bogomiles, who formed the bulk of his armies and were his best bulwark against foreign aggression so long as he was their protector. But in 1340, on the persuasion of the King of Hungary, he committed the political blunder of embracing the Catholic faith and thus making his Bogomile subjects look upon Stephen Dushan as their legitimate champion. The evil results of his ecclesiastical policy were apparent when the great Serbian Tsar invaded his dominions.

Stephen Kotromanich, whose memory is preserved by his seal, the earliest Bosnian coins and seven documents issued in his name[895], died in 1353, and his nephew Tvrtko succeeded him. Tvrtko is the greatest name in Bosnian history, and his long reign of nearly forty years, first as ban and then as first King of Bosnia, marks the zenith of that country’s power. Beginning his career under circumstances of great difficulty, and even driven at one moment from his throne, he lived to make himself King not merely of Bosnia, but of Serbia, Croatia and Dalmatia as well, and to unite beneath his sceptre a vast agglomeration of territory, such as no other Bosnian ruler has ever governed.

The first seventeen years of his reign were spent in a desperate but successful struggle for the mastery of his own house. He was a mere boy at the death of his uncle, and his mother, who acted as regent, was too weak to cope with the disorders of the time. The magnates, many of whom were zealous Bogomiles, were contemptuous of one who was both a child and a Catholic, while they would have welcomed the great Serbian Tsar Dushan, had he found time to repeat his invasion of Bosnia. But the death of that monarch on his way to the siege of Constantinople in 1355 broke up the Serbian Empire for ever and removed all fear of a Serbian occupation of Bosnia. But with the removal of this danger another arose. Louis the Great of Hungary had welcomed the growth and independence of Bosnia so long as the Serbian Empire existed as a menace to his own dominions; but, as soon as that Empire fell, he revived the ambitious designs of his predecessors upon the Bosnian realm. As the son-in-law of the late ban he had some claims to the succession, and accordingly set to work to humiliate Tvrtko and reduce him to a position of dependence upon the Hungarian crown. He compelled him to surrender the Herzegovina, as far as the Narenta, as the dowry of the Hungarian queen, and to take a solemn oath that he would persecute the Bogomiles, that he would support Hungary in war, and that either he or his younger brother Stephen Vuk would always reside at the Hungarian court. In return he allowed him to remain Bosnian ban—a mere puppet without power. But the crafty Louis, in his desire to be absolute master of Bosnia overreached himself. Determined to be doubly sure of his vassal, he incited the Bosnian magnates to revolt against their chief. But those proud nobles, who had never regarded their ban as anything more than the first of their order, had no intention of exchanging his easy sway for the iron hand of the Hungarian King. Louis saw his mistake, and supported Tvrtko against the barons and the Bogomiles. But the rebels would not recognise the authority of one who relied upon Hungarian swords to enforce it. Aided by his brother they deposed and drove out Tvrtko in 1365, and it cost him a desperate struggle to recover his power. Bosnia was given up to all the horrors of civil war, and, to crown all, a terrible conflagration, the like of which had never been seen before, broke out and destroyed everything that came in its way. “At that time,” writes a chronicler, “the highest mountains, with the stones, birds, and beasts upon them, were consumed with fire, so that the hills became plains, where new corn is sown and many a village stands. And in these villages dwell Bogomiles, who boast that God set these mountains ablaze for their sake.” At last Tvrtko prevailed, and in 1370 he was undisputed master of the country and his brother an exile.

Freed from all fear of Louis, whose eyes were turned northward to Poland, and master of his rebellious barons, Tvrtko began to extend his dominions. The decline of the Serbian Empire gave him the opportunity which he sought. Lazar, perhaps the most unfortunate name in Serbian history, governed a remnant of that realm, which was threatened by dissensions from within and the Turks from without. Tvrtko aided him against his domestic rivals and received in return large portions of Serbian territory, including a strip of coast as far as Cattaro and the famous castle and monastery of Mileshevo, in the modern sandjak of Novibazar, where lay the remains of St Sava, the apostle of the Serbs. In virtue of this territory, he considered himself the legitimate successor of the Serbian monarchs, and while Lazar contented himself with the modest title of knez, or “prince,” Tvrtko had himself crowned in 1376 on the grave of St Sava at Mileshevo with two diadems, that of Bosnia and that of Serbia. Henceforth he styled himself “Stephen Tvrtko, King of the Serbs and of Bosnia and of the coast.” All his successors retained the Serbian title which he could claim as great-grandson of Stephen Dragutin, and, like the Serbian monarchs, invariably adopted, as Tvrtko had done, the royal name of Stephen. Not a voice was raised against this assumption of kingly power. Ragusa, ever anxious to be on good terms with those in authority, was the first to recognise him as the legal successor of the Serbian sovereigns, and promptly paid him the annual tribute which she had rendered to them on the feast of St Demetrios, as well as a sum for trading privileges in Bosnia. Venice followed suit and addressed him as “King of Serbia,” and the King of Hungary was too busy to protest. Tvrtko proceeded to live up to his new dignities. He moved his residence from Srebrenik to Sutjeska and the strong castle of Bobovatz, the picturesque ruins of which still testify to the past glories of the first Bosnian King. Here Tvrtko organised a court on the Byzantine model, as the rulers of Serbia had done before him. Rough Bosnian barons held courtly offices with high-sounding Greek names, and privileges and honours were distributed from the throne. Hitherto Bosnian coins had been scarce, and Ragusan, Hungarian and Venetian pieces had fulfilled most purposes of trade. But now money, of which excellent specimens still exist, was minted bearing the proud title of “king” instead of that of ban, and displaying a visored helmet surmounted by a crown of fleurs-de-lis with a hop blossom above. Tvrtko took his new office very seriously as a King by the grace of God, animated, as he once wrote, “with the wish to raise up that which is fallen and to restore that which is destroyed[896].”

III. THE KINGS OF BOSNIA (1376-1463).

Tvrtko’s first care was to provide himself with an heir to his kingdom, and he chose a Bulgarian princess as his queen, by whom he had a son, afterwards King Stephen Tvrtko II. But, not content with the dignity and the territory which he now possessed, the Bosnian monarch aspired to found a sea power. He had, as we have seen, already gained a long strip of seaboard from the mouth of the Cetina up to the walls of Cattaro. But Ragusa, with its harbour Gravosa, the gem of the whole coast, was not, and never seemed likely to be, his. He accordingly resolved, as he could not capture Ragusa, to found at the entrance of the lovely Bocche di Cattaro a new station, which should become its rival and the outlet of all the inland trade. The picturesque little town of Castelnuovo stands on the spot to-day, a place over which for a brief period in the last century there floated the British flag. Tvrtko next obtained from Venice an Admiral for his future fleet, and ordered galleys to be built there. And, amidst the confusion which followed the death of Louis the Great of Hungary, he obtained from the little Queen Maria, as the price of his friendship, the ancient city of Cattaro, which, after having enjoyed the protection of the Serbian Tsars, had lately acknowledged the Hungarian rule. The finest fiord in Southern Europe was in his hands.

But Tvrtko did not rest here. True to his policy of making profit out of the misfortunes of others, he availed himself of the disturbances which now broke out in Croatia to take the side of the Croats against their Queen and his friend Maria. Croatia was soon in his hands, and the Dalmatian towns began to surrender. Spalato and Traù, unable to obtain help from Hungary, agreed to submit to him by a certain day; but when that day arrived Tvrtko was occupied elsewhere. For on the same day on which Spalato was to have opened its gates, June 15, 1389, the battle of Kossovo was fought, that battle which decided for five centuries the fate of the Balkan peninsula. In that memorable conflict, the name of which will never be forgotten by the Southern Slavs, a Bosnian contingent aided the Serbian army against the Turks. It was not the first time that the Bosniaks had faced their future masters in battle. Two years earlier they had helped Prince Lazar to rout a Turkish force, and they hoped for the same result on the plain of Kossovo. Tvrtko himself was not present at the fight; but his trusty lieutenant Vlatko Hranich inflicted heavy losses on the left wing of the Turkish host, which was commanded by the Sultan’s second son. But, according to the traditional account, when the Serbian traitor Vuk Brankovich rode off the field the faithful Bosniaks gave way. All was lost, and the Turkish supremacy was assured. Tvrtko at first believed that his army had been successful. There is extant a letter in which the city of Florence congratulated him on the glad tidings of victory which he had sent. “Happy the kingdom of Bosnia,” says this document, “to which it was granted to fight so famous a fight, and happiest of all your majesty, for whom, as the victor, the true and eternal glory of the heavenly kingdom is appointed[897].”

Even when he had discovered the terrible truth Tvrtko continued his Dalmatian campaign instead of concentrating all his energies upon the defence of his realm against the Turks. He used the brief respite which they gave his land to press on with his operations in the west. Here he was speedily successful. All the Dalmatian coast towns, except Zara and Ragusa, surrendered to him, as well as the large islands of Brazza, Lesina and Curzola. Overjoyed at their submission, he confirmed the privileges which they had previously enjoyed, and treated them with the utmost consideration. Master of Dalmatia and Croatia in all but the name, he assumed in 1390 the title of King of those countries, just as fourteen years earlier he had proclaimed himself King of Bosnia and Serbia. Tvrtko had now reached the summit of his power. He had achieved the difficult feat of uniting Serbs and Croats under one sceptre; he had made Bosnia the centre of a great kingdom, which possessed a frontage on the Adriatic, from the Quarnero to Cattaro, save for the enclaves of Zara and Ragusa, which embraced the territory inland as far as the river Drina and included part of the modern sandjak of Novibazar, as well as other originally Serbian territories. The beginnings of a sea power had been formed under his auspices, and Dalmatia in union with Bosnia was no longer “a face without a head.” Even now Tvrtko’s ambition was not appeased. He was anxious to conclude a political alliance with Venice and a matrimonial alliance—for his wife had just died—with the great house of Habsburg. But death prevented the accomplishment of his designs. On March 23, 1391, the great Bosnian monarch expired without even being able to secure the succession for his son.

It has been the fortune of each of the various Balkan races to produce some great man, who for a brief space has made himself the foremost figure of the peninsula. Bulgaria can point to her mighty Tsars Symeon and Samuel, Serbia cherishes the memory of Stephen Dushan, the Albanians have found a national hero in Skanderbeg, Bosnia attained her zenith under Tvrtko I. But in each case with the death of the great man the power which he had rapidly acquired as rapidly waned. Tvrtko’s realm was no exception to this rule. Its founder had not lived long enough to weld his conquests into an harmonious whole, to combine Catholic Croats with Orthodox Serbs, Bosnian Slavs with the Latin population of the Dalmatian coast towns, Bogomile heretics with zealous partisans of Rome. The old Slavonic law of succession, which did not recognise the custom of primogeniture, added to the difficulties by multiplying candidates; and thus foreign princes found an excuse for intervention and the great barons an excuse for independence. Deprived of his authority, the King was unable to cope with an enemy like the Turk, whose vast hosts were absolutely united in their obedience to the rule of one man, and the Kings of Hungary, instead of assisting their brothers of Bosnia against the common foe, turned their forces against a country which might have been the bulwark of Christendom.

The evil effects of Tvrtko’s death were soon felt. His younger brother, or cousin[898], Stephen Dabisha, who succeeded him, felt himself too feeble to govern so large a kingdom, and in 1393 ceded the newly won lands of Dalmatia and Croatia to King Sigismund of Hungary. The two monarchs met at Djakovo, in Slavonia, and concluded an agreement by which Sigismund recognised Dabisha as King of Bosnia, while Dabisha bequeathed the Bosnian crown after his death to Sigismund. A combination of Bosnian magnates and Croatian rebels, however, refused to accept these terms, and Dabisha himself broke the treaty which he had made. An Hungarian invasion of his Kingdom and the capture of the strong fortress of Dobor, on the lower Bosna, at once reduced him to submission, and a battle before the walls of Knin, in Dalmatia, finally severed the brief connection between that country and the Bosnian throne. To complete Dabisha’s misfortunes, the Turks, who had been in no undue haste to make use of their victory at Kossovo, invaded Bosnia for the first time in 1392, and gave that country a foretaste of what was to come.

On Dabisha’s death in 1395 the all-powerful magnates, disregarding the treaty of Djakovo, made his widow, Helena Gruba, regent for his son. But they retained for themselves all real power, governing their domains as almost independent princes, maintaining their own courts and issuing charters, coining their own money and negotiating on their own account with foreign states, such as the Republics of Venice and Ragusa. One of their number, Hrvoje Vuktchich, towered above his fellows, and his career may be regarded as typical of his troublous times. For the next quarter of a century Bosnian history is little else than the story of his intrigues, and the neighbouring lands of Dalmatia and Croatia felt his heavy hand. Even Sigismund, King of Hungary, and his Neapolitan rival, Ladislaus, were bidding against one another for his support, and at the end of the fourteenth century he was “the most powerful man between the Save and the Adriatic, the pillar of two Kings and Kingdoms.” The shrewd Ragusans wrote to him that “whatsoever thou dost command in Bosnia is done”; the documents of the period style him regulus Bosnensis, or “Bosnian kinglet”; he called himself “the grand voivode of the Bosnian Kingdom and vicar-general of the most gracious sovereigns King Ladislaus and King Ostoja, the excellent lord, the Duke of Spalato.” The three great islands of Brazza, Curzola, and Lesina, and the city of Cattaro owned his overlordship, and his name will always be connected with the lovely town of Jajce, at the confluence of the Pliva and the Vrbas, the most beautiful spot in all Bosnia. Here, above the magnificent waterfall on the hill, for which in olden times the Bosnian bans and the Croatian Kings had striven, Hrvoje bade an Italian architect build him a castle. Whether the town of Jajce, “the egg,” derives its name from the shape of the hill or from the fact that the castle was modelled on the famous Castello dell’ Uovo at Naples, is doubtful. But he is now regarded as the founder of the catacombs, which still bear his arms and were intended to serve as his family vault[899]. For his capital of Spalato he even issued coins, which circulated in Bosnia as freely as the currency of the puppet kings whom he put on the throne. What Warwick the king-maker is in the history of England, what the mayors of the palace are in the history of France, that is Hrvoje in the annals of mediæval Bosnia. An ancient missal has preserved for us the features of this remarkable man, whose gruff voice and rough manners disgusted the courtly nobles of the Hungarian court. But the uncouth Bosniak took a terrible revenge on his gentle critics. When a wit made fun of his big head and deep voice by bellowing at him like an ox, the company laughed at Hrvoje’s discomfiture. But when, a little later, the fortune of war put the jester in his power, Hrvoje had him sewn into the skin of an ox and thrown into the river, with the words, “Thou hast once in human form imitated the bellowing of an ox, now therefore take an ox’s form as well.”

The great Turkish invasion, which took place in 1398 and almost entirely ruined Bosnia, convinced the great nobles that a woman was unfitted to rule. Headed by Hrvoje, they accordingly deposed Helena Gruba, and elected Stephen Ostoja, probably an illegitimate son of Tvrtko, as their King. So long as Ostoja obeyed the dictates of his all-powerful vassal he kept his throne. Under Hrvoje’s guidance he repulsed the attack of King Sigismund of Hungary, who had claimed the overlordship of Bosnia in accordance with the treaty of Djakovo, and endeavoured to recover Dalmatia and Croatia for the Bosnian crown under the pretext of supporting Sigismund’s rival, Ladislaus of Naples. But the latter showed by his coronation at Zara as King of both those lands that he had no intention of allowing them to become Bosnian possessions, as in the days of Tvrtko. Ostoja at this changed his policy, made his peace with Sigismund, and recognised him as his suzerain. But he had forgotten his maker. Hrvoje, aided by the Ragusans, laid siege to the royal castle of Bobovatz, where the crown was preserved, and when Sigismund intervened on behalf of his puppet summoned an “assembly” or “congregation of the Bosnian lords” in 1404 to choose a new King. This great council of nobles, at which the djed, or primate of the Bogomile church, and his suffragans were present, is frequently mentioned at this period, and contained in a rude form the germs of those representative institutions which in our own country sprang from a like origin. Hrvoje easily persuaded the council to depose Ostoja and elect Tvrtko II, the legitimate son of Tvrtko I, in his place. But Sigismund was not so lightly convinced. After a first futile attempt he sought the aid of the Pope in a crusade against “the renegade Arians and Manichæans” and marched into Bosnia in 1408 at the head of a large army. Tvrtko II met him beneath the walls of Dobor, on the same spot where, fourteen years before, another great battle had been fought. Once again the Bosnian forces were defeated. Sigismund took Tvrtko as his prisoner to Buda-Pesth, after beheading 126 captive Bosnian nobles and throwing their bodies into the yellow waters of the Bosna. The victory had decisive results. Hrvoje humbled himself before the King of Hungary, and Ladislaus of Naples sold all his rights to Dalmatia to the Venetians in despair. But the national party in Bosnia was not so easily dismayed. Nothing daunted by the defeat of Tvrtko and the desertion of Hrvoje, they restored Ostoja to the throne. Utter confusion followed. Sigismund dismembered the country, placing Usora and Soli again under Hungarian bans, bestowing the valuable mining district of Srebrenitza upon the Despot of Serbia to be an apple of discord between the two Serb states, and leaving Ostoja the Herzegovina and South Bosnia alone, while even there every one did what was right in his own eyes, and members of the royal family lived by highway robbery. Well might the Ragusans complain that “our people travel among the Turks and other heathen, yet nowhere have they met with so much harm as in Bosnia.” Yet one step lower was Ostoja to fall. Hard pressed by the Hungarians and his released rival Tvrtko, he summoned in 1415 the Turks to his aid, and thus set an example which was ultimately fatal to his country.

Since their great invasion in 1398 the Turks had not molested Bosnia. Their struggle with Timour the Tartar in Asia and the confusion which followed his great victory at Angora had temporarily checked their advance in Europe, and it was not till their reorganisation under Mohammed I that they resumed their plans. They were accordingly free to accept the invitation of Ostoja and Hrvoje, who was now in opposition to the Hungarian court, and aided them to drive out the Hungarian army. The decisive battle was fought near the fortress of Doboj, the picturesque ruins of which command the junction of the rivers Bosna and Spretcha. A stratagem of the Bosniaks, who cried out at a critical moment, “The Magyars are fleeing,” won the day. But they could not rid themselves of their Turkish allies so easily. In the very next year Mohammed appointed his general Isaac governor of the castle of Vrhbosna (“the source of the Bosna”), which stood in the heart of the country, on the site of the present capital of Sarajevo, and even great Bosnian nobles were not ashamed to hold their lands by grace of the Sultan and his governor. Under Ostoja’s son, Stephen Ostojich, who succeeded as King in 1418, the country obtained a brief respite from the Turkish garrison, which quitted Vrhbosna. But three years later the restoration of Tvrtko II, after further years of exile, gave the Sultan another opportunity for intervention. For Tvrtko’s title was disputed by Ostoja’s bastard son, Radivoj, who called in the Turks to his aid, and was seen by the traveller, De la Brocquière[900] as a suppliant of the Sultan at Adrianople in 1433. Tvrtko purchased a temporary peace by the surrender of several towns to them; but the fatal secret had been divulged that the Sultan was the arbiter of Bosnia, and to him two other enemies of the King turned, the Despot of Serbia and Sandalj Hranich, a great Bosnian magnate of the house of Kosatcha, who was all-powerful in the Herzegovina, so that Chalkokondyles calls it “Sandalj’s country[901].” The two partners bought the Bosnian Kingdom from the Sultan for hard cash, and Tvrtko was once more an exile. In 1436 the Turks again occupied Vrhbosna, which from that time became a place of arms, from which they could sally forth and ravage the land, and when Tvrtko returned in the same year it was as a mere tributary of the Sultan Murad II, who received an annual sum of 25,000 ducats from his vassal, and issued charters as the sovereign of the country. Soon Murad overran Serbia, and occupied the former Bosnian towns of Zvornik and Srebrenitza, which the Serbian Despot still held, so that it seemed as if the independence of Bosnia was over. Tvrtko knew not which way to turn. He implored the Venetians, who twenty years before had taken the former Bosnian haven of Cattaro under their protection, and were now masters of nearly all Dalmatia, to take over the government of his Kingdom too. But the crafty Republic declined the dangerous honour with many complimentary phrases. With Ladislaus IV of Hungary he was more fortunate. He did not, indeed, survive to see the fulfilment of the Hungarian King’s promise, for he was murdered by his subjects in 1443. But the help of John Hunyady, the great champion of Christendom, enabled his successor to stave off for another twenty years the final blow which was to annihilate the Bosnian Kingdom.

With Tvrtko II the royal house of Kotromanich was extinct, and the magnates elected Stephen Thomas Ostojich, another bastard son of Ostoja, as their King. Ostojich, whose birth and humble marriage diminished his influence over his proud nobles, came to the conclusion that it would enhance his personal prestige, and at the same time strengthen his Kingdom against the Turks, if he embraced the Roman Catholic faith. His father and all his family had been Bogomiles, like most Bosnian magnates of that time, but Tvrtko II was a Catholic and a great patron of the Franciscans, who had suffered severely from the Turkish inroads. The conversion of Ostojich was full of momentous consequences for his Kingdom; for, although he was personally disinclined to persecute the sect to which he had belonged, and which had practically become the established church of the land, the pressure of his protector Hunyady, the Franciscans, and the Pope soon compelled him to take steps against it. He was convinced that by so doing he would drive the Bogomiles, who formed the vast majority of the people, into the arms of the Turks, and the event justified his fears. But he had little choice, for the erection of Catholic churches did not satisfy the zeal of the Franciscans. Accordingly in 1446 an assembly of prelates and barons met at Konjitza, the beautiful town on the borders of the Herzegovina, through which the traveller now passes on the railway from Sarajevo to Mostar. The document embodying the resolutions of this grand council has been preserved, and bears the name and seal of the King[902]. It provided that the Bogomiles “shall neither build new churches nor restore those that are falling into decay,” and that “the goods of the Catholic Church shall never be taken from it.” No less than 40,000 of the persecuted sect emigrated to the Herzegovina in consequence of this decree, and found there a refuge beneath the sway of the great magnate Stephen Vuktchich, of the house of Kosatcha, who had succeeded his uncle Sandalj in 1435, made himself practically independent of his liege lord of Bosnia and was at the same moment on good terms with the Turks and a strong Bogomile. Thus the old Bosnian realm was practically divided in two; Stephen Vuktchich, by posing as a defender of the national faith, received a considerable accession of subjects, and the Emperor Frederick III bestowed upon him in 1448 the title of Herzog, or Duke, of St Sava, from which his land gradually derived its present name of Herzegovina[903]. But both Bosnia and the sister land were soon to feel the hand of the Turk.

The accession of Mohammed II to the Turkish throne in 1451 was the beginning of a new era for the Balkan peoples. Since the battle of Kossovo the Sultans had been content to allow the Serbs the shadow of independence under Despots of their own, while Bosnia had bought off invasion by a tribute, more or less regularly paid, according to the vicissitudes of the Ottoman power. But the new Sultan resolved to bring the whole peninsula under his immediate sway, and lost no time in putting his plans into execution. The capture of Constantinople startled the whole of Christendom, and the great victory of Hunyady before the walls of Belgrade was small compensation for that hero’s death. There was no one left to champion the cause of the Balkan Christians, who were still occupied with their own miserable jealousies. Bosniaks and Serbs were disputing the possession of the frontier towns, which the Kings of Hungary had long ago made an apple of discord between them, and Duke Stephen of the Herzegovina was invoking the aid of the Turks at the very moment when all religious and racial enmities should have been silenced in the presence of the common foe. But it has been the misfortune of the Balkan peoples to have, like the Bourbons, learnt nothing and forgotten nothing in their centuries of suffering. They have never, save during the Balkan war of 1912-13, learnt the lesson of their mutual jealousies, and have never forgotten their historic aspirations from which those jealousies spring.

The King of Bosnia in this extremity sought aid from the west of Europe. As an obedient son of the Roman Church, he had a right to expect the help of the Pope; as a friend of the Venetians, he felt entitled to the support of the Doge. But he met with little response to his appeals. Venice, selfish as ever, was not anxious to embroil herself in Bosnian affairs, and the Pope contented himself with proclaiming a new crusade, addressing the King as the “warrior of Christ,” and promising him “a glorious victory,” in which no one else seemed desirous to share. Under these circumstances Ostojich had no alternative but to pay the tribute, which he had refused in the first flush of Hunyady’s victory at Belgrade. The one bright speck on the dark horizon was the possibility of the union of Bosnia and Serbia under one ruler by the marriage of Stephen Tomashevich, eldest son of Ostojich, with the eldest daughter of the Serbian Despot[904]. On the latter’s death in 1458, the King of Hungary acknowledged Stephen Tomashevich as Despot of all Serbia as far as the river Morava, and it seemed for the moment as if the ancient jealousies of the two neighbouring States had been finally settled and a new bulwark erected against the Turks. But the aggrandisement of the Bosnian royal family only increased its responsibilities. The important town of Semendria, which the Despot George Brankovich had founded on the Danube years before as a refuge from his enemies, and the two-and-twenty square towers of which still stand out defiant of all the ravages of Turks or Time, was strongly fortified, but its inhabitants regarded their new master, a zealous Catholic and a Hungarian nominee, as a worse foe than the Sultan himself. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume, with Pope Pius II and the King of Hungary, that Bosnian treachery betrayed them. When Mohammed II arrived at their gates they surrendered without a blow. The other Serbian towns followed the example of Semendria, and in 1459 Serbia had ceased to exist as a State and became a Pashalik of the Turkish Empire. It was the turn of Bosnia next. But Ostojich was spared the spectacle of his country’s fall. Two years later he fell in an obscure quarrel in Croatia by the hands of his brother Radivoj and his own son, Stephen Tomashevich, who succeeded to the sorry heritage of the Bosnian throne, of which he was to be the last occupant.

Stephen, son of Thomas, lost no time in seeking the aid of the Pope against the impending storm. “I was baptized as a child,” he said through the mouths of his envoys, “and have learnt to read out of Latin books. I wish, therefore, that thou wouldst send me a crown and holy bishops as a sign that thou wilt not forsake me. I pray thee also to bid the King of Hungary to go with me to the wars, for so alone can Bosnia be saved. For the Turks have built several fortresses in my kingdom and are very friendly to the peasants, to whom they promise freedom; and the limited understanding of the peasant observes not their deceit, for he believes that this freedom will last for ever. And Mohammed’s ambition knows no bounds; after me, he will attack Hungary and the Dalmatian possessions of Venice, and then march by way of Carniola and Istria into Italy, which he means to subdue; even of Rome he ofttimes speaks, and yearns to have it. But I shall be his first victim. My father foretold to thy predecessor and the Venetians the fall of Constantinople, and now I prophesy that if ye help me I shall be saved; but if not, I shall fall, and others with me.” To this eloquent appeal, which so exactly depicted the position of affairs, the Pope replied by sending his legates to the coronation—the first and last instance of a Bosnian King receiving his crown from Rome. The ceremony took place in the lovely citadel of Jajce, Hrvoje’s ancient seat, whither the new King had transferred his residence from Bobovatz for greater security. The splendour of that day and the absolute unanimity of the great nobles in support of their lord cast a final ray of light over the last page of Bosnia’s history as a Kingdom. Tomashevich made peace with all his own and his father’s enemies—with the King of Hungary, with his stepmother, Queen Catherine, and with her father, the proud Duke Stephen Vuktchich of the Herzegovina, now seriously alarmed at the advance of the Turks, who had placed a governor at Fotcha and had carved what was called the “Bosnian province” out of the district round it. The King assumed all the pompous titles of his predecessors—the sovereignty of Serbia, Dalmatia and Croatia—at a time when he could not defend his own land, and made liberal grants of privileges to Ragusa at the moment when he was imploring the Venetians to grant him a castle on the coast as a place of refuge.

The storm was not long in breaking. Mohammed II, learning that Tomashevich had promised the King of Hungary to refuse the customary tribute to the Turk, sent an envoy to demand payment. The Bosnian monarch took the envoy into his treasury and showed him the money collected for the tribute. “I do not intend,” he said, “to send the Sultan so much treasure and so rob myself of it. For should he attack me, I shall get rid of him the easier if I have money; and, if I must flee to another land, I shall live more pleasantly by means thereof[905].” So the envoy returned and told his master, and his master vowed vengeance upon the King. In the spring of 1463 he assembled a great army in Adrianople for the conquest of Bosnia. Alarmed at the result of his own defiant refusal Tomashevich sent an embassy at the eleventh hour to ask for a fifteen years’ truce. Konstantinovich, a Serbian renegade, who was an eye-witness of these events, has fortunately preserved the striking scene of Mohammed’s deceit. Concealed behind a money-chest in the Turkish treasury, he heard the Sultan’s two chief advisers decide upon the plan of campaign. “We will grant the truce,” said one of them, “and forthwith march against Bosnia, else we shall never take it, for it is mountainous, and besides, the King of Hungary and the Croats and other princes will come to its aid.” So Mohammed granted the envoys the truce which they desired, and they prepared to return and tell the good news to the King. But early next day the eavesdropper went and warned them that in the middle of the next week the Turkish army would follow on their heels. But they laughed at his tale, for they believed the word of the Sultan. Yet, sure enough, four days after their departure, Mohammed set out. One detachment of his army he sent to the Save to prevent the King of Hungary from effecting a junction with the Bosniaks, while the rest he led in person to Sjenitza, on the Bosnian frontier. His march had been so rapid and so secret that he encountered little or no resistance, until he reached the ancient castle of Bobovatz, which had stood so many a siege in Bosnia’s stormy history. The fate of this old royal residence was typical of that of the land. Its governor, Prince Radak, had been converted by force from the Bogomile faith to Catholicism. He could have defended the fortress for years even against the great Turkish army, if his heart had been in the cause. But he was, like so many of his countrymen, a Bogomile first and a Bosniak afterwards. On the third day of the siege he opened the gates to Mohammed, who found among the inmates the two envoys, whom he had so lately duped. Radak met with the fitting reward of his treachery. When he claimed from Mohammed the price for which he had stipulated, the conqueror asked him how he could keep faith with a Turk when he had betrayed his Christian master, and had him beheaded. The giant cliff of Radakovitza served as the scaffold, and still preserves the name, of the traitor.

The fall of the virgin fortress filled the Bosniaks with dismay. At the news of Mohammed’s invasion, Stephen Tomashevich had withdrawn with his family to his capital of Jajce, hoping to raise an army and get help from abroad while the invader was expending his strength before the walls of Bobovatz. But its surrender left him no time for defence. He fled at once towards Croatia, closely followed by the van of Mohammed’s army. At the fortress of Kljuch (rightly so-called, as being a “key” of Bosnia) the pursuers came up with the fugitive. The secret of the King’s presence inside was betrayed to the Turks; and their commander, anxious to avoid a lengthy siege, promised Tomashevich in writing that, if he surrendered, his life should be spared. The King relied upon the pardon and gave himself up to Mohammed’s lieutenant, who brought him as his prisoner to the Sultan at Jajce. Meanwhile, the capital, like the King, had thrown itself upon the mercy of the conqueror, and thus, almost without a blow, the three strongest places in Bosnia had fallen. Tomashevich himself helped the Sultan to complete his conquest. He wrote, at his captor’s direction, letters to all his generals and captains, bidding them surrender their towns and fortresses to the Turk. In a week more than seventy obeyed his commands, and before the middle of June, 1463, Bosnia was a Turkish Pashalik, and Mohammed, with the captive King in his train, set out for the subjection of the Herzegovina. But the “heroic Herzegovina” offered greater obstacles to the invader than “lofty Bosnia.” Against those bare limestone rocks the Turkish cavalry was useless, while the natives, accustomed to every cranny of the crags, harassed the strangers with a ceaseless guerilla warfare. Duke Stephen and his son, Vladislav, who in better days had wasted their energies in civil war, now joined hands against the common foe, and Mohammed, after a fruitless attempt to capture his capital of Blagaj, withdrew to Constantinople. But before he left he resolved to rid himself of that encumbrance, the King of Bosnia, who could now be no longer of use to his conqueror. Mohammed was bound by the solemn promise of his lieutenant to spare his prisoner’s life. But, as soon as his wishes were known, a legal excuse was invented for his inexcusable act of treachery. A learned Persian in his camp, Ali Bestami by name, pronounced the pardon to be invalid because it had been granted without the previous consent of the Sultan. Mohammed thereupon summoned Tomashevich to his presence on the “Emperor’s meadow,” near Jajce, whereupon the lithe Persian drew his sword, and, with a spring in the air, cut off the head of the last Bosnian King. According to another version, Tomashevich was first flayed alive. By the command of the Sultan, the fetva, in which Ali Bestami had composed the captive monarch’s sentence, was carved on the gate of Jajce, where as late as the middle of the last century could be read the words, “The true believer will not allow a snake to bite him twice from the same hole,” an allegory by which the pliant Persian strove to excuse his master’s treachery by representing his victim as the traitor. The body of Tomashevich was buried by order of the Sultan at a spot only just visible from the citadel of Jajce. In 1888 Dr Truhelka, the distinguished archæologist and custodian of the museum of Sarajevo, discovered on the right bank of the river Vrbas the skeleton of the King, the skull severed from the trunk just as history had said, with two small silver Hungarian coins, current in Bosnia in the fifteenth century, on the breast-bones. When the present writer visited Jajce, he found the skeleton set up in the Franciscan church there—a sad memorial of Bosnia’s past greatness. His portrait adorns the Franciscan monastery of Sutjeska. His uncle, Radivoj, and his cousin were executed after him; his half-brother and half-sister carried off as captives, and his widow, Maria, became the wife of a Turkish official[906].

Thus, after an existence of eighty-seven years, fell the Bosnian Kingdom. Mainly by the faults of her people and the mistakes of her rulers, mediæval Bosnia lost her independence. The country is naturally strong, and under the resolute government of one man, uniting all creeds and all classes beneath his banner, might have held out, like Montenegro, against the Turkish armies. But the jealousies of the nobles, and the still fiercer rivalries of the Roman Catholics and the Bogomiles, prepared the way for the invader, and when he came the persecuted heretics welcomed him as a deliverer, preferring “the mufti’s turban to the cardinal’s hat.” This lesson of Bosnia’s fall is full of meaning for our own time, and those who meditate on her future destinies should not forget her past mistakes. She is perhaps the best and the saddest example of what boundless mischief religious persecution can accomplish.

Bosnia had entered upon her four centuries of submission to the Turks. Her King was dead, his consort and his step-mother, Queen Catherine, in exile, and his people at the mercy of the conqueror. Many of them were enlisted in the Turkish corps of Janissaries; many more fled to Croatia, Istria and the Dalmatian towns; a few took to the mountains, like the more or less mythical hero Toma, the Robin Hood of the Bosnian ballads, and lived as brigands and outlaws; most of the Bogomiles embraced the faith of Islâm, and became in the course of generations more fanatical than the Turks themselves. It seemed as if they would be left in sole possession of the land, but the earnest appeal of a Franciscan monk induced Mohammed to grant the Christians the free exercise of their religion and thus stay the tide of emigration from the country. But, though Bosnia could not defend herself, the Turks were not allowed undisturbed possession. Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, had been outwitted by the rapid march of Mohammed, but in the autumn of the very year in which Bosnia fell he set out to her rescue. The campaign was successful, and, aided by Duke Stephen’s eldest son Vladislav[907], and a Herzegovinian contingent, the Hungarians recovered Jajce, Banjaluka, and about twenty-five other towns. Even the return of Mohammed in the next spring failed to secure the second surrender of Jajce. Such was the terror of the Hungarian arms that the mere report of the King’s approach made him throw his cannon into the Vrbas and raise the siege. Matthias Corvinus now organised the part of Bosnia which he had conquered from the Turks into two Duchies or banats, one of which took its name from Jajce and the other from Srebrenik. Over these territories, which embraced all Lower Bosnia, he placed Nicholas of Ilok, a Hungarian magnate, with the title of King. Thus, under Hungarian rule, two portions of the old Bosnian Kingdom remained free from the Turks for two generations more, serving as a “buffer State” between the Ottoman Power and the Christian lands of Croatia and Slavonia.

The Herzegovina, which had repulsed the conqueror of Bosnia, did not long survive the sister state. The great Duke Stephen Vuktchich died in 1466 and his three sons Vladislav, Vlatko and Stephen, divided his possessions between them. The eldest, however, whose quarrels with his father had wrought such infinite harm to his country, did not long govern the northern part of the Herzegovina, which fell to his share. He entered the Venetian service, and thence emigrated to Croatia, where he died. The second brother, Vlatko, assuming the title of Duke of St Sava re-united for a time the remains of the Duchy under his sole rule, relying now on Venetian, now on Neapolitan aid, but only secure as long as Mohammed II allowed him to linger on as a tributary of Turkey. In 1481 he ventured to invade Bosnia, but was driven back to seek shelter in his stronghold of Castelnuovo. Two years later Bayezid II annexed the Herzegovina, whose last reigning Duke died on the island of Arbe. The title continued, however, to be borne by Vladislav’s son, Peter Balsha, as late as 1511. The youngest embraced the creed and entered the service of the conqueror. Under the name of Ahmed Pasha Herzegovich[908], or, “the Duke’s son,” he gained a great place in Turkish history, and after having governed Anatolia and commanded the Ottoman fleet, attained to the post of Grand Vizier. His name and origin are still preserved by the little Turkish town of Hersek, on the Gulf of Ismid, near which he was buried.

All Bosnia and the Herzegovina, with the exception of the two newly formed banats of Jajce and Srebrenik, were now in the hands of the Turks. On the death of Nicholas of Ilok the meaningless title of “King of Bosnia” was dropped, and his successors contented themselves with the more modest name of ban, which had already been so familiar in Bosnian history. But the Turks did not allow the Hungarian viceroys undisturbed possession of their lands. Jajce became the great object of every Turkish attack, and against its walls the armies of Islâm dashed themselves again and again in vain. But after the capture of the banat of Srebrenik in 1520, it was clear that the doom of Jajce could not be long delayed. Two great feats of arms, however, shed lustre over the last years of the royal city. Usref, the Turkish governor of Bosnia, who will always be remembered as the founder of the noble mosque which is the chief beauty of Sarajevo, had vowed that he would succeed where his predecessors had failed. So he collected a large army and invested Jajce. But, finding force useless, he pretended to raise the siege, so as to take the place unawares. But Peter Keglevich, who was at that time its ban, easily outwitted his crafty assailant. He bade the wives and daughters of the garrison sally forth and dance and sing—for it was the eve of a festival—on the “King’s meadow” outside the walls. Deceived by this feint, the Turks made a night attack upon the town. As they came near, they heard the sound of the gusle and saw the feet of the maidens dancing in the moonlight on the green sward. The sight was more than they could bear. Casting their scaling ladders aside, they rushed upon the damsels instead of climbing the walls. At that moment Keglevich charged at the head of his men, while at the sound of the cannon a second detachment, which he had sent out into the woods, attacked the besiegers in the rear. Even the women bore their part in the fight, and not a Turk left the field alive. Once again Keglevich held his capital against the foe. Usref reappeared with a new army and laid siege to the city for a year and a half. Hunger began to make its appearance, even horse-flesh was unprocurable, and one mother threw her child into the Vrbas rather than see it die a lingering death; it seemed as if the garrison must surrender or starve. But Keglevich managed to despatch a trusty messenger to Buda-Pesth, where, in Count Frangipane he found a ready listener. Backed up by King Louis II of Hungary and the Pope, he raised an army and relieved the town, after a great battle. Frangipane received from the delighted King the title of “Defender and Protector of the Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia” in return for this signal service. But next year King Louis fell in the fatal battle of Mohács at the hands of the Turks, and from that moment Hungary was unable to protect her Bosnian outpost. Keglevich, weary of warfare and old in years, gave up the banat of Jajce to King Ferdinand I, who put a German garrison into the capital. But the German soldiers had had no experience of Turkish warfare, and their new commanders lacked the spirit of old Keglevich. Usref saw that the moment had come to redeem his former failures. Hungary and Croatia were in the throes of civil war, and not a hand was stretched out to save the doomed city. A ten days’ siege by the allied forces of Usref and his colleague, the Vizier of Serbia, was sufficient to make Jajce surrender. Banjaluka held out a little longer, and its brave governor set fire to the town rather than give it up to the enemy. With its fall, in 1528, all Bosnia was in the possession of the Turks, and for the next 170 years the German Emperors, who were now also Kings of Hungary, could make no effort to substantiate the old Hungarian claims to the lands south of the Save. Bosnia served as the starting-point from which Turkish armies ravaged their adjoining territories, and until the Ottoman power began to wane at the end of the seventeenth century, the Habsburgs had quite enough to do in defending their own land.

Left to themselves, the Turks organised the conquered provinces, without interfering with the feudal system, which had struck its roots so deep in Bosnian soil. A Turkish governor, called at first by the title of sandjak beg and then by those of Pasha and Vali, represented the majesty of the Sultan, and moved his residence according to the requirements of Turkish policy. In the early days his seat was at Vrhbosna, round which the city of Sarajevo grew up; but, as the Turkish arms advanced further, Banjaluka was chosen as the official capital, while, when they receded at the close of the seventeenth century, the Pasha moved to Travnik, whence he issued his proclamations as “Vali of Hungary.” But, however high-sounding his titles, the Turkish governor was often, as the Bosnian Kings had been, the mere figure-head, while all real power was in the hands of the great nobles, who gradually became hereditary headmen or capetans of the forty-eight divisions of the province. So strong was their influence that they long resisted all attempts to transfer the Turkish headquarters from Travnik back to Sarajevo, and permitted the Pasha to visit the present capital only on sufferance and to remain there no more than forty-eight hours. It was not till 1850 that Omar Pasha put down all resistance and re-established the seat of government at Sarajevo, where it has since remained. But throughout the Turkish period the native aristocracy of Bosnia merely tolerated the Sultan’s representatives, of whom there were no less than 214 in 415 years, or an average of one every twenty months, and at times even flatly refused to obey orders from Constantinople itself. In a word, Bosnia under the Turks was an aristocratic republic, with a titular foreign head.

The social condition of the country changed, indeed, very little with the change of government. The Bogomiles, who had formed the bulk of the old Bosnian aristocracy, hastened to embrace the faith of Islâm upon the Turkish invasion. They had preferred to be conquered by the Sultan than converted by the Pope; and, when once they had been conquered, they did not hesitate to be converted also. The Mussulman creed possessed not a few points of resemblance with their own despised heresy. It conferred, too, the practical advantage upon those who embraced it of retaining their lands and their feudal privileges. Thus Bosnia presents us with the curious phenomenon of an aristocratic caste, Slav by race yet Mohammedan by religion. Hence the country affords a striking contrast to Serbia. There the Mohammedans were never anything more than a foreign colony of Turks; here the Mohammedans were native Slavs, men of the same race as the Christians, whom they despised. But, while the Bosnian nobles, henceforth styled begs or agas according as they were of greater or less distinction, never forgot that they were Bosniaks, they displayed the customary zeal of converts, and out-Ottomaned the Ottomans in their religious fanaticism. On the one hand, they carefully preserved the heirlooms of their Bogomile forefathers, the Serb speech, and the old Glagolitic script; on the other, they were keener in the cause of Islâm than the Commander of the Faithful himself. The iron of papal persecution had entered into their ancestors’ souls, and the legacy thus inherited influenced the whole future of Bosnia. The Turks were not slow to recognise the merits of these new allies. It soon became a maxim of state that “one must be the son of a Christian renegade to attain to the highest dignities of the Turkish Empire.” In the long list of Pashas of Bosnia, we notice several who were called “the Bosniak” from their race. As early as 1470 we find mention of a native governor, Sinan Beg, who built the mosque at Tchajnitza, his birth-place. Just a century later a Herzegovinian renegade became Grand Vizier, and his successor was a member of the famous Bosnian family of Sokolovich, to whom tradition ascribes the foundation of Sarajevo. The natural aptitude of the Bosniaks for managing their own countrymen led the Sultans to choose their representatives from among them; for, in a highly aristocratic community like Bosnia, the head of an old family enjoyed far more respect, even though he were poor, than an upstart foreigner, who had nothing to commend him but his ostentation and his office. Now and again we hear of a Turkish governor like Usref, the conqueror of Jajce, whose word is supreme, and whose religious endowments are “richer than those in any other province of the Empire.” But the general rule is that the native nobles are the repositories of power, while the Sultan’s representative is a mere fleeting figure, here to-day and gone to-morrow.

While most of the Bogomiles had gone over to Islâm, there still remained some who adhered to the ancient doctrines of that maligned sect. The question has been much discussed as to the existence of these sectaries in Bosnia to-day. That some of them were still to be found in the beginning of the seventeenth century is clear from the report of a traveller of that period. A century and a half later the Franciscans asserted that the sect was extinct. This sweeping assertion does not, however, accord with later discoveries. There are parts of the Herzegovina, almost inaccessible till the construction of the railway from Sarajevo to Mostar, where traditions of the Bogomiles still linger. Thus, in the neighbourhood of Jablanitza, a region covered with Bogomile tombstones, the women, although Mohammedans, go unveiled—a custom all the more remarkable because the Mussulmans of Bosnia are, as a rule, far more particular about veiling than their co-religionists at Constantinople. It is, therefore, thought that this may be an old Bogomile observance, and it is stated by a recent ecclesiastical historian that only a few years before the Austrian occupation a family named Helej, living near Konjitza, abandoned the “Bogomile madness” for the Mohammedan faith.

Bosnia, “the lion that guards the gates of Stambûl,” as the Turkish annalists called her, had to bear the full brunt of the struggle between Christendom and Islâm, as soon as the power of the Turks was beaten back from before the walls of Vienna, and driven out from within the walls of Buda-Pesth. The tide of Ottoman invasion began to ebb at the close of the seventeenth century from Hungary, Croatia and Slavonia, and the rivers Save and Una once more formed the boundaries between the domains of the Crescent and the Cross. Not without reason did the Bosniaks talk of “going to Europe” when they traversed the Save.

And now, after more than a century and a half of forgetfulness, the House of Habsburg remembered the ancient claims of the Hungarian Crown to the old Bosnian Kingdom. Henceforth, from being the starting-point of every Turkish attack upon the Hungarian dominions, Bosnia became the object of every expedition from beyond the Save and the Una. Ten times did the Imperial troops enter the country without permanent results, until at last in our own days the Austro-Hungarian forces occupied it with the consent of Europe. The first expedition, led by Prince Louis of Baden in 1688, entered Bosnia from the east, captured Zvornik, but collapsed before the strong fortifications of Banjaluka. Two years later an Imperial general beat the Turks near Dolnja Tuzla, and took back a number of Catholic Bosniaks with him to Croatia. In that year, indeed, the condition of the country was most miserable. Famine and pestilence raged unchecked, and the quaint old Franciscan monk who wrote a chronicle of that time, tells us how “blood-red snow fell upon the mountains,” and how the devil went about with bow and arrows to slay the people. One memorial of that année terrible still remains in the shape of a Turkish copper coin, which was minted in Sarajevo to defray the expenses of the Turkish army, and is almost the only example of a separate Turkish currency for Bosnia. A third invasion from the side of Croatia in 1693, although fairly successful, pales beside the daring exploit of Prince Eugène in 1697. This twenty days’ campaign has never been forgotten, and it is all the more interesting, because the dashing Prince of Savoy took the same route which was followed by the main body of the Austro-Hungarian army in 1878. Crossing the Save at Brod with 6000 men, the Prince went straight up the valley of the Bosna, along the course of the present railway to Sarajevo, capturing on his way Doboj, Maglaj, Jeptche and the picturesque Vranduk, rightly named in Turkish “the gate” of the country. Sarajevo itself seemed at his mercy, but the Bosnian Christians did not respond to his appeals, there was no rising of the rajah in his favour, and he retired with an immense booty and 40,000 Christian refugees, whom he settled in Slavonia. The peace of Carlovitz two years later ratified the old boundaries of the Turk and Christendom.

But the war between the Emperor and the Sultan, which broke out in 1716, and was terminated by the peace of Passarovitz, had favourable, if only temporary, results for Bosnia as well as for Serbia. The military efforts of the Imperial troops in Bosnia were unsuccessful, but at the peace, just as Belgrade and half Serbia were rescued from the Turk, so also north Bosnia was transferred to the Emperor in his capacity of King of Hungary and Croatia. But the disastrous peace of Belgrade in 1739 restored all that had been gained at Passarovitz in 1718. The strategy of the Duke of Hildburghausen and Baron Raunach, the Imperial commanders in Bosnia, utterly failed before Ostrvitza and Banjaluka, and the Save and the Una once more became the frontiers. No Imperial army crossed them again for half a century, and even then it merely crossed to return empty-handed. The peace of Sistova in 1791 ratified that of Belgrade, and Bosnia remained, in spite of Austrian victories, a Turkish province, in fact till 1878, in name till 1908.

4. BALKAN EXILES IN ROME

Those of us who are students of Punch may remember a caricature, which appeared in 1848, the year of almost universal revolution. Two distinguished foreigners were represented as arriving at Claridge’s Hotel and asking for accommodation. “I regret,” replied the manager, “that I cannot oblige you; my hotel is entirely occupied by dethroned monarchs, all except one single-bedded room, and that I am reserving, in case of necessity, for His Holiness the Pope!” What London was to the royal refugees of western Europe in 1848, that was Rome to the Balkan exiles of the second half of the fifteenth century. The Pope was then their generous host, and the Borgo their Claridge’s Hotel. In the words of Pius II’s biographer, “he summoned to Rome almost all those whom the Turks had ejected from their homes, and contributed money for their maintenance[909].”

There has never been a period in the history of the Near East, when such a clean sweep has been made of principalities and powers. When Pope Nicholas V celebrated the mid-century Jubilee, the Balkan peninsula and the Levant were still largely occupied by a long series of Christian States, which had existed there for well-nigh 250 years. The romantic Duchy of Athens was still standing under the Acciajuoli of Florence; the Morea was divided between the two brothers Thomas and Demetrios Palaiologos; their more famous brother, the Emperor Constantine, had just left his Peloponnesian palace at Mistra, the Sparta of the Middle Ages, to ascend the throne of all the Cæsars at Constantinople. The Italian family of Crispo, from whom the greatest Italian statesman of our time traced his descent, still ruled from their castle at Naxos over the far-flung Duchy of the Archipelago. Another Italian clan, the Gattilusj of Genoa, in whose veins flowed both the Imperial blood of the Greek Emperors and that of the House of Savoy, were still governing the island of Lesbos and the city of Ænos in Thrace, with their respective dependencies. A Genoese syndicate, the Maona of the Giustiniani, the forerunner of the Chartered Companies of our time, managed the rich mastic-plantations of the island of Chios. The picturesque Kingdom of Cyprus, with which were united the long-empty titles of King of Jerusalem and King of Armenia, was still in the hands of the French family of Lusignan, to which our Richard Cœur-de-Lion had sold it more than two-and-a-half centuries earlier; but the most important Cypriote harbour, that of Famagosta, where the Lusignans had been wont to be crowned Kings of Jerusalem, had passed into the possession of the Genoese Bank of St George, that famous institution, whose palace, lately restored, is now the seat of the Genoese Harbour Board. The family of Tocco, whose ancestors had migrated to Greece from Benevento, had just lost almost the last fragment of its possessions on the Greek mainland, but still retained the County Palatine of Cephalonia, which embraced four of the Ionian Islands and included the mythical realm of Odysseus. Venice was still the Queen of the Adriatic. The whole of the Dalmatian coast was Venetian, save where the commercial Republic of Ragusa maintained that independence, of which the recently erected statue of Orlando was the symbol and still is the memorial. From the southern extremity of Dalmatia, a chain of Venetian harbours—Antivari, Dulcigno and Durazzo—names familiar to modern diplomacy—united the northern territories of Venice with her colony of Corfù. Far to the south she held Crete; off the east coast of Greece she occupied the long island of Eubœa. In the north of the Balkan peninsula, Serbia was still a Christian Principality, and the riches of its Prince, derived from the Serbian mines, were almost fabulous. Montenegro, under the first of its “Black Princes,” had started on its career of independence; Albania was still largely unconquered, owing to the heroic resistance of the great national hero, Skanderbeg; while its capital, Scutari, was still a Venetian colony. The mediæval Kingdom of Bosnia with its elaborate feudal system, still survived; the sister-land of the Herzegovina, then known as Hum, was ruled by a great Slav magnate, Stephen Vuktchich, who had lately received the title of Duke of St Sava, from which, in its German form of Herzog, his former Duchy to-day retains the name of the Herzegovina. Beyond the Danube, the two Roumanian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia were, the former still independent, the latter, if tributary, still restive. And far away on the shores of the Black Sea, the Greek Empire of Trebizond still lingered under the family of Grand-Komnenos—whose Princesses were the most beautiful women, whose Princes the most tragic figures of their time.

Such was the map of the Near East in 1450, on the eve of the accession of the greatest of the Sultans, Mohammed II. With his advent ancient Empires and mediæval Principalities disappeared as by magic, and a political earthquake shook the thrones of the Levant to their foundations. In 1453 the last Byzantine Emperor fell at his post on the walls of Constantinople; the oldest political institution in the world came to an end, and the Turkish capital was moved from Adrianople to the Bosporus. In 1456 Moldavia was made to pay tribute, the Gattilusj were driven from Ænos and the Acciajuoli from the city of Athens; in 1459 Serbia, in 1460 the Morea and the rest of the Duchy of Athens ceased to exist. Next year the Empire of Trebizond was incorporated with Turkey, the year following the Gattilusj no longer ruled over Lesbos. In 1463 the last native King of Bosnia was beheaded in the presence of the great Sultan on the meadow opposite the lovely city of Jajce; in 1468 the death of Skanderbeg deprived Albania of her brave defender. Two years later Venice lamented the loss of Eubœa, the greatest blow that had ever befallen the Republic. In 1479 the Tocchi were driven from their island county; by 1483 the Herzegovina was wholly Turkish. The rulers and nobles of most of these countries sought refuge in Rome, and thus the epilogue of the long and tragic drama of Balkan history was played here. Italy was their nearest land of refuge; it had been the cradle of many of their ancestors; and the Pope was the head of Western Christendom, to whom some of them had appealed in their distress.

The most notable of these distinguished exiles was the Despot Thomas Palaiologos, who sailed from Corfù for Ancona towards the end of 1460, accompanied by most of his magnates, and bearing the head of St Andrew, which had long been preserved at Patras. The relic was known to be a valuable asset in the dethroned Despot’s balance-sheet, although Amalfi already possessed a portion of the saint’s remains. Many Princes offered large sums for it, and its fortunate possessor had accordingly no difficulty in disposing of it to the Pope in return for an annuity. The precious relic was deposited for safety in the castle of Narni, while Thomas proceeded to Rome, where Pius II bestowed upon him the Golden Rose, the symbol of virtues which he had scarcely displayed in his long career of intrigue, a lodging in the Santo Spirito hospital, and an allowance of 300 gold pieces a month, to which the Cardinals added 200 more—a sum which his too numerous followers considered barely enough for his maintenance and certainly not for theirs. Venice, however, contributed a further sum of 500 ducats to his treasury, but the cautious Republic begged him not to return to Corfù or any of her other colonies, so as not to embarrass her then rather delicate relations with the Turks. Meanwhile, on April 12, 1462, the day after Palm Sunday, Pius II received the head of St Andrew at the Ponte Milvio, on the spot where the little chapel of that Apostle with its commemorative inscription now stands. A recent visit to the chapel, which has been completely isolated, and is now standing alone in a network of tramlines and roads, suggests the melancholy reflection that ere long it too may be sacrificed to that civile progresso, which has cost this city so many interesting mediæval monuments. Thomas’ fellow-countryman, the famous Cardinal Bessarion, handed the case containing the head to the Pope, who bade the sacred skull welcome among its relatives, the Romans, “the nephews of St Peter”—a ceremony depicted on the tomb of Pius II in Sant’ Andrea della Valle. Shortly afterwards, upon the death of his wife, whom he had left behind in Corfù, Thomas summoned his two sons, Andrew and Manuel, and his daughter Zoe to join him in Rome. But before they arrived, he died, on May 12, 1465, and was buried in the crypt of St Peter’s, where all efforts to find his grave have proved fruitless. But every visitor to Rome unconsciously gazes upon his features, for on account of his tall and handsome appearance he served as a model for the statue of St Paul, which still stands at the steps of St Peter’s.

Misfortunes make strange bedfellows, and a common disaster had brought together as exiles in Rome, condemned to live upon the papal charity, the former Greek Despot of the Morea and his enemy, the natural son of the last Frankish Prince of Achaia. After two centuries of conflict, the Greeks had succeeded, at the eleventh hour, in extinguishing the rule of the Franks in the peninsula, only to fall themselves before the all-conquering Turk. To consecrate the Greek conquest, Thomas Palaiologos had married the heiress of Centurione II Zaccaria, the last Frankish ruler, and the last legitimate descendant of a famous Genoese family, which had made a fortune out of the alum-mines of Phocæa on the coast of Asia Minor, become lords of the rich island of Chios in the days before the Chartered Company, and had at last attained to the throne of Achaia. But Centurione had left a natural son, Giovanni Asan, who had raised the standard of revolt against the Greeks. Imprisoned by Thomas in the splendid castle of Chlomoutsi, or Castel Tornese, the mint of the Morea, whose ruins still stand on a tortoise-shaped eminence which overlooks the fertile plain of Elis and the flourishing harbour of Zante, he had escaped a lingering death by hunger, rallied his old adherents, and actually received the congratulations of the King of Naples and the Venetian Republic upon his release and their recognition of his title. Thomas had, however, suppressed this rebellion with Turkish aid, and the pretender had fled first to one of the Venetian colonies, and thence to Naples, whence we find him writing for aid to the Bank of St George in his ancestral city of Genoa[910]. In 1459 a Genoese document reveals him begging the Genoese government to recommend him to the generosity of Pius II. Genoa was at that time under French rule, and the Duke of Calabria, who was the royal lieutenant, accordingly wrote to Pius II and to Cardinal Lodovico Scarampi, the Patriarch of Aquileia, who was the Pope’s Chamberlain, recommending to their notice “the magnificent lord Centurione Zaccaria, not long ago Prince of the Morea.” I think that there was a special reason for the activity of the Genoese government on the exile’s behalf. There is in the Cathedral of Genoa a splendid relic, known as “the cross of the Zaccaria,” and consisting of a piece of the true cross, encased in gold and studded with precious stones. This is said to have been brought by St John the Evangelist to Ephesus, captured by the Turks when they took that place, and pawned by them at Phocæa, which then belonged, as we saw, to the Zaccaria family. In 1307, in consequence of a quarrel between two of its members over the accounts of the alum-mines, Tedisio Zaccaria begged the famous Catalan chronicler, Ramon Muntaner, who was then encamped with the Catalan Grand Company at the Dardanelles, to assist him in sacking the town. Muntaner informs us that his share of the booty was this cross, and the problem has hitherto been to find when and how it was brought to Genoa. Now, as there is no mention of the cross at Genoa before 1466, I have no doubt whatever that it was this last scion of the Zaccaria who brought it from Greece, just as his brother-in-law, Thomas Palaiologos, had brought the head of St Andrew, and disposed of it to the city of Genoa for a valuable consideration, of which one portion was a letter of introduction to the Pope.

Until recently there was no trace of the “Prince of the Morea’s” sojourn in Rome. I noticed, however, in a book by a German scholar, Gottlob, on the subject of papal finance, an allusion to a certain “Prince of Sani.” There being no such place, it seemed to me that the learned German must have misunderstood the name of Giovanni Asani. Examination of the original documents in the “Archivio di Stato” proved this surmise to be correct. The Liber depositarii Sancte Cruciate contains numerous entries of twenty florins a month paid to domino Johanni Zaccarie olim Amoree principi, beginning with September, 1464, and ending with December 31, 1468, after which there is no more mention of the pension, and the pensioner was therefore probably deceased. These sums, which Paul II, and after him Sixtus IV, gave to Oriental potentates in distress, were derived from the proceeds of the alum-mines, discovered at Tolfa in 1462 by another exile from the Near East, Giovanni de Castro, who had been engaged in the dyeing trade at Constantinople, had fled to Rome after the Turkish conquest, and had been appointed treasurer of the patrimony of the Church. Genoese workmen, formerly employed in the alum-mines of Phocæa, were summoned to Tolfa, the Pope declared that the discoverer deserved a statue, Court poets wrote more or less excellent verses in his honour, and Pius told the world that the alum of Tolfa had been given by Providence as the sinews of war against the Infidels, and bade all good Christians deal exclusively with the papal alum factory. Thus, by a curious coincidence, the last of the Zaccaria kept body and soul together by a pittance derived from the sale of that mineral, which had formed in happier days the foundation of his forefathers’ fortunes.

In 1461 another very distinguished relative of the dethroned Imperial family of Constantinople arrived in Rome—Queen Charlotte of Cyprus. There are few more remarkable figures even in the romantic history of the Latin Orient than this brave and masculine woman, the offspring of France and Byzantium. Queen Charlotte was the only daughter and heiress of King Jean II de Lusignan by his marriage with Helen daughter of Theodore II Palaiologos, Despot of Mistra, and she was therefore grand-niece of Thomas Palaiologos. Succeeding to the throne of Cyprus in 1458, at the age of 18, she was already both an orphan and a widow—for her first husband, a son of the King of Portugal, was dead—and she therefore hastened to conclude a second marriage with her cousin, Louis, Count of Geneva, second son of Louis, Duke of Savoy. Her consort had already been engaged to a daughter of Robert III of Scotland, and those of us who are of Scottish descent will learn with a flush of pride that our business-like ancestors demanded a huge sum as damages for this breach of promise. Possibly the young scion of the House of Savoy would have done better to establish himself in Scotland rather than Cyprus; for his Cypriote bride in the year after her marriage was driven from the greater part of her realm by her late father’s illegitimate son James, aided by the Sultan of Egypt. The castle of Cérines, or Kyrenia, however, which overlooks the sea to the north of the island, and of which a full description has recently been published by the British authorities, held out; and there the royal pair took refuge. During an interval in the siege, the intrepid Queen and her feeble husband journeyed to Rhodes on board a galley of the Knights, which lay in the harbour, to ask for aid. The Grand Master, Jacques de Milly, received them politely; but their journey had no practical results, beyond the gift of some money, corn and cannon, and after their return the Queen accordingly resolved to leave her husband at Cérines, and seek assistance in the West. On this journey, however, between Cyprus and Rhodes, her galley was stopped and pillaged by the Venetians, while some Mameluke prisoners, who were on board, cut the rigging and nearly murdered the Queen. Even thirty years later the Republic had not paid the damages due for this high-handed act of piracy[911]. At last, under the escort of Sor de Naves, the Sicilian governor of Cérines, the Queen arrived at Ostia in the second half of October, 1461, and proceeded up the Tiber till she reached St Paul-outside-the-walls. There she landed, and was met by the Cardinals, who escorted her to the city, where she took up her temporary residence at San Ciriaco[912], the church mentioned by the British visitor of 1450, Capgrave, recently introduced to our notice, and which was the predecessor of Sta Maria degli Angeli in the Baths of Diocletian. We have in the Commentaries[913] of Pius II an interesting description of the royal suppliant on the occasion of her first audience with the Pope. She appeared to be twenty-four years of age, she was of a mediocre height, and dressed like a Frenchwoman, her eyes sparkled with fire, and her tongue was “like a torrent.” It seems possible, however, that the Holy Father may have exaggerated her volubility, owing to the fact that she spoke in a language which was not his own. For to the end of her days, Queen Charlotte, although she could write French, Italian, and perhaps Latin, was unable to speak French and always used Greek, the language of her mother. Indeed, in the most important business transactions of her life, she resorted to an interpreter, whom we may be surprised to find a man of English extraction—not the last occasion, I fear, on which treaties relating to the Eastern question have been negotiated by persons imperfectly acquainted with the language in which they were negotiating. The Queen humbly kissed the Pope’s feet, and on the next day delivered a set speech to him through the medium of a translator. She began by firing off a well-worn tag from the Æneid, which doubtless tickled the palate of the classical Æneas Sylvius, whom she saw before her. “My first husband,” she said, “is dead; my second is besieged: whether he be alive or dead, I do not know. Cérines is our only refuge; on the way hither the Venetians have robbed me. I can stand no more voyages by sea; I have neither horses nor money for a journey by land.”

The Pope, who had refused to receive officially the envoys of her rival, bade the Queen be of good cheer, for he would not desert her. “You are expiating,” he replied, “the faults of your father-in-law, who declined to offer Us aid against the Turks, and of your husband, who would not even take the trouble to meet Us when We were at Mantua. So We said, ‘the House of Savoy despises the Church’”—a remark which might have been taken from a clerical newspaper of our own day. Pius II concluded by the promise of horses and money for the journey to her father-in-law’s Court in Savoy. She remained on this occasion some ten days more in Rome, until she had seen the chief churches and had had four or five audiences with the Pope, who gave her much corn and wine for revictualling Cérines and twelve horses and 200 ducats for her journey. On November 5 she wrote from San Ciriaco to the Florentine Republic, stating that her business with the Pope was terminated, and asking for a passport for the dominions of Florence. On the 20th she reached Bologna, where she was lodged gratis at the “Osteria del Leone[914],” and whence she proceeded by way of Venice and Milan to Savoy. The Duke of Milan and the Council of Geneva gave her a good reception; but her father-in-law told her plainly that the connection with Cyprus had “exhausted” his Duchy, and complaint was afterwards made of the expense of entertaining her for nearly four months at Lausanne and Thonon, where the Court then was. Her appeals to the King of Aragon and to Pierre-Raymond Zacosta, the new Grand Master, were in vain; so, after bequeathing the Crown of Cyprus to the House of Savoy in the event of her death without heirs, the indomitable Queen returned in September of 1462 to her island, and shut herself up once more in the royal apartments at Cérines. Having obtained so little from the Christian Powers, she sent the Count of Jaffa to ask the aid of Mohammed II, offering to pay tribute and to surrender a city of the island to the Turks—a fact, which is probably the origin of the erroneous statement of the Greek historian, Phrantzes[915], that Mohammed II rendered Cyprus tributary. The Sultan’s reply was to order her envoy to be sawn asunder. Meanwhile, her craven husband had abandoned Cérines and fled to Rhodes, whence he returned to Savoy in 1464. At last, when the garrison of Cérines was reduced to eat the cats that prowled along the battlements, the Queen likewise sought refuge in Rhodes, whither many of her knights and vassals accompanied her. Sor de Naves surrendered the castle to her relentless enemy, who thus, in October, 1463, was King of all Cyprus, save where the Banca di San Giorgio still held Famagosta.

The heroic Queen did not despair of recovering her Kingdom. She wrote from Rhodes a year later to her husband, urging him to send assistance, and telling him that her poverty alone prevented her from reconquering it. But Louis had had enough of both his consort and his castles, as the Italian chronicler[916] tells us, and remained for the rest of his life, which ended in 1482, in his native land, without occupying himself with either. Queen Charlotte continued to reside for several years in Rhodes, whence she could watch Cypriote politics and where she received a monthly allowance from the Order. The Holy See continued to recognise her as lawful sovereign of Cyprus; and in 1471, when the usurper sent the Archbishop of Nicosia to Rome to ask the Pope to crown him King and to give him in marriage the hand of Princess Zoe, daughter of Thomas Palaiologos and then a young widow, living there under the care of Cardinal Bessarion, His Holiness refused both requests. This is the version of the contemporary Greek chronicler; but the Italian annalist cynically remarks that the Pope agreed to crown him if he would marry the Holy Father’s niece, but that when the King of Cyprus saw the lady’s portrait and heard her habits, he declined the crown on such terms. Instead, he married the famous Catherine Cornaro, who in 1489 brought the Kingdom of Cyprus to Venice.

Upon the death of the bastard in 1473, we find Queen Charlotte renewing her attempts to recover the island. She then waited at Rhodes, and endeavoured to negotiate with the Sultan of Egypt, who arrested her envoy, and with the Venetian Admiral then in the Levant, who plainly told her that he marvelled at her ignorance of the fact that kingdoms were obtained by might not by right, and that Catherine Cornaro was the adopted daughter of his government. A plot to deliver Cérines to her failed; and, although there was a party in the island favourable to her, most of the Cypriotes preferred the Venetians, as being better able to protect them. Venice ordered her exclusion from the coveted kingdom, many of her followers abandoned her, when they found that all chance of a restoration was over, and in 1475 she settled at Rome in the Palazzo Spinola, or dei Convertendi, in the Piazza Scossa Cavalli, where from September, 1476, Sixtus IV gave her a monthly allowance of 200 ducats. But in her Roman exile she did not abandon her schemes for the recovery of Cyprus. She had adopted Alonzo, son of Ferdinand I, King of Naples, and her plan was to proceed to Cairo on a Genoese galley, and thence, with the aid of the Sultan of Egypt, to recapture her throne. The Sultan actually invested her with the crown, and Venice was so much alarmed that a Venetian envoy was authorised to proceed to Rome, and offer her an annuity of 5000 ducats, if she would consent to reside on Venetian territory. Her schemes failed; she returned to Rome in 1482, and continued to be the honoured pensioner of the Pope. Such was the honour which he showed her, that in November, 1483, on the occasion of an audience, she was granted a seat “neither less distinguished nor lower than the chair of the Pontiff”—a mark of attention, so the contemporary diarist[917] remarks, “which was not approved by some.” On February 25, 1485, she ceded the Kingdom of Cyprus to her nephew Charles, Duke of Savoy, whose descendants, the present Italian dynasty, have thus inherited from her the titles of Kings of Cyprus, Jerusalem and Armenia. This document was executed in the presence of several Cardinals, of her Cypriote confessor, and of her councillor, James Langlois, who acted as interpreter. In return for this act of cession, the Duke agreed to pay to his aunt, as long as she remained in Rome, an annual pension of 4300 florins and to provide her with a residence worthy of her rank. A subsequent deed charged this pension upon the rates of Nice. The Queen did not long enjoy this annuity; on July 16, 1487, she died at her Roman residence of paralysis, and was buried in St Peter’s “near the chapel of St Andrew and St Gregory,” and not far from the spot, where, eleven years before, her faithful Chamberlain, Hugh Langlois, lord of Beirût, had been laid to rest. Eleven Cardinals were present at the mass held in St Peter’s for the repose of her soul; but her body was not allowed to rest permanently where it had been placed. In 1610, at the time of the destruction of the old basilica by Paul V, her tomb was opened, when it was found to contain the remains of a woman of moderate height, a few pieces of black silk, and some gilded buckles[918]. These remains were then re-interred in their present resting-place in the crypt of St Peter’s, where a slab in the pavement bears the simple inscription: “Karola Hierlm̅ Cipri et Armenie Regina obiit XVI Julii an D. MCCCCLXXXVII.” Other memorials of the exiled Queen of Cyprus still exist in Rome. One of the pictures (no. XXXI) in the Santo Spirito hospital represents her as kneeling before Sixtus IV, and the inscription below describes how “Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus, despoiled of her kingdom and her fortune, flees as a suppliant to Sixtus IV, and is received by him with the utmost benignity and munificence.” Torrigio adds, that on this occasion the voluble Queen felt unequal to the task of expressing her admiration for and gratitude to her benefactor. I think it is possible to identify the personages who are depicted behind the kneeling Queen. The two divines are probably John Chafforicios, her confessor, and Lodovico Podochatoro, a member of a well-known Cypriote family, who became secretary of Alexander VI and a Cardinal, and whose monument is still admired in Sta Maria del Popolo. The laymen are, I would suggest, Hugh Bousat and his wife, Charlotte Cantacuzene de Flory, daughter of the Count of Jaffa, who were her pensioners and who were in receipt of a small papal allowance as late as 1513, and Philip Langlois, who lived about 40 years in Rome, and was granted an annuity of 15 ducats from Julius II, increased to 20 in that year. The vestments, altar cloths, and the four lbs. of silver, which the Queen bequeathed to St Peter’s, have disappeared, but another proof of her piety is to be found in her entry, recorded in Latin by her own hand, into the Confraternity of the Santo Spirito on March 27, 1478. An example of the seal, which she used in Rome, is preserved in Turin, and reproduces the streamers of the Cypriote Order of the Sword, while her two rare coins are, I believe, in the King of Italy’s collection. Her little band of courtiers lingered on for many years here; Innocent VIII recommended them to the charity of the Duke of Savoy as distinguished by lineage and virtue; and one of them, Giorgio Flatro, by marrying his daughter to Pietro Aldobrandini, became the ancestor of Clement VIII. As late as January 1520, Leo X assigned 70 ducats out of the alum-mines of Tolfa to two other Cypriotes of the lineage of Lusignan—Eugène and John, natural sons of Queen Charlotte’s rival, whom the cautious Venetian Republic had removed from Cyprus with their mother and sister in 1477, and had imprisoned in the castle of Padua, lest they should embarrass Catherine Cornaro[919]. This is another example of papal generosity, which contrasts with the selfish conduct of the Venetian Republic, and incidentally disproves the statement of Count Mas Latrie[920], that the two illegitimate sons of James II died at Padua, where their sister is buried.

Another exiled Queen was living in Rome at the same time as Charlotte of Cyprus, and, like her, died and was buried here. Most visitors to this city have seen the tomb of the Queen Dowager Catherine of Bosnia in Ara Cœli; but perhaps her story is less familiar, because the very interesting history of Bosnia is little known. Queen Catherine was the daughter of Stephen Vuktchich, the Duke of St Sava, from whom the Herzegovina derives its name, and boasted her descent through her mother Helen from the mediæval Princes and Tsars of Serbia. Like her father and most of the Bosnian rulers and nobles of the fifteenth century, she belonged to the Bogomile or Patarene heresy, which corresponded with the Albigensian heresy of Provence, which coloured several centuries of Bosnian history, largely contributed to the Turkish conquest of that country, and survived there in the case of one family down to the memory of persons still living. Owing, however, to the efforts of the papal legate, the young Princess was converted to Catholicism probably at the time of her marriage in 1445, or 1446, to King Stephen Thomas of Bosnia. A Slav poet has commemorated her beauty and sung of her wedding; but her fate was hard, and many a tragedy was in store for her. To marry her, Stephen Thomas had put away his first wife, a woman of obscure birth, whom his proud barons would not accept as their Queen, and it was the discarded consort’s son, Stephen Tomashevich, who murdered him to obtain the crown on July 10, 1461, assassination or abdication being the usual alternative of Balkan monarchs. Thus, at the age of 37, Catherine was left a widow, with two children of her own, Sigismund and Catherine. In view, however, of the political situation, the stepmother and the stepson agreed to bury the past, and the Queen Dowager remained in Bosnia till the fall of the Kingdom in 1463. Both her children were then captured by the Turks and forced to embrace Islâm, while she managed to escape to the Republic of Ragusa, where the authorities offered her an annual rent for the land and houses of her late husband, and where she presented “marvellous choral books,” destroyed by fire in 1667, to the Franciscan convent. Thence she crossed the Adriatic and came to Rome, where we find her in receipt of a monthly pension of 100 ducats from 1466. In addition to this, Pope Paul II paid to one Jacopo Mentebone, a Roman citizen, a sum of 20 ducats a month from October, 1467, “for the rent of a house let with all the necessary utensils to the Queen of Bosnia.” At the time of her death, she was residing “near the Church of San Marco de Urbe in the Rione Pigna,” surrounded by a considerable court of faithful Slavs, and she was a personage of importance, figuring for example at the wedding of Zoe Palaiologina in 1472. She had, however, bitter disappointments. Her father, the Duke of St Sava, who died in 1466, cut her out of his will; the Duke of Milan, Galeazzo Maria Sforza, whom she begged to lend her money for ransoming her children, declined to assist her. After a twelve years’ residence here, she felt her end approaching, and on October 20, 1478, made her last testament, a very curious document of great political interest. After directing that she should be buried in the church of Ara Cœli, she expressed the hope, that one day the Kingdom of Bosnia would once more submit to Christian rule—an aspiration accomplished in October, 1908. Meanwhile, mindful of the munificence of the Holy See and of the benefits which she had received from Paul II and Sixtus IV, who had always treated her hospitably, helping her according to her royal dignity with an annual pension and provision sufficient for her necessities, she bequeathed her kingdom in trust to the Holy See, until such time as her son or her daughter should return “from the vomit of Mahomet” to the true faith. Should they, however, remain Mohammedans, then Bosnia was to be at the absolute disposition of the Pope and his successors. It was this clause which prompted a well-known Slavonic journalist in Rome to announce immediately after the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia in 1908, that the Emperor Francis Joseph would receive the Bosnian crown, as the last native King of Bosnia had received it, from the hands of the Pope. Having thus disposed of her phantom kingdom, Catherine proceeded to bequeath the rest of her real and personal property to the three faithful ladies-in-waiting, Paola Mirkovich, Helena Sempovich and Maria Misglenovich, who had shared her Roman exile. To the first she also left a legacy of 50 ducats, a dress of black satin lined with squirrel, and another of black cloth lined with lynx; to the second 25 ducats and a long gown of black cloth with a lining of marten-skin; to the third 30 ducats and a long, simple gown of black cloth. To her major-domo, Radich Klesich, she left 50 ducats, a scimitar inlaid with silver, and a Turkish dress of red silk woven with gold, as well as a sum of 38 ducats, which she had borrowed from him; to her servants, George Zubravich and Abraham Radich, respectively 50 and 30 ducats. To her son Sigismund she bequeathed his father’s sword, inlaid with silver; but, if he remained an infidel, the precious heirloom was to pass to her nephew Balsha, whom we find thirty years later as titular “Duke of St Sava.” To both her children she also left a silver dagger, two cups and two tankards of silver, with lids inlaid with emeralds. To the church of Ara Cœli she devised her royal mantle of cloth of gold and a silk dossal of divers colours for the altar, which had been used in her private chapel; to the hospital of San Gerolamo degli Schiavoni all the furniture and sacred vessels of the latter. The relics in her possession she bequeathed to the Franciscan church of St Catherine at Jajce—a church in which she had always been deeply interested. In 1458, at her request, and again in 1462, Pius II had granted indulgences to all who visited this church, which was believed to contain the body of St Luke, brought thither from the castle of Rogus in Epeiros[921], and of which a beautiful Italian campanile still remains. Finally, after naming her executors, she directed that her will, together with the royal sword, should be presented to the Cardinal bishop of Porto, the vice-chancellor of the Church, then Rodrigo Borgia, afterwards Pope Alexander VI.

Five days later the testatrix died, and was buried in Ara Cœli, as she had directed. It is said that over her grave was placed a Slavonic inscription, which ran as follows: “To the Bosnian Queen Catherine, daughter of Stephen, Duke of St Sava, and of the race of Helen of the house of Tsar Stephen, and wife of the Bosnian King Thomas, who lived 54 years and died in Rome October 25, 1478, this Monument was erected by her own written orders.” This Slavonic inscription has, however, long ago disappeared. It was fortunately copied by Palatino[922] in 1535 as an example of Slavonic writing from the monument in Ara Cœli, with an accurate Latin version. Casimiro Romano[923], the historian of that church, states that the monument of Queen Catherine, with that of Cardinal Alibret, was moved from the floor of the presbytery in front of the high altar in 1590 to its present position on a pillar behind an ambon to the left as one faces the altar. The Slavonic inscription was probably then lost and the present Latin inscription substituted. This latter corresponds with neither the Slavonic text nor the truth; for it describes how “To Catherine, the Bosnian Queen, sister of Stephen, Duke of St Sava, born of the race of Helen and of the house of Prince Stephen, wife of Thomas, King of Bosnia, who lived 54 years and fell asleep at Rome on October 25, 1478, this monument was erected by her own written orders.” This inscription was obviously composed by someone ignorant of her genealogy, for she was the daughter, not the “sister” of Duke Stephen, and the word sorori is probably a misunderstanding of the Slav poroda (“race”). On either side of her head is a coat of arms, that of her husband and that of her father. The latter is so greatly worn, that it can no longer be distinguished, but the former, which I examined from a ladder, still shows, on a close inspection, the two crowns and the two horsemen, but not the mailed arm with the sword, which was in the centre, as may be seen from the representation of this monument in Ciacconius’ Lives and Acts of the Popes and Cardinals. The two crowns in the quarterings are those of Bosnia and Serbia, for from 1376 the Bosnian Kings always styled themselves also Kings of Serbia; the arm with the sword represents Primorje, or “the Coastland”—also a part of the Bosnian royal title; the two horsemen are the Kotromanich emblem. Considering the worn appearance of the actual monument, and the sharply cut lettering of the Latin inscription, I think that the latter can never have been placed on the floor of the church, but was a later addition, cut at a time when the Slavonic inscription was misunderstood, or perhaps even mislaid. It is said by Luccari[924], the old historian of Ragusa, that another portrait of Queen Catherine exists in Rome, and is to be found in the Sala di Costantino in the Vatican, where a woman in the foreground may perhaps be the Queen.

The Pope did not forget the household of the testatrix. From the next month after her death her three ladies, Paola, Helena, and Maria, with a fourth named Praxina, received 14 ducats monthly from the papal treasury. Her will did not, however, prevent him from recognising another person as King of Bosnia. One of the paintings (No. 27) in the Santo Spirito hospital represents the visit of “the King of Bosnia and Wallachia” to the Pope, and the inscription adds how this monarch “although exhausted by age visits the thresholds of the Apostles and submissively venerates Sixtus IV by kissing his feet.” It does not seem to have occurred to anyone to ask who this mysterious personage was, although the last native King of Bosnia had been killed eight years before the accession of Sixtus IV, and the conjunction of the crowns of Bosnia and Wallachia is curious. It is not difficult, however, to identify this sovereign. One of the old books, which alludes to the picture, calls him “N.” which is the initial of Nicholas of Ilok on the Danube (the place where Prince Odescalchi’s Hungarian castle is situated). This great magnate, when the Hungarians temporarily captured Jajce from the Turks, received from Matthias Corvinus in 1471 the title of “King of Bosnia”—by which he is described in papal documents[925] of 1475-6. As he was also voivode of Transylvania, whose inhabitants were Wallachs, he is called also “King of Wallachia” in the inscription. His visit to Rome may be fixed from a letter of Sixtus IV, dated May 2, 1475, in which he is stated as having been “lately present.” Doubtless, he came for the Jubilee of that year, and this is the explanation of Wadding’s erroneous statement, that Queen Catherine did not come to Rome till 1475.

Another Slavonic sovereign sought refuge in Rome. This was Stephen Brankovich, Despot of Serbia, who had been blinded by Murad II years before, and who, after the fall of his country had sought a refuge with Skanderbeg, the heroic champion of the Albanians. There he married Angelina, sister-in-law of Skanderbeg and daughter of Giorgio Arianiti, a great Albanian chieftain. As the struggle in Albania became more and more desperate, Skanderbeg, at the end of 1465, came to Rome to ask the aid of Paul II, who received him with extraordinary honours, due to one who was “the first soldier of Jesus Christ.” A memorial of his stay here is the Vicolo Scanderbeg, where the house, No. 116, bears his portrait over the door with the following inscription: “Geor. Castriota A. Scanderbeg Princeps Epiri ad fidem iconis rest. an. Dom. MDCCCXLIII.” Thence, at the end of January, 1466, he returned to defend his fortress of Kroja, where two years later he died, and Albanian independence with him. Before that event the Serbian Despot had left him for Rome, for from December, 1467, he was drawing a papal pension of 40 ducats a month, continued to his widow from December, 1479. Here, too, her brother Costantino Arianiti found a living, becoming protonotary apostolic under Sixtus IV, who gave him a monthly pension of 32 ducats from October, 1476, increased to 40 from November, 1479—not, indeed, much to keep up the position of one who styled himself “Prince of Macedonia.”

The Turkish annexation of the County Palatine of Cephalonia in 1479 brought another band of Oriental exiles to Rome. The Tocco family, however, which had ruled over the dominions of Ulysses for more than a century, had gone from Benevento to Greece, and Leonardo III was, therefore, merely returning to the land of his forebears. On February 29, 1480, he arrived in Rome with his son Carlo and his brothers Giovanni and Antonio. A man so well connected was sure of a good reception—for he had married a niece of King Ferdinand of Naples, while the Pope’s nephew had married his sister-in-law, and he was himself related to the Imperial houses of both Byzantium and Serbia. Accordingly, the Cardinals’ servants met him outside the Lateran Gate and escorted him to the house which he had hired between the Via Pellicciaria and the Botteghe Oscure. Sixtus IV, whose predecessor had already given him periodical sums of 1000 to 1200 ducats from 1466, gave him 1000 gold pieces and promised him 2000 a year—an event commemorated by another of the paintings in the Santo Spirito hospital, where we are shown how the Pope “nourished with his royal bounty the rulers of the Peloponnese and of Epeiros, Andrew Palaiologos and Leonardo Tocco.” After staying rather more than a month here, he returned to Naples, leaving his natural son, Ferdinando, behind him—a spirited youth, who once said in the hearing of the diarist, Volaterranus, “though we have lost our rings, we have still got our fingers entire.” Leonardo received valuable fiefs in the south of Italy, but died in Rome under the pontificate of Alexander VI owing to the collapse of his house. His son Carlo III lived in the Via S. Marco, where, after enjoying a monthly pension, he died under Leo X, and we find that Pope paying monthly pensions of 60 and 32 ducats respectively to two other members of the family, Carlo’s sister Raymunda, Contessa de Mirandola, and his son and heir (Giovanni) Leonardo IV, Despot of Arta, and a small sum to Giovanni’s widow, Lucrezia[926]. The family of Tocco has only lately become extinct by the deaths of the Duca della Regina in 1908 and of his only son, the Duca di S. Angelo, in the motor accident near Cassino in 1907. At Naples in the Corso Vittorio Emanuele may still be seen a collection of the family portraits in the fine old Palazzo del Santo Piede (now Troise) so-called, from the foot of St Anna, which Leonardo III brought with him from Greece.

The heirs of the Palaiologoi were less fortunate than those of Leonardo Tocco. Upon the death of Thomas, Cardinal Bessarion drew up a scheme of education for his children, to whom the Pope continued his allowance. He laid it down, that they must not have an expensive retinue, like their father, but that they must be brought up by Latin priests as Latins. They were allowed a Greek doctor, one Kritopoulos, but were to dress like Franks and to show the utmost reverence to the Cardinals. They were to be taught to walk with dignity, to speak in a soft voice, not to stare about them, not to boast of their Imperial lineage but to remember that they were exiles and strangers, forced to live on charity. They were to learn by heart a humble address to the Pope, to talk little, never to laugh, and to acquire the art of kneeling with elegance. In short, they were to be perfect prigs. The result of Bessarion’s educational programme was what might have been expected. Zoe, or Sophia, indeed, soon escaped his tutelage by marrying a Caracciolo, after being regarded as a suitable bride for James II of Cyprus. The historian Phrantzes, an old and tried friend of the family, who was then in Rome on a visit, speaks with enthusiasm of the generosity of the bridegroom. Soon left a widow, and again wooed by the Cypriote King, she married by proxy in St Peter’s in 1472 the Grand Duke Ivan III of Russia—a ceremony commemorated by the above-mentioned painting in the Santo Spirito hospital, in which, besides relieving Leonardo Tocco, Sixtus IV is described as presenting “Sophia, daughter of Thomas Palaiologos, married to the Duke of the Ruthenians, with a dowry of 6000 gold pieces and other gifts[927].” These latter included 4400 ducats for her travelling expenses to Russia, whither many of the family’s retainers followed her, and where, in consequence of her Imperial origin, her husband took the title of Tsar. But her brother Andrew, who remained all his life a hanger-on of the papal court, profited little by Bessarion’s precepts. Falling into dissolute habits, he married a disreputable woman named Catherine; his garments moved the pity or contempt of the Romans; his allowance was reduced, he was relegated to a back seat at papal functions; and, after ceding all his rights to Charles VIII of France at San Pietro in Montorio, he died at Rome in 1502 in such misery that his widow had to beg his funeral expenses from the Pope. His portrait is supposed to be represented in a lunette of the third room of the Borgia apartments, where is also that of the Turkish Prince Djem, younger son of Mohammed II, and so long the prisoner of the Vatican. Thus the son of the conqueror of Constantinople and the nephew of its gallant defender are both depicted in the same room.

Besides these exiled Princes, a number of Greek authors found a permanent or temporary home in Rome, whither their famous fellow-countryman, Bessarion of Trebizond, had preceded them. Created a Cardinal in 1439 for his services to the Union of the Churches, he had shortly afterwards settled in a house to the right of the church of the SS. Apostoli, which gave him his title, and his abode became a literary centre, where Greeks and Italians alike congregated. Theodore Gazes of Salonika, George of Trebizond, and Nicholas Saguntino of Eubœa frequented his house, and another Greek man of letters, Andronikos Kallistos, lived with him, till poverty forced him to migrate to Florence and thence to England, where he died. But with the exception of Bessarion, who rose to be titular Archbishop of Nice and Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as bishop of Tusculum, and who narrowly missed being elected Pope on the death of Paul II, these learned fugitives met with the usual fate of scholars. Sometimes their misfortunes were their own fault. Thus George of Trebizond, a man who could not endure criticism, quarrelled with his patron over the rival merits of Plato and Aristotle, with Gazes over their respective translations of the maestro di color che sanno, and with Valla over the pre-eminence of Cicero over Quintilian; at last, this cantankerous old man, the scourge of all authors except Aristotle, crept about Rome in rags supported by a stick, till he found near his humble abode a rest in the church of Sta Maria sopra Minerva, where the inscription on his tomb has long been illegible. His adversary Gazes, for whom Bessarion had obtained a benefice in Magna Græcia, retired thither in disgust, because Sixtus IV paid him only 50 gold pieces for his translation of Aristotle’s Natural History of Animals. Of Bessarion we have still several memorials: the tomb which he erected during his lifetime in the monastery of the SS. Apostoli, the cup which now belongs to the Greek monastery of Grottaferrata, of which he was Abbot commandatory; the beautiful little house, called the casino di Bessarione on the Via Appia within the city near the church of SS. Nereus and Achillios. This “vineyard within the walls of the city in loco qui dicitur S. Cæsarii in Turri sub proprietate ejusdem monasterii S. Cæsarii[928],” he bequeathed in 1467 with his property at “Cecchignola nova extra portam Appii,” on the right of the Via Ardeatina, to the chapel of S. Eugenia in the SS. Apostoli. When the Zona archeologica was being made in 1910, it was proposed to destroy this picturesque house, then an inn, but now deserted; but it was happily spared, after a protest. Argyropoulos, the translator of Aristotle, who died here in 1486, has been immortalised by Ghirlandajo in the Sistine Chapel, where he is the original of the bearded old man in the scene of the calling of the first disciples, and also in the Cancelleria[929]. The list of these literary wanderers may fitly close with Janus Laskaris, the Greek grammarian, founder of a Greek school at the foot of the Quirinal, whose tomb lies not far from the heart of O’Connell in S. Agata in Subura, where a touching epitaph expresses the mingled joys and sorrows of a Roman exile.

5. THE LATIN KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM, 1099-1291

No event of the late war was so dramatic, or has made such a powerful appeal to the imagination, as the liberation of Jerusalem on December 9, 1917, after a Moslem occupation of 673 years. While the name of Athens is full of meaning for the cultured alone, and many excellent citizens are not quite sure “whether the Greeks or the Romans came first,” that of Jerusalem is known in every peasant’s cottage of Christendom and represents the aspirations of an ancient race scattered all over the globe. But to us Anglo-Saxons the redemption of the Holy City has special significance, because a British general at the head of a force gathered from every part of the British Empire, and aided by our French and Italian allies, has repeated the achievement of Godfrey of Bouillon and the Crusaders, among them a brother of the King of England, and Edgar Etheling, the descendant of our Saxon line, in 1099, and has accomplished what even our lion-hearted monarch failed to do in 1192, and our soldierly Prince Edward in 1271. Thus the aspiration of the poet of Gerusalemme Liberata,

Sottrare i Cristiani al giogo indegno; Fondando in Palestina un novo regno (I. 23),

has been realised by Britons from lands whose very existence was unknown at the time of the Crusades.

The present essay is not intended to be a drum-and-trumpet history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and its almost constant wars, but an account of the organisation and social life of the Crusading kingdom. First, as to its extent. The Kingdom of Jerusalem attained its zenith at the end of the reign of Baldwin II in 1131, when it stretched from the Egyptian frontier at El-ʿArîsh, “the river of Egypt” of the Book of Numbers, on the south-west, and from Aila, the modern ʿAkaba (on the gulf of the same name), the Eloth of the First Book of Kings, and the site of Solomon’s Red Sea naval station, on the south-east, to the stream now called Nahr Ibrahîm, which flows into the sea between Beirût and Giblet, the modern Jebeil—about 300 miles as the crow flies. To the east the kingdom rarely overstepped the Jordan except at the triangle of Banias, the ancient Cæsarea Philippi; indeed, in the north it was only thirteen miles broad, but in the Dead Sea region it attained a breadth of 100 miles. This did not, however, comprise the whole of the Latin territory. To the north of the above-mentioned stream stretched the county of Tripolis, of which the foundations were laid by Count Raymond of Toulouse in 1102, to the rivulet, now called Wâdi-Mehika, between Maraclée and Valénia (the modern Bâniyâs), which flowed at the foot of the castle of Margat—a further distance of about 100 miles. From that rivulet began the Principality of Antioch, whose first Prince was, in 1098, Bohemond of Taranto, and which at one time extended almost to Aleppo in the east and embraced a large slice of the Kingdom of Armenia almost as far west as Tarsus, but latterly extended no farther north than a little beyond Alexandretta. On the north-east it was bounded until 1144 by the County of Edessa, the modern Urfa, founded by Baldwin I in 1098, which began at the forest of Marris and extended eastward beyond the Euphrates; but, owing to the permanent state of war, in which the forty-six years of its existence were passed, it never had any fixed boundaries. Thus, a Syrian writer could truly say that, in 1129, “everything was subject to the Franks, from Mardîn and Schabachtana to El ʿArîsh,” far more than the “Dan to Beersheba” of the Israelites[930].

The first diminution of the Crusading States was the loss of the County of Edessa in 1144. In 1170, at the other extremity, they were cut off from the Red Sea by the capture of Aila. Jerusalem and most of the kingdom, except Tyre and a few fortresses, fell before Saladin in 1187, after the battle of Hattin, which the Crusaders identified with the site of the Sermon on the Mount, and the greater part of the Principality of Antioch and of the County of Tripolis in the next year. By the treaty of 1192, the Christians obtained the coast from Tyre to Jaffa; and Frederick II, by the so-called “bad peace” of 1229, recovered the Holy City, except two mosques, the two other towns—Bethlehem and Nazareth—most closely associated with the life of our Lord, and all the chief pilgrimage roads. Fifteen years later, however, the Kharezmians, a Turkish tribe, finally captured Jerusalem, murdered the Latin Christians, and desecrated the Holy Sepulchre and the tombs of the Latin Kings. Saladin, in 1187, had treated Jerusalem as an English gentleman would; the Kharezmians treated it in the German fashion.

The battle of Gaza completed the disaster of 1244. From that time the recovery of Jerusalem was manifestly impossible. The Crusade of the saintly Louis IX was a failure; that of our Prince Edward was weakly supported, ended in a separate peace, concluded by the people of Acre against his will, and was only remarkable for one of the most beautiful stories of conjugal devotion in English history. Meanwhile Antioch had fallen in 1268 before Beibars, the Mameluke Sultan of Egypt; and Jaffa had entered upon the long captivity from which our armies at last redeemed it on November 17, 1917. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was thenceforth a mere phantom of its former self. Kings of Cyprus were crowned Kings of Jerusalem at Tyre, with all the pomp and splendour of the Middle Ages; Acre continued to be, as it had been since its recapture by Cœur-de-Lion, the capital of Frankish Palestine, where even on the eve of its fall, as a traveller[931] tells us, dwelt “the richest merchants under Heaven, gathered from all nations, where resided the King of Jerusalem and many members of his family, the Princes of Galilee and Antioch, the lords of Tyre, Tiberias and Sidon, the Counts of Tripolis and Jaffa, all walking about the squares with their golden coronets on their heads.”

There, too, were the headquarters of the Military Orders, the Templars, the Knights of St John, the Brothers of the German House, and the Masters and Brothers of St Thomas of Canterbury. But the end of this carnival of Kings and Princes in exile was at hand. Since the second capture of Jerusalem, the kingdom had been slowly but surely dying, as its inhabitants knew full well. Signs and wonders foretold to the pious the coming catastrophe; shrewd business men hastened to sell their property in the doomed country. Tripolis followed the fate of Antioch in 1289; Acre, Tyre, Sidon and Beirût were taken by Melik-el-Aschraf, the Sultan of Egypt, in 1291; and, with the fall of the last two strongholds of the Templars, Tortosa and Château Pèlerin, ended the rule of the Franks in Palestine. In Gibbon’s phrase, “A mournful and solitary silence prevailed along the coast which had so long resounded with the world’s debate.”

Let us now see how Frankish Palestine was organised. At the head of the Latin Kingdom stood the King. During the first three reigns the monarchy was elective; and it was not till 1131 that it became hereditary, as Baldwin II was the first sovereign who left progeny. When the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, the election of their first ruler was by means of an examination, from which few of us would emerge unscathed. The electors questioned the servants of the various candidates about their masters’ morals and characters. Godfrey’s attendants stated that their master’s chief defect was, that he would linger on in church, after the service was over, asking questions about the images and pictures, and thereby making his household late for meals, “which thus lost all their relish[932].” But this interest in ecclesiastical archæology, which seemed such a drawback to the hungry men-at-arms, was counted as a recommendation by the pious electors, and Godfrey was elected. He declined, however, to take the title of King, preferring that of “Protector of the Holy Sepulchre,” and refusing to wear a golden crown in the city where Our Lord had worn a crown of thorns[933]. His modesty was also probably due to a tactful desire to disarm the opposition of the clergy, who had desired that Jerusalem should not have a lay ruler. He died, however, next year, and Baldwin I, Count of Edessa, his brother, who was elected his successor, then took the title of King, but salved his conscience by being crowned not in Jerusalem, but at Bethlehem. Baldwin II’s daughter, Mélisende, and her husband, Fulk, were the first to be crowned in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, where was also the royal mausoleum. Adelaide, Baldwin I’s Queen, is buried at Patti. During the Moslem occupation of Jerusalem the King was crowned at Tyre; and, when the whole of the Holy Land was lost, the Kings of Cyprus, who were titular Kings of Jerusalem, assumed the former crown at Nicosia and the latter at Famagosta. From Queen Charlotte of Cyprus, in 1485, the title passed to Duke Charles of Savoy, and thus to the present Italian dynasty.

The Latin sovereigns of Jerusalem were mostly above the average in character and intelligence. Bravery and piety were essential to their position as chiefs of a crusading colony in the midst of a hostile country. Godfrey “excelled his contemporaries in the handling of arms and in all the exercises of chivalry”; Baldwin I was described in his epitaph as “a second Judas Maccabæus”—a comparison confirmed by his warlike achievements; of Baldwin II we are told, that “his memory was blessed by all, because of the excellence of his faith and the glorious deeds which ennobled his reign.” Baldwin III was also a lover of literature and a graceful speaker, of whom a Moslem rival said that “there was not such another king in the world.” His brother, Amaury I, prompted Archbishop William of Tyre to compose his valuable history, and both these sovereigns possessed considerable legal knowledge. The Archbishop’s pupil, Baldwin IV, was unfortunately a leper, and Baldwin V died in his boyhood. Fulk was generous and experienced in warfare, but signally lacked the common royal faculty of remembering faces. Queen Mélisende, who was the real ruler in her husband’s lifetime, was an excellent woman of business, of whom it was said that “she had in her bosom the heart of a man[934]”; indeed, so masterful was she, that on one occasion her son had to besiege her in the Tower of David. Unfortunately, Guy de Lusignan, who was King at the moment of Saladin’s fatal attack, was notoriously inferior to the task of saving his wife’s kingdom. Had he not been so good-looking and so irresistible to Princess Sibylla, the fall of Jerusalem might have been at least postponed.

Society was constructed by the crusaders on feudal lines. According to the thirteenth century edition of the Assises de la Haute Cour, by Jean d’Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of Godfrey’s first acts was to appoint a commission to enquire from men of various nationalities then in Jerusalem the usages of their respective countries. From the report of this commission were drawn up the usages and assizes of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, including a High Court, presided over by the King, for the nobility; a “Court de la Borgesie,” presided over by an officer styled the “Vicomte,” for the middle class; and a third court, under an official, called “rays,” for the Syrians. As time went on, these usages were modified; and, at the arrival of each large batch of new crusaders, the King used to assemble the Patriarch and other notables at Acre, and enquire from the newcomers about their laws, while occasionally special missions of investigation were sent abroad. The written original of the Assises was called the Letres dou Sepulcre, because it was deposited in a large chest in the Holy Sepulchre; and, whenever a moot point arose, this chest was opened in the presence of nine persons, including the King, or his deputy, and the Patriarch, or the Prior of the Holy Sepulchre[935]. The Assizes of Jerusalem, of which the Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois have also been preserved, are the most endurable monument of the Franks in Palestine, and not in Palestine alone; for they formed the basis of the Assizes of Cyprus, and of the feudal organisation of the Principality of Achaia.

William of Tyre expressly tells us[936] that the Counts of Tripolis were always lieges of the King of Jerusalem. But the Princes of Antioch (which had its own code) and the Counts of Edessa seem to have merely recognised him as primum inter pares by virtue of his possession of the Holy City, and the Princes of Antioch, beginning with Bohemond himself, were at times reluctantly forced to confess themselves vassals of the Greek Emperor. Thus, the existence of four practically independent states, instead of one centralised government, and the consequent lack of what the Italians would call a fronte unico against the Infidels, formed one cause of the collapse of Frankish rule, notably in the case of Edessa, sacrificed to the jealousy of the Prince of Antioch. Moreover, feudal regulations impeded the exercise of the royal power. Not only were the lieges not obliged to perform military service outside the realm; not only had the King to consult a great council of magnates on all important questions—for we hear of Parliaments held in the Patriarch’s palace at Jerusalem, in a church at Acre, and at Tyre, Nâbulus and Bethlehem—but Baldwin I was forced to revoke an ordinance for the cleaning of the streets of Jerusalem, because he had omitted to ask the consent of the citizens. Thus, Frankish Jerusalem was a limited monarchy, and its King really only the first of the barons—a system unsuited to a state of almost constant war.

The kingdom proper contained four great baronies—the County of Jaffa and Ascalon, which comprised the fertile plain of Sharon; the seigneurie of Krak and Montréal, which lay in the biblical land of Moab to the east and south-east of the Dead Sea, and dominated the caravan-route from Syria to Egypt; the Principality of Galilee, of which the capital was Tabarie (the Tiberias of St John); and the seigneurie of Sidon, or Sagette. Besides these great baronies, upon which in turn smaller tenures depended, it also included twelve lesser fiefs, likewise directly dependent on the Crown, of which the most curious was that of St Abraham, the mediæval name of Hebron, and the most important that of Toron, founded by a member of the great crusading family of St Omer, which succeeded Tancred in the Principality of Galilee, but played an even more conspicuous part in Frankish Greece than in Frankish Palestine. The romantic title of Prince of Galilee survived at the Cypriote Court after the loss of the Holy Land; and a Lusignan bearing that scriptural name intervened in the tortuous politics of the Morea in the fourteenth century. Nazareth was naturally included in the Principality of Galilee; it was the See of an Archbishop, and was governed by a “Viscount.”

As in Greece, the Latin barons erected castles over the country; and the remains of some of these, particularly Krak de Montréal and Krak des Chevaliers, are among the finest specimens extant of mediæval military architecture, while others, notably that of the famous family of d’Ibelin at Beirût, were decorated with paintings and mosaics by Syrian and Greek artists. We may infer from the description of the castle of St Omer at Thebes in the Chronicle of the Morea, that the subject of these paintings may sometimes have been the Frankish Conquest of the Holy Land, in which the baronial family had taken part.

Each great feudatory presided over the high court of justice of his fief; and the Assizes enumerate twenty of them, besides the King and the Archbishop of Nazareth, who possessed the right of coinage. M. Schlumberger has published a number of these coins, among them those of Jerusalem, bearing a representation of the Holy Sepulchre, the Tower of David, or the Cupola of the Temple. The inscriptions on the coins of Edessa and on some of those of Antioch are in Greek—a proof of the preponderance of the Greek population there. Ecclesiastically, the Latin states of Syria were organised under two Patriarchs—those of Jerusalem and Antioch; and the first Archbishop of the kingdom was he of Tyre, whose function it was to crown the King in the Patriarch’s absence.

The Salic law did not obtain in the Holy Land; and as, by some mysterious law of population, common also to Frankish Greece, many noble families consisted of daughters only, women played an important part in the crusading states. On two occasions, the election of the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Amaury in 1159 and Heraclius in 1180) was due to female influence, and, on the second occasion the personal predilection of the Queen-Mother Agnes prevailed (to the great detriment of Church and State alike) over the disinterested advice of William of Tyre, who urged the election of a candidate from beyond the sea, and recalled an old prophecy that, as the Emperor Heraclius had brought the true cross to Jerusalem, so in the time of another Heraclius would it be lost—a prophecy verified at the battle of Hattin[937]. This was the Patriarch who visited London in 1185 to seek aid from Henry II, and consecrated the Priory of St John of Jerusalem at Clerkenwell, where a thanksgiving for the deliverance of the Holy City was recently held.

The competition for the hands of noble heiresses was another result of the extinction of families in the male line, and frequently caused serious political complications and encouraged penniless adventurers, like Guy de Lusignan, whose success aroused the jealousy of less fortunate rivals. Thus, the great disaster of Hattin, which led to the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, was indirectly due to the revenge of an Englishman, Girard de Rideford, for his failure as a suitor. He had come to the Holy Land as a knight-errant to make his fortune; and Count Raymond II of Tripolis had promised him the hand of his ward, the wealthy heiress of Boutron. A rich Pisan, however, arrived with a weighing-machine, placed the lady (probably an opulent beauty) in one scale and his money-bags in the other, and gave the Count her weight in gold. The baffled Briton became a Templar and rose to be Seneschal and Master of the Order, but never forgot how he had been cheated[938], and persuaded the weak monarch to reject Raymond’s strategy on the eve of Hattin.

An even more romantic but equally fatal example was that of Renaud de Châtillon, who, coming to Palestine as a younger son to seek his fortune in the suite of Louis VII of France at the time of the second crusade, married the widowed Princess-Regent of Antioch, and governed the Principality for his stepson. Local gossips, and especially the Patriarch, criticised this mésalliance, whereupon the audacious Frenchman had the Patriarch stripped, smeared with honey, and exposed, a feast for the flies, during a long summer day. A born soldier of fortune, he put his sword at the disposal of the Greek Emperor for an attack on an Armenian baron, and when a little difference arose as to the payment of the costs of the expedition, paid himself by ravaging the then Greek province of Cyprus. We next find him begging the Emperor’s pardon in his shirt-sleeves, with a rope round his neck. Then he was captured by the Saracens in the course of a cattle-lifting expedition, and kept for fifteen years a prisoner at Aleppo. Finding, on his liberation, that his wife was dead and his stepson reigning at Antioch, he looked out for a second heiress, and found one in the widowed baroness of Montréal. There, in the land beyond Jordan, he was in his element. His next enterprise was, indeed, a bold one. He constructed a flotilla at Krak—“the stone of the Desert,” as it was picturesquely called—conveyed it on camel-back to the Gulf of ʿAkaba, and sailed down into the Red Sea with the object of plundering Mecca and Medina, and conquering the Hedjaz and the Yemen. For this daring attempt, and for intercepting, in time of peace, the Moslem caravan, Saladin swore twice to kill him with his own hand. The second of these acts provoked the invasion which led to the capture of Jerusalem, and in Saladin’s tent, as a captive after the battle of Hattin, the adventurous Frenchman, who declared that, to Princes, treaties were “scraps of paper,” was beheaded. His seal with the gateway of Krak upon it still survives as a memorial of his strange career. The love affairs of the nobles were also sometimes fatal to the interests of the state. Thus the charms of a beautiful Armenian were partly responsible for the loss of Edessa, and an attractive Italian widow was a prominent figure in the last days of Jerusalem.

The middle class was a far more important body than in either the England or the France of that day. Palestine during the Crusades was not visited exclusively for religious or military reasons. Besides being a goal of pilgrimage, it was also what California or Australia was in the middle of the last century—a place where shrewd men of business could make money rapidly. Long before the first Crusade, there had been an Italian colony from Amalfi at Jerusalem, in the capture of which a Genoese detachment had assisted; colonies from Venice, Genoa, Pisa and Marseilles followed; in the monastery of La Cava is a deed of Baldwin IV, granting the ships of the monks access to the Syrian coast; we even find an “English quarter” at Acre[939]. Owing to the small numbers of the nobility, and the constant need of recruiting its ranks after its losses in battle, it was easy for the wealthy members of the middle class to enter the aristocracy, while, from the nature of its occupations, it was thrown into much closer contact with the natives. Mixed marriages were consequently commoner among the bourgeoisie, although Baldwin I and II and Josselin I of Edessa married Armenians, and Baldwin III and Amaury I Greeks.

The issue of these mixed marriages was known as the Poulains[940]. These half-castes, who corresponded to the Γασμοῦλοι of Frankish Greece, are not depicted in flattering terms by contemporary writers. Jacques de Vitry[941], the Bishop of Acre, describes them as “nourished in delights, soft and effeminate, more accustomed to baths than to battles, given to uncleanliness and luxury, dressed in soft garments like women, slothful and idle, cowardly and timid, little esteemed by the Saracens,” with whom they were ready to make peace, and from whom they were prone to accept assistance against their fellow Christians in their internecine quarrels. They were, alike by nature and interest, opposed to the arrival of fresh bodies of Crusaders, because war interfered with their business and interrupted their commercial relations with the Moslems, whose family life they imitated, veiling their wives, shutting them up in Oriental seclusion, and allowing them to go out thrice a week to the baths, but only once a year to church. This undue preference of cleanliness to godliness had disastrous effects, for it led the ladies to intrigue all the more to get out.

The worthy Bishop, speaking doubtless from personal experience, adds that the Poulains swindled the ingenuous pilgrims by overcharges at inns, by exorbitant prices in shops, and by giving them poor exchange. Worse still, they despised these Christian “boxers” and exiles, calling them fatuous idiots for their pains—for to the Poulains the Holy Land had no halo. They wore flowing robes, as even the first King of Jerusalem had done, while a coin of Tancred of Antioch represents him with a turban; and their whole outlook was Oriental rather than European. Indeed, Foucher, Baldwin I’s chaplain, remarked quite early how soon the Westerner became an Easterner in Palestine, and how the Crusader who married an Armenian or a Syrian soon forgot the land of his birth, adopting the comfortable maxim—“ubi bene, ibi patria.” Hence the marked contrast between the Frankish residents, and still more the Poulains, and the newly-arrived Crusaders. Hence, too, the often far too harsh judgments passed by the latter, especially after the second crusade in 1148. Like the Philhellenes, who went to Greece in the War of Independence, expecting to find the Peloponnese peopled by the superhuman heroes of Plutarch, instead of by men like themselves, they did not realise that poor human nature, even under conditions far more favourable, could not have possibly shone resplendent in the tremendous setting of the Holy Land. Consequently, they were often disillusioned, whereas men like William of Tyre, born and living in the country, were far fairer in their judgments, because they measured the Holy Land by the standard of other and more prosaic lands and not by the unattainable perfection of the greatest figure in all history, with whom it must ever be associated.

Society in the Crusading States was, it must be remembered, even apart from the Poulains, an extraordinary mixture of races. Even an Austrian army did not contain so many nationalities as the Crusaders. The Franks, as they were generically called, included Normans (at first the dominant race), French (who ousted the Normans, and thenceforth maintained their influence, culture and language, as they did nearly two centuries later at the Court of Athens), English, Welsh, Irish, Scots, Flemings, Italians, Germans (these not very numerous), and Scandinavians. Jacques de Vitry considered the Italians as the most satisfactory. He describes them as “prudent, temperate in eating and drinking, ornate and prolix in speaking, but circumspect in counsel, diligent in managing their own public affairs, and a very necessary element in the country, not only in battle, but at sea and in business, especially in the import trade. Since they are sober in food and drink, they live longer than other Western nations in the East”; and “they would be very formidable to the Saracens, if they would cease fighting among themselves.” Unfortunately, the rivalries between Venetians, Genoese, and Pisans were even more serious than the feuds between the Normans and the French; and the possession of the Church of St Saba at Acra (two pillars of which are now outside St Mark’s Venice) led to an Italian colonial war, in which we may find one cause of the final loss of the Holy Land. These Italian colonies, indeed, formed practically an imperium in imperio. Their respective quarters in the Syrian towns were the property of their governments, which appointed their officials (called “Consuls” in the Genoese and Pisan colonies, “Bailies” in the Venetian), often from among the most celebrated families of the Venetian Republic. Venice had also what we should call a Consul-General, a “Bailie” for all Syria; and both she and Genoa received a large portion of the harbour dues at Tyre and Acre. The Italian colonies had their own tribunals, like the consular courts in Turkey in our own day. Thus, Italian interests in the Holy Land were considerable and mainly commercial. To Venice and Genoa foreign affairs were—the affairs of their merchants.

The French and the English settlers were “less composed and more impetuous, less circumspect in action and more full of superfluity in food and drink, more lavish in expense and less cautious in talk, hasty in counsel, but more fervent in almsgiving, and more vehement in battle, and most useful for the defence of the Holy Land, and very formidable to the Saracens.”

Besides these various elements among the Crusaders, Palestine contained a large variety of indigenous races. Of these the native Christians of Arab speech, collectively known as Syrians, were the most favoured. Baldwin I gave them marked privileges at Jerusalem, and they could give evidence on oath. But they were of little use in war, except as archers; and are accused by Jacques de Vitry of betraying the secrets of the Christians to the Saracens, whose customs they largely imitated. The Maronites of the Lebanon were, however, noted for their military prowess and for the help which they rendered to the Franks.

Next to the Syrians came the Armenians, reckoned the best fighters of the Orientals, who, from the proximity of the Kingdom of Lesser Armenia to the County of Edessa, often assisted the Frank Counts, and copied their feudal arrangements. It is noticeable that the Assizes of Antioch have come to us through the Armenian, and that the Court of Sis, like that of Jerusalem, had its seneschal, its marshal, and its constable. The Greeks were regarded as opponents of the Latins; and, when Saladin took Jerusalem, he allowed them to remain. But we could scarcely expect them to view with sympathy the annexation of the Greek states of Edessa (still governed by a Greek official at the time of the Latin conquest) and Antioch, which only fourteen years before had been nominally a part of the Greek Empire. And Anna Comnena describes her father’s alarm at the march of large armies of foreigners across his rich and peaceful dominions who might (and in 1204 did) say with the Roman centurion: Hic manebimus optime!

Historians of the Moslem Arabs admit that, except in war time, Christians and Moslems lived together in harmony. There are examples of friendship, and even of adopted brotherhood, between Frank barons and Moslem emirs, who used to grant each other mutual permits to hunt. Every reader of The Talisman knows of the mutual courtesies between Richard I and Saladin, who sent medical aid to a sick opponent, but even more curious was the action of Guy de Lusignan, whose first act, on exchanging the Kingdom of Jerusalem for that of Cyprus, was to ask his former captor how to keep the island. Many Franks spoke Arabic; and it was even found necessary for commercial purposes to coin money bearing in Arabic characters the name of Mohammed and the date of the Moslem era! The merchants of Tyre and Acre, where these heretical coins were minted, protested that “business is business”; but the Papal Legate, who accompanied Louis IX on the sixth crusade, was so scandalised that he reported the matter to Pope Innocent IV, who excommunicated all who coined them. The wily merchants, however, circumvented his prohibition by minting similar coins with Christian inscriptions and the year of our Lord, both in Arabic, and with a cross in the centre of the coin. Of this hybrid currency, which began in 1251, there are several specimens. Like Frederick II in Sicily, the later Princes of Antioch and Counts of Tripolis had Saracen guards; and, under the name of Turcoples, given originally to Turks born of Greek mothers, Moslems entered the Christian armies as light cavalry. Of actual Turks there were few, for they had overrun Syria too short a time before the Crusades to take root in Palestine. Like the Franks, and like the Turks in the Balkans, they were only a garrison.

Special interest attaches to the Jews, at this period only a small section of the population, and, as usual, exclusively urban. Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Palestine about 1173, found two hundred Jews in the ghetto at Jerusalem beneath the Tower of David, where they had a monopoly of the dyeing trade, and twelve, all dyers, at Bethlehem. The largest Jewish colonies were, as was natural, in the great commercial towns, Tyre and Acre; and the total in the whole of the Latin states was only 7000 to 8000. They could not hold land, and were classed below the Moslems, but practised successfully as doctors and bankers, and had their own judges. Many had come from the south of France. A few Samaritans still survived at Nâbulus, the biblical Shechem, and at Cæsarea.

Below all these freemen came the slaves, including Christians, partly prisoners of war and partly imported. The Assizes of Jerusalem contain special regulations for the slave-trade (largely in Venetian and Genoese hands), but the legislators felt some scruples about allowing a Christian slave to be sold to a Moslem. There was one other very undesirable element in the population—persons who had left their country for their country’s good; for it was not unusual to pardon criminals on condition that they made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and never returned. The Bishop of Acre complains of this practice of making the Holy Land a convict station, just as some of our colonies did in the first half of the last century; and he quotes the Horatian tag, that people, who cross the sea, change the climate, but not their character. Nor does he approve of the tourist, who came from mere curiosity and not from devotion.

Among this heterogeneous mass the smallness of the Frankish forces makes us marvel that the Latin Kingdom lasted for 99 years at Jerusalem and for nearly 200 at Acre. The Assizes[942] inform us that the paper strength of the royal army was only 577 knights and 5025 foot-soldiers, to which we must add the contingents of the two great Military Orders and the Turcoples. At no time, in actual warfare, did the total armed forces of the four Crusading States much exceed 25,000; at Hattin—the Hastings of the Holy Land—Guy de Lusignan had only some 21,000 men under his command; Baldwin I crossed the Euphrates with only 80 knights to take Edessa; and some of the great battles of Tancred were fought by only 200 knights. William of Tyre[943], writing a few years before the catastrophe of 1187, explains the greater success of the Franks in the earlier years of the kingdom by their piety and courage as contrasted with the immorality and diminished martial spirit of his contemporaries. Other causes were the lack of military skill of the Moslems of that generation, and the disunion of their chiefs. When, however, Saladin united Syria and Egypt in his strong hand, the fate of the little Frankish colony was sealed. Disunion of allies neutralised the splendid courage of our Richard I in his attempt to restore what had been lost; Frederick II was a Crusader malgré lui; and in the thirteenth century many Franks, realising that the end was at hand, left for the Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus, or for Armenia, leaving as the most important factors in the Latin population the Italian colonies and the Religious Orders.

The Knights of St John, who originally took their name from St John the Merciful[944], a Cypriote who became Patriarch of Alexandria, arose at the time of the conquest in connection with the hospital, founded at Jerusalem a generation earlier by a citizen of Amalfi. Their first aim was to tend and nourish the sick, then to guard pilgrims up from the coast, and next to fight against the Infidels. They never forgot their original object, and pilgrims were enthusiastic in their praise. Indeed, Saladin is said to have gained admission to their hospital at Acre as a patient to see whether all that he heard about their beneficence was true. Gradually, as the feudal barons found it harder to defend their castles, they handed them to the Knights, who specially chose difficult frontier positions. Margat, Krak des Chevaliers, Chastel-Rouge, Gibelin and Belvoir were their chief fortresses; and Mount Tabor was one of their possessions.

The Templars, founded in 1118 to protect the pilgrims on their way from the coast, enjoyed a less enviable reputation. William of Tyre[945] remarks, that “for a long time they maintained their original object, but subsequently forgot the duty of humility.” They were accused of greed and selfishness, and of being too anxious to stand well with Moslem Princes, with whom they sometimes made a separate peace, to the detriment of Christendom. Thus they warned a Moslem chief of an intended raid by our Prince Edward. Their treachery to the sect of the Assassins scandalised the Court of Jerusalem and immensely damaged Christian interests. The chief of that terrible community, the “Old Man,” as he was called, whose territory was separated from the County of Tripolis by boundary stones, marked on the Christian side with a cross, on that of the Assassins with a knife, had sent an envoy to King Amaury I, offering to embrace Christianity, on condition that the Templars consented to forego the tribute paid to them by the Assassins. All had been arranged, and the diplomatist was on his way home, when the Templars assassinated the Assassin[946].

The Templars’ vow of poverty contrasted ill with their immense wealth, which enabled them, in 1191, to buy Cyprus from Richard I, and to lend a large sum to our Henry III. They acted as bankers; and through their hands passed the money collected in the West for future crusades. They were suspected, too, of heretical opinions, and were accused of initiating their novices with pagan rites. They possessed eighteen fortresses, of which Tortosa was the most important; but the Order did not long survive the loss of the Holy Land, being abolished by Clement V in 1312.

Less important were the Teutonic Knights, the Brüder vom deutschen Hause of Freytag’s well-known historical novel—an off-shoot of the Hospitallers—because the Germans contributed little towards the foundation of the Frankish states, and their distinct Order was not founded till after the first capture of the Latin capital. Their principal sphere of activity was not in Palestine but in Prussia, where they laboured to civilise the barbarous Prussians—a task in which they do not appear to have been altogether successful. A lasting memorial of their activity is the former Prussian fortress of Thorn—a name said to be derived from the castle of Toron in the Holy Land, once their possession. To us a more interesting Order is that of the Hospital of “the Master and Brothers of St Thomas of Canterbury,” at Acre, founded in 1191, in which Edward I showed interest, and which was transferred after the fall of Acre to Cyprus, where it still existed in 1350. A hospital for poor British pilgrims was also founded at Acre in 1254[947].

Palestine was a fruitful land during the Frankish period, although we hear much of the plagues of locusts and field-mice. Contemporary visitors wrote enthusiastically about the gardens of Jericho and the fertile plains of Jezreel and Tripolis, with its vineyards, its olive-yards, and its sugar plantations, whence the cane was taken to the factory at Tyre. The wines of Engaddi were as noted as in the Song of Solomon; and the vintages of Bethlehem and Jerusalem were highly esteemed. Jericho produced grapes so huge that “a man could scarcely lift a bunch of them”—a statement which shows that the vines had not degenerated since the days when the spies of Moses “cut down” from the brook of Eschcol “one cluster of grapes, and bare it between two upon a staff.” Even the silent waters of the Dead Sea were then traversed by fruit barges; and in the so-called “Valley of Moses” to the south of it the olive-trees formed “a dense forest.” There was more wood than now, and consequently more water, but corn had to be imported, for the harvests of Moab, Hebron, Bethlehem (“the house of bread”), and Jericho did not suffice to feed the population. The Sea of Galilee was as full of fish as in the time of Our Lord, and boats plied upon its waters. But, owing to the general insecurity of the open country, few of the cultivators of the soil were Franks; and, where we find Latin peasants, they are usually not far from the shelter of fortified towns. Of manufactures the most important were those of silk at Tripolis, Tiberias, and Tyre, dyeing, and pottery; the glass of Tyre is specially praised by its Archbishop, and the goldsmiths had a street all to themselves at Jerusalem.

Civilisation, so far as comfort was concerned, had reached a high level. Every castle had its baths; and minstrels and dancers appeared at the entertainments of the barons, while we read of theatrical performances at a coronation. A considerable amount of gambling went on in royal circles. Baldwin III was devoted to dice; the Prince of Antioch and the Count of Edessa were so busy with their dice-boxes during a campaign, that they demoralised many of their officers; the Count of Jaffa was so deeply engrossed in a game of dice that he was playing in the street of the Tanners at Jerusalem, that he allowed himself to be assassinated. Hunting with the falcon, and, in Arab fashion, with the cat-like animal known as the carable, were favourite amusements. It seems strange that nothing was done to encourage horse-breeding; and, as the Moslems were loth to sell horses to be used against themselves, the Franks usually imported their steeds from Apulia. Every spring it was the custom of the Frankish chivalry to take their horses to feed on the rich grass at the foot of Mt Carmel; and there, by the brook Kishon, where Elijah slew the prophets of Baal, tournaments were held, in which Saracen chiefs sometimes took part, and after which the combatants refreshed themselves with sherbet, made from the snows of Lebanon.

We must not expect a military colony, always fighting for its existence, to be very productive of literature. But perhaps the best specimen of mediæval history, the great work of William of Tyre, was produced by a Frank born in the Holy Land. The author possessed the two greatest qualities for writing the history of his own times: personal acquaintance with the principal actors in the drama by reason of his high official position, and at the same time fearless love of truth. He tells us that he was well aware of the perils to which he thus exposed himself; and, if it be true that he was poisoned in Rome by order of a rival whom he had denounced, his forebodings were only too accurate. Having been a diplomatist, a prelate, a royal tutor, and chancellor of the kingdom, he possessed an unrivalled experience of men and affairs; and, as is usual with such persons, he was much more moderate in his judgments of human frailty than purely literary or monastic chroniclers. The abrupt close of his work in 1183 has been ascribed to the desire of powerful enemies to suppress the facts about the last years of Jerusalem—a further proof of his dreaded influence.

A lesser luminary was Renaud, baron of Sagette, who amazed the pundits of Saladin by his Oriental scholarship; and the cult of French novels was diffused among the nobles of the Holy Land, whose legal knowledge was considerable. Philip of Navarre[948], the celebrated pleader, who has left a treatise showing how to make the worse cause appear the better in the feudal courts, tells us that he owed his knowledge of legal practice to the accident of being appointed reader of romances to the Seneschal of Jerusalem, who in return taught him law. The pleader, who also composed a historical work, and a treatise on the four ages of man, and was an opponent of the higher education of women, is described by Florio Bustron, the Cypriote historian, as a “huomo universale.”

In estimating the architectural results of the Frankish rule, we must remember the short time available—so far as all but the coast towns were concerned. But a traveller, who visited the country in 1185, tells us that the Franks had done much for the mural decoration of their churches, of which, beginning with Tancred’s church on Mt Tabor in 1111, they erected a number down to the catastrophe of Hattin. William of Tyre specially mentions the munificence of Queen Mélisende in founding a church and convent at Bethany, of which her youngest sister was Superior, and her splendidly bound copy of the Gospels is in the British Museum. In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and in the Cathedral and Castle of Tortosa, still linger traces of the Crusaders. It has been remarked that in their architecture more than in aught else the Franks of Palestine remained Westerners.

In conclusion we may ask how Frankish society in Palestine compares with Frankish society in Cyprus and in the Latin Principalities of the present Greek Kingdom. Very different from either Frankish Palestine or Frankish Greece was the condition of the Kingdom of Cyprus, created by a mere accident of the Crusades, which nominally continued the tradition of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. While the reason of the latter’s existence was war, Cyprus was essentially a commercial state, to which the loss of Acre was a blessing in disguise. So long as the Kings of Cyprus, in their capacity of Kings of Jerusalem, had territory on the opposite coast of Syria, they were necessarily involved in continental wars, and could not devote themselves to the development of their own island; as was the case of the Kings of England, so long as they held the damnosa hereditas of the Plantagenets in France. Cyprus was, like England, defended by the sea; like England, she became one of the marts of the world, in an age when the crusading spirit had died away, and trade was the attraction that led men to the East. The Popes, by prohibiting trade with the Saracens after the loss of the Holy Land, procured for Cyprus a monopoly; and Famagosta surpassed Constantinople, Venice and Alexandria. Moreover, warned by the example of Jerusalem, the Kings of Cyprus cut down the privileges of the nobles, who were denied the right of coinage and jurisdiction over the middle class. Consequently, the Cypriote monarchy was more independent, and continued to prosper until it allowed—and this should be to us a warning—foreign competitors, under the guise of commerce, to creep into its cities and ultimately to dictate its policy.

All the Latin states in the East, whether in Jerusalem, Cyprus, or Greece proper, presented examples of that difficult political experiment—the rule of a small alien minority over a large native majority of a different religion, an experiment worked most successfully in those states, like Lesbos under the Genoese Gattilusj, where the Latin rulers became assimilated with the ruled. But in Frankish Greece the feudal states were not commercial; and the Venetian and Genoese colonies were, except in Negroponte, quite distinct from them. The Frank conquerors of Greece did not go thither with the noble aims which led some of the leaders of the first Crusade to the Holy Land; on the contrary, they turned aside from the recovery of the Holy City to partition a Christian Empire. Yet the moral standard of the Franks in Greece was much higher than that of their predecessors in Palestine, or their contemporaries in Cyprus. Possibly, the reason was that they lived healthier lives, and had fewer temptations. Big maritime commercial towns, like Tyre and Acre, and Famagosta, did not exist, and country life was more developed. Certainly, the Chronicle of the Morea is more edifying reading than the Letters of Jacques de Vitry on the condition of Acre at the time of his appointment as its bishop in 1216. But in one respect Frankish Palestine and Frankish Greece present the same strange phenomenon—that union of antiquity with the Middle Ages, of the biblical and the classical with the romantic, which inspired the second part of Faust. To find the feudal system installed at Hebron and Athens, at Shechem and Sparta, at Tiberias and Thebes, to read of Princes of Galilee and of Princes of Achaia, causes surprise only surpassed by that which we should have felt in August, 1914, had we been told that before four Christmases had passed, Australians and New Zealanders would have shared in the taking of Jerusalem.

AUTHORITIES

1. Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Seventeen vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1841-1906.

2. Gesta Dei per Francos. Ed. J. Bongars. Two vols. Hanover, 1611.

3. Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 1100-1291. Von R. Röhricht. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1898.

4. Regesta Regni Hierosolimitani, 1097-1291, and Additamentum. Von R. Röhricht. Œniponti: Lib. Acad. Wagneriana, 1893-1904.

5. Les Colonies franques de Syrie aux xiiᵐᵉ et xiiiᵐᵉ siècles. Par E. Rey. Paris: Picard, 1883.

6. Numismatique de l’Orient Latin, avec Supplément. Par G. Schlumberger. Paris: Leroux, 1878-82.

7. Renaud de Châtillon, prince d’Antioche. Par G. Schlumberger. Paris: Plon, 1898.

8. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge. Von H. Prutz. Berlin: Siegfried, 1883.

9. Revue de l’Orient Latin. Eleven vols. Paris: Leroux, 1893-1908.

6. A BYZANTINE BLUE STOCKING: ANNA COMNENA

One of the differences between classical and modern literature is the rarity of female writers in the former and their frequency in the latter. While we have lady historians and poets in considerable numbers, while the fair sex has greatly distinguished itself in fiction, including that branch of it which is called modern journalism, ancient Greek letters contain the names of few celebrated women except Sappho; Myrtis and Corinna, the competitors of Pindar; Erinna, whose poetic fancy her mother strove to restrain by chaining her to her neglected spinning-wheel; and Elephantis, whose poetry was considered too realistic for display upon drawing-room tables. Novels were in those days chiefly written by bishops—a class of men not now usually associated with light literature. In Latin literature, although Juvenal has drawn a picture of the learned lady weighing in the critical balance the respective claims of Homer and Virgil, the poem attributed to Sulpicia is almost the sole surviving example of female composition. It has been reserved for Byzantine literature to present us with the rare phenomenon of a first-class lady historian—first-class, that is to say, according to the standards of that day—in the person of the Imperial Princess, Anna Comnena, a writer better known to the general public than are most Byzantine authors owing to the fact that Sir Walter Scott introduced her as one of the characters in Count Robert of Paris, and based one of the chief episodes of that novel upon a historical event recorded in her life of her father.

Since Scott’s time, novelists and dramatists have done something to popularise Byzantine history. Neale, in his Theodora Phranza, daughter of the last Byzantine historian, has described the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; Sardou produced on the stage a far more famous Theodora, the consort of Justinian, whom Prokopios so virulently besmirched in his Secret History. Mr Frederic Harrison has portrayed in Theophano the ambitious and unscrupulous wife and widow of the Emperors Romanos II and Nikephoros Phokas. Jean Lombard in Byzance depicted, with immense erudition, the games and ceremonial of the Imperial city and court in the time of the Iconoclast Emperor, Constantine V Copronymos, and endeavoured to solve the Balkan question by marrying and placing on the throne the Slav Oupravda and the Greek Eustokkia; while Marion Crawford gave us in Arethusa a story from a much later period, the year 1376, based upon the struggle at the Court of John V between the Venetian adventurer, Carlo Zeno, and the Genoese, for the possession of the isle of Tenedos, the key of the Dardanelles.

Anna Comnena was born in 1083 at an interesting moment in the history not only of the Greek Empire, but of Christendom. It was the time when the Mediæval West and the Mediæval East first met; when the Normans, after their recent conquest of England and Southern Italy, first crossed the Adriatic and Ionian seas to attack the Greek Empire, soon to be followed by the hosts of the First Crusade. Just as, with the accession of William the Conqueror fifteen years earlier, a new order of things had begun in Northern Europe, so with the accession of her father, the Emperor Alexios I Comnenos, in 1081, two years before her birth, a new era, and practically a new dynasty—though Alexios was not the first of the family to seize the throne—had begun at Byzantium. From 1025, the end of the long and glorious reign of Basil II, whom the Greeks of to-day still admire as the “Bulgar-slayer,” the destroyer of the first Bulgarian Empire on those self-same battlefields of Macedonia where King Constantine defeated the Bulgarians in the second Balkan war of 1913, the Byzantine throne had been occupied by no less than twelve sovereigns, whose consecutive reigns filled a period scarcely longer than that embraced by the single reign of the great Basil. After the death of his brother and successor, Constantine VIII, there began a period of palace intrigues and female influence, for Constantine’s two mature daughters, Zoe and Theodora, assigned the throne to whomsoever they chose; and the successive marriages of the elderly Zoe furnished Psellos with a chronique scandaleuse of the Imperial Court and boudoir, and MM. Schlumberger and Diehl with their brilliant modern paraphrases of the contemporary writer. When, with the death of Theodora, the Macedonian dynasty came to an end in the person of its last representative, revolution succeeded revolution. Every general of aristocratic birth was justified in believing that he carried in his baggage the red boots which were the peculiar mark of the Imperial dignity, and a female regency enabled the Empress Eudokia to bestow the Empire with her hand. At last, the ablest and astutest of the Byzantine commanders, Alexios Comnenos, deposed the feeble old voluptuary, Nikephoros Botaneiates, whose Slavonic ministers had discredited his authority by their “barbarous” pronunciation and foreign origin, and placed himself and his descendants upon the throne for 100 years.

These internal dissensions had naturally injured the external prestige of the Empire and contracted its frontiers. It was then that there came the final separation between the Eastern and the Western Churches; it was then, too, that, by the loss of Bari, Brindisi, and Otranto, the Byzantine Empire forfeited its last Italian possessions. Meanwhile, the advance of the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor had pushed back the Greek frontier in a second continent close to the capital; and Anna Comnena[949] declares that, on her father’s accession, “the Bosporus was the eastern, and Adrianople the western, limit of the Greek sceptre.” Alexios, she proudly adds, “widened the circle of the Empire, and made the Adriatic its western, the Euphrates and the Tigris its eastern, border.”

Yet, as she truly says, her father had to contend all the time against enormous difficulties, alike domestic and foreign. At the outset of his reign, his throne was surrounded with possible pretenders. Both his immediate predecessors were alive, although the one was a bishop, the other in a monastery, besides four sons of dethroned Emperors who had received the Imperial title during their fathers’ reigns, and several persons who had endeavoured unsuccessfully to seize and keep the crown. There were constant conspiracies against Alexios so long as he sat on the throne, while the eternal theological questions, which were the favourite mental distraction of Byzantium, caused him constant anxiety, for there, as in the Balkans to-day, theology and politics were inextricably mingled. From abroad there came, too, the menace of invasion on all sides—from the wild tribes of the Patzinaks and Cumans on the north, from the Normans on the west, from the Turks on the east. And, worse than all, the unhappy Alexios was suddenly called upon to cope with the hurricane of the First Crusade, and to find his Empire overrun by swarms of fierce warriors, whose motives he suspected and whose intentions he judged from their acts to be predatory.

Alexios owed his crown to a successful insurrection; but he was no vulgar upstart. He belonged to a rich family of Paphlagonia, where the Comnenoi held property at Kastamon, the modern Kastamouni, the place known in contemporary history as the exile for nearly thirty years of the late Mirdite Prince, Prenk Bib Doda. The Comnenoi had first come into prominence about a century earlier under Basil II; and one of the clan, the distinguished general, Isaac Comnenos, had occupied the throne from 1057 to 1059. Anna’s father was this man’s nephew, and, in spite of his uncle’s brief reign, the real founder of the dynasty. For the Emperor Isaac, in a moment of discouragement and disillusionment, not only abdicated but failed to induce his brother John, the father of Alexios, to accept the heavy burden of the crown. It was not, however, to his timorous and unambitious father, but to his energetic mother, Anna Dalassene, that Alexios owed his success. She was resolved that her son should be Emperor, and during four intervening reigns, she was waiting and intriguing for the diadem which her husband had allowed to go out of his family. A great lady herself, the daughter of an eminent official and soldier, whose skill in never failing to kill his man had earned him the nickname of “Charon,” she belonged, like the Comnenoi, to a powerful Asiatic family, one of whose members had been at first thought by Constantine VIII as worthy to succeed him, and had subsequently been regarded as a possible husband for the old Empress Zoe. Like many eminent Byzantine personages, she had known the reverses of fortune, and had at one time been exiled to Prinkipo. Such was the esteem which the Emperor Alexios felt for the mother, who had constantly encouraged and facilitated his ambition, that when, at the outset of his reign, he was compelled to leave his capital to fight against the Normans in Albania, he entrusted to her the absolute authority over the Empire during his absence. This is only one of many instances proving the influence of women in the Byzantine system. Thus, the mother of Alexios made history, his daughter wrote it; his mother made him Emperor, his daughter preserved the memory of his reign. Such were the origin and parents of the hero of the Alexiad. Let us now look at its author.

The literary Princess has given us in her history of her father a considerable amount of autobiographical information. Anna Comnena was not at all disposed to hide her light under a bushel, nor did she ever forget that she had been born in the purple chamber—the room to which an Empress was always removed when her confinement was imminent. Like most members of the reigning Imperial family, she received an excellent literary education. “I am not destitute of letters,” she writes in her preface, “but have thoroughly studied classical Greek”; and she adds that she had applied herself diligently to the mathematical quadrivium, to rhetoric, the philosophy of Aristotle, and the dialogues of Plato. In another passage she alludes to her knowledge of geometry. Her quotations show a wide range of reading. Her history contains citations from, or allusions to, Homer, Sappho, Sophokles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, the Tactics of Ælian, and the astronomer Eudoxos, while she repeats a whole sentence from Polybios and another from John of Epiphania, and shows, as Byzantine writers always do, great familiarity with the Bible. Niketas summed her up as “acquainted with every art.”

Nor need we, who have in our own history a similarly learned lady of royal lineage, Lady Jane Grey, wonder at the erudition of this Byzantine blue stocking. There had been a recrudescence of literary culture in the eleventh century at Byzantium[950], as in the sixteenth century in London. Shortly before Anna’s birth the Imperial Court had been the scene of the many-sided activities of that remarkable man, Michael Psellos, “the Prince of Philosophers,” as he was called by his contemporaries, the Voltaire of mediæval Greek literature, at once philosopher, historian, lawyer, monk, courtier and prime minister, who demonstrated, as other learned statesmen have proved in our own time, that great intellectual attainments may coincide with a poor character and political ineptitude. Another writer, the historian Michael of Adalia, or Attaleiates, who had gained by his legal abilities the favour of successive sovereigns, dedicated his history of his own time to the Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates, and made a sufficient fortune out of speculations in real estate to found an almshouse for his less fortunate fellows. But in the time of Psellos and Attaleiates learning had disciples on the throne, as well as in the lecture-hall. The Imperial family of Doukas was noted for its devotion to literature; the collection of genealogies of gods and heroes, known under the title of Ionia (or Violarium), has been by some ascribed to the ambitious Empress Eudokia, wife of Constantine X Doukas and of his successor; while the Emperor Michael VII Doukas, who had been a pupil of Psellos and is known in history by the nickname of “Parapinakes,” or the “Peck-filcher,” from his fraudulent manipulation of the corn-monopoly, spent his time in composing iambics and anapæsts quite in the fashion of our classically-educated eighteenth century statesmen, who lost us the American colonies and were stronger at Greek verses than at political economy. Even the old roué Botaneiates, was, if we believe his panegyrist Attaleiates, a lover of books. When Alexios succeeded him, he further encouraged literature; one of his physicians, Kallikles, was a writer of epitaphs, not always on his own patients; and the historian, John Skylitzes, who was a captain of the bodyguard, dedicated some legal treatises to this Emperor.

It was not, therefore, remarkable that Alexios’ daughter was highly educated, nor that her husband, Nikephoros Bryennios, was, like herself, a historian, although, like Julius Cæsar, he modestly described his work as merely supplying “the materials for those who wished to write history.” A soldier by profession, the son of the pretender of the same name who had revolted against Michael VII, and had been crushed by Alexios, he defended Constantinople against Godfrey of Bouillon in 1097, and fought against the Sultan of Ikonium in 1116. Taking Xenophon, another literary soldier, as his model, he possessed, like Attaleiates, a much simpler and more straightforward style than his learned consort, and his soldierly prose is, although a glorification of his father-in-law, pleasing to read.

But the cultured Anna, unlike her husband, had other besides literary ambitions, of which her distracted account of her father’s death-bed shows no trace. We learn, however, from the later historian, Niketas, of the mundane designs which agitated the bosoms of the Empress and her daughter at that solemn moment, of the efforts made by Irene to induce her expiring husband to disinherit his son in favour of his son-in-law, and how, when the dying Emperor lifted up his hands to heaven with a forced smile on his pallid cheeks, his wife bitterly reproached him with the words: “Husband, all thy life thou hast been versed in every kind of deceit, saying one thing and thinking another; and now that thou art dying, thou art true to thine old ways.” Gibbon has summed up the remark in the caustic sarcasm: “You die as you have lived—a hypocrite.” Nor was the virtuous Anna inclined to acquiesce in the accession of her brother John II. She had been, till his birth, the heiress-presumptive, and as such had been betrothed as a child to the son of the dethroned Emperor, Michael VII, the young Constantine Doukas, who died, however, before their marriage. She had thus missed the throne once, and was determined not to miss it again.

Scott, in his novel, has completely misrepresented the character of her husband by representing him as plotting to seize the throne, even during the lifetime of Alexios. Such a conception of the honest Bryennios is quite erroneous. For Anna’s plot was entirely frustrated by the sluggish indifference and greater humanity of her consort. So greatly annoyed was his wife at his reluctance to accept the crown by killing or blinding his brother-in-law, that she bitterly reproached nature in a phrase which must be left in the obscurity of the original language, for having made the mistake of creating her a woman and him a man. The conspiracy was discovered; but the Emperor treated his sister with more mercy than she deserved, contenting himself with bestowing her richly furnished palace upon his favourite and faithful minister. Even this punishment, at the instance of the minister himself, was rescinded; her palace was restored to the princess; her husband held office under the new Emperor and accompanied him in the Syrian campaign of 1137; but her pride was wounded by her brother’s magnanimity. She retired in Byzantine fashion to the convent of Our Lady of Grace, founded by her mother, the ex-Empress Irene, whose charter has been preserved.

At the age of thirty-five her career at Court was over; her old friends, courtier-like, turned away from her to worship the rising sun; her mother, her favourite brother, her husband, whom, despite his weakness of character and unwillingness to reign, she loudly praises in her history and regarded with obvious affection[951], successively passed away. Their son, Alexios, who took his mother’s surname, held office under her nephew, the Emperor Manuel, as Lord High Admiral. She bitterly complains, with her customary rhetorical exaggeration, of her hard lot since her eighth year, when her brother John was associated with his father in the Imperial dignity; to enumerate her sufferings and her enemies, she exclaims, “requires the Siren eloquence of Isokrates, the deep voice of Pindar, the vehemence of Polemon, the muse of Homer, the lyre of Sappho.” For twenty-nine years she had not seen or spoken with any of her father’s friends, of whom many were dead, and many were afraid to visit her. She compares herself with Niobe, and introduces into her history transparent allusions to her treatment by “the great,” and to the folly of her father’s successors—both monarchs of distinction[952]. Under these circumstances, she endeavoured to console herself with the composition of her history—a work written mostly, as she tells us, under the reign of her nephew, Manuel I, who ascended the throne in 1143. By 1148, at the age of 65, she had finished her work; the date of her death is unknown.

The princess had set herself the filial task of writing a biography of her father from 1069 to his death in 1118, thus covering the whole of his reign and twelve years before it. Her history thus formed a continuation of those composed by Attaleiates and by her husband, the former of whom had narrated the events of the years 1034 to 1079, the latter those of the years 1070 to 1079. As it had been the object of the former to glorify the still living Botaneiates, so it was the aim of the latter to whitewash Alexios, representing him as a legitimate sovereign, who had merely renounced the throne, once occupied by his uncle.

She begins her history by describing her father’s exploits during the three previous reigns, the “three labours of Hercules[953],” as she characteristically calls his suppression of the rebellions of Oursel Bailleul, or Russell Balliol, a member of the family which founded Balliol College (whom Scott has, by a pardonable anachronism, represented as a fellow-prisoner of Count Robert of Paris in the dungeon), and his victory over the two pretenders from Durazzo, her husband’s father, Nikephoros Bryennios, and Basilakios. She then proceeds to trace the career of the famous Norman leader, Robert Guiscard, and the causes of his war against the Byzantine Empire, the first attack of the Latin West against the Greek East and the forerunner of the Fourth Crusade. The second book is devoted to her father’s revolt against the Emperor Nikephoros Botaneiates and his seizure of the throne. With the third book begins his reign. She describes the Norman invasion, how Guiscard crossed the Adriatic, besieged and took Durazzo, the historic town which has played so large a part in the Balkan history of the last seven years, and which was then the western gate of the Byzantine Empire, just as in the days of Catullus and Plautus it had been the “tavern of the Adriatic.” In the sixth book we have Guiscard’s second expedition and death at the Cephalonian village, which, under the name of Phiskardo, still recalls the end of that famous Norman leader. Here is related the legend that in the opposite island of Ithake there was a ruined city, called Jerusalem; and thus was fulfilled the prophesy that Guiscard should die when he had reached Jerusalem. Similar prophecies were similarly accomplished in the case of Pope Silvester II, who died after celebrating mass in the Church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, and in that of our King Henry IV, dying, as Shakespeare has narrated, in the Jerusalem chamber. Next follow the military operations in Asia Minor and against the Cumans, or “Scythians,” as the classically-educated writer calls them, in Europe. Then, after some account of the affairs of Crete and Cyprus and of the Dalmatian revolt, the tenth book treats of the heresy of Neilos, and introduces us to the First Crusade.

At this point the chief interest of this history for modern readers begins, for Anna Comnena is writing of a movement of world-wide importance, and her descriptions of the Crusading chiefs are those of an eyewitness. The eleventh book deals with the progress of the Crusaders in Asia—the capture of Nice, the foundation of the Principality of Antioch and of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the accession of Baldwin I, the quarrel of Alexios and Bohemond about Antioch and Laodicea, and Bohemond’s strangely contrived journey to Italy in a coffin with the odorous carcase of a dead cock. Books twelve and thirteen describe his second invasion of Albania, his siege of Durazzo, and his second pact of vassalage with Alexios, who gave him Antioch as a fief for life with the County of Edessa. The fourteenth book records his death, the siege of Tyre and the Turkish war, and gives an interesting account of the Bogomile heretics at Philippopolis. The last book is also partly occupied with their treatment by the Emperor, and ends with a somewhat mutilated description of the death of Alexios. Thus, as a later Greek epigram expressed it, the Alexiad ended when Alexios died.

As its name implies, the Alexiad is a biography rather than a history, with the Emperor as the central figure, placed in what his admiring daughter regarded as the most favourable light, but what, according to modern ideas, is sometimes quite the reverse. The Imperial biographer was well aware that she would be accused of partiality, and is at considerable pains to repudiate in advance the charge of filial prejudice. She specially pleads her unbiased judgment in dealing with her father’s career, declares that she does not like to praise her relatives or to repeat scandal, adapts Aristotle’s famous saying about Plato by averring that, if her father is dear to her, truth is dearer, and sums up her aim as “love of her father and love of truth[954].” She admits that he had some defects, that he stammered[955] and found difficulty in pronouncing the letter R; and she candidly avows that he was merely an instrument in the hand of his mother, Anna Dalassene, an excellent woman of business, when he first ascended the throne[956]. But she is apt to forget her precept of impartiality when she comes to describe his achievements. With characteristic exaggeration she exclaims that, “not even if another Demosthenes and all the chorus of the orators, not even if all the Academy and all the Stoic philosophers combined together to extol the services of Alexios, could they attain unto them”; and in another passage she asks, “what echo of Demosthenes or whirling words of Polemon, why, not all the muses of Homer, could worthily hymn his successes; I should say that not Plato himself, nor all the Porch and Academy combined together could have philosophised in a manner such as befitted his soul[957].”

She tells us that her father hated not only lying but the appearance of lying; yet, she naïvely applauds his sharp practice in sending letters to Bohemond’s officers, in which he thanked them for letters to himself which they had never written, in order to compromise them with their chief; she acknowledges without a blush how he deceived the Crusaders at the taking of Nice; and she describes with admiration how he invited the Bogomile heretic, Basil, to a private colloquy, telling him that he admired his virtue and urging him to make a full statement of his doctrine, while all the time a secretary, concealed behind a curtain, took down the statements which fell from the unsuspecting heresiarch’s mouth and which were used as evidence against him to send him to the stake. Such tactics only evoke from the complaisant daughter the laudatory comment, that her father’s theological skill in dealing with heretics like the Manichæans should earn him the title of “the thirteenth apostle[958].” Modern readers will agree with Finlay that “even Anna’s account makes the Bogomilian a noble enthusiast, and her father a mean traitor.”

Yet Alexios was, in spite of these moral defects, a brave soldier, who, however, usually followed the plan of gaining a victory by craft, if craft were possible. His character was a combination, not uncommon in the Near East, of courage and intrigue; he was no coward, but he was a born schemer, rather than a statesman. Like many Byzantine rulers, he had a weakness for theology—a dangerous taste in an autocrat—and his daughter describes with admiration how he lectured the heretic Neilos on the doctrine of the Trinity, and how he ordered a monk named Zygavenos to compile a list and refutation of all the heresies, under the title of “A Dogmatic Panoply.” He had the politician’s love for an immediate success, rather than for a lasting benefit, although he was, as his daughter tells us, fond of playing chess, in which immediate success counts for less than a far-seeing plan. Thus, to obtain the temporary advantage of securing the aid of the Venetian fleet against the Normans, he gave the Venetians enormous commercial concessions throughout his Empire, which were one of the causes, 120 years later, of the Latin capture of Constantinople. The policy of Alexios Comnenos has had disciples in Southern and South-Eastern Europe in our own day; but the most successful Greek statesman of our time attained his wonderful triumphs by frankness and honesty of purpose, to which the Byzantine Emperor was a stranger.

But Anna’s partiality is not limited to her father; it extends to other members of her family, except, of course, her brother, the Emperor John II, who was, in reality, an excellent sovereign. Although she despised her husband’s weakness in not seizing the throne, she praises in Homeric language his skill as an archer, and devotes a long passage to the learning and wisdom, the strength and physical beauty, which made “my Cæsar,” as she affectionately calls him, what Achilles was among the Homeric Greeks. Like Achilles, he was a fine soldier, but, like not a few soldiers of Byzantium, he was also a student and a writer, who composed his history at the command of that “most learned mind and intelligence” as he called his wife’s mother, the Empress Irene[959]. Of that lady her daughter writes with enthusiasm, comparing her with Athena, and praising her for her zealous study of the branch of science which was most appreciated at the Byzantine Court—dogmatic theology. The Empress, so her daughter tells us, did not like publicity; she preferred to stay at home and read religious books; and, when she was obliged to perform any Court function, she blushed like a girl[960].

Of her fiancé, the young Constantine, the Princess writes with an enthusiasm which seems to come from the heart. She describes him as “a living statue,” and says that “if any one merely looked at him, he would speak of him as a descendant of the fabled age of gold”; and she confesses that after all these years the memory of this youth filled her eyes with tears. To the beauty of his mother, the Dowager-Empress Maria, by whom she was in part educated, she has dedicated a glowing passage, in which she likens her to a cypress in stature, with a skin white as snow—in short, a statue such as neither Phidias nor Apelles ever produced, “for such a harmony of all the members was never yet seen in any human body.” Thus, the Court circle of the reign of Alexios Comnenos, if we may believe his daughter, was a galaxy of that beauty which modern society journals assume to be the attribute of royal ladies.

It must not, however, be imagined that Anna Comnena, because she wrote like a Princess and a daughter, is not a valuable historian. She possessed a first-hand knowledge of the events of a large part of her father’s reign; and, as she tells us, she drew her information about the events, of which she had not been an eyewitness, largely from her father’s fellow-comrades in war, men like George Palaiologos, the defender of Durazzo, as well as from her father himself. Writing in the reign of Manuel I, when no one was interested in flattering the long-dead Alexios, she could claim, like Tacitus, that the time had arrived to describe his distant reign “sine irâ et studio.” From her birth and position, she possessed what mere scribes in all ages lack, an intimate acquaintance with the men who are really making history. She knew courts, and, a princess of the blood royal herself, she made the frank admission that even her father, against whom there were constant plots, was no exception to the rule that subjects usually dislike their sovereigns[961].

She had access to State papers, which to the ordinary literary man would have remained inaccessible for generations. Thus, she gives us the ipsissima verba of the golden bull appointing the Empress-mother, Anna Dalassene, regent in the absence of her son, and the text of her father’s letter to the Emperor Henry IV, his “most Christian brother,” urging him to attack Guiscard in Southern Italy, offering him money, and suggesting a marriage between one of Henry’s daughters and his own nephew. These curious pieces are of interest as a specimen of the Byzantine Chancery’s epistolary style; and we note the care with which the Byzantine Emperor, who regarded himself as the sole heir of all the Cæsars, avoided giving the Imperial title to this Western “brother,” whom Anna describes by the Latinised form rex, while reserving for her father the more dignified title of basileús[962]. She gives, too, the full text of the lengthy agreement made between Alexios and Bohemond in 1108, which she probably had from her husband, who negotiated that treaty—a document of much value for the historical geography of the Holy Land during the Latin domination[963]. She has apparently used for her account of Guiscard a now lost Latin Chronicle, perhaps the work of the Archdeacon John of Bari, which was employed by William the Apulian as material for his Latin poem on that Norman chief, for she quotes the envoy of the Bishop of Bari as having described to her an incident in the campaign of Guiscard, at which he was present[964].

She had access, also, to the simple and unvarnished memoirs of retired veterans, and was therefore well posted in military affairs. Her accurate use of technical military terms would do credit to a war-correspondent of the scientific school, while the glowing rhetoric of some of her descriptions would win the admiration of the modern descriptive writer, who, not being allowed to see anything of the operations, has to fall back upon the scenery. As examples of her military phraseology[965] may be cited the words ἐξώπολον for the circle outside the camp, κοπός (or σκοπός) used in soldiers’ slang to designate their “fatigue parties,” and ἀρχοντόπουλοι, a term originally applied to the corps of soldiers’ sons first formed by her father, but extended in modern Greek to mean the children of any notables. She twice uses the technical term for a galley, and gives an elaborate description of the cross-bow, then an unknown weapon to the Greeks. More interesting still, she allows us to read, imbedded in her severely literary Greek, occasional specimens of the vulgar idiom used by the ordinary people in their conversation. Thus, she has preserved the popular lines about the successful conspiracy which placed her father on the throne; she cites a satiric verse about him during the Cuman war, and alludes to the comic song, sung in the vernacular, during the conveyance to execution of Michael Anemas, who had tried to kill him[966]. She so far forgets the dignity of historical narrative as to perpetrate two atrocious puns.

We find in her pages, too, some of the modern geographical names which had already, in popular speech, replaced the classical denominations for various Balkan mountains, rivers and towns. Thus, like her husband, she uses the modern name “Vardar” for the famous Macedonian river, instead of the classical “Axios”; she calls the Homeric “Ossa” by its present title of “Kissavos”; she describes the poetic “Peneios” as the “Salamvrias,” and uses the contemporary term “Dyrrachion” (whence comes the modern Italian “Durazzo” and the modern Serbian “Dratch”), as well as the older form “Epidamnos.” She apologetically asks no one to blame her for using such a vulgar name as “Vojussa,” with which the war has made us so familiar, for the classic river “Aoos[967].”

As a rule she adopts an exaggeratedly lofty style. Just as it was said of Dr Johnson, that he would have made “little fishes talk like whales,” so the learned Princess makes a man address a crew of boatmen in the language of Homer[968]. Her contemporary, the annalist Zonaras, says of her that “she employed an accurately Attic Greek style,” and that “she had applied herself to books and to learned men and did not merely hold incidental converse with them.” But she frequently descends to quite every-day words, with which students of such mediæval Greek works as the Chronicle of the Morea and of the ordinary language of to-day are familiar. Thus, she describes an army, just as the Chronicler described it, as φοσσάτον; the French forms “liege” and “sergeants” are scarcely disguised under her Greek renderings λίζιος and σεργέντιοι. The classic word for “plains” (πεδία) becomes, in her prose, κάμπαι; the poetic τέμπη assume (as in Attaleiates) the guise of κλεισούραι, while κουλᾶ thrice displaces the classic ἀκρόπολις; φάμουσα, the vulgar word for “libels,” has crept into her pages; and πιγκέρνης has supplanted οἰνοχόος as the term for the court butler[969]. She remarks that those who led a nomadic life were called in “the common dialect, ‘Vlachoi’”; she quotes the popular Byzantine mot, that “the Scythians (i.e. Cumans) missed seeing May by a single day,” because they were defeated on April 29, and makes her father, when Bohemond at first rejected his presents, humorously apply to himself the current saying, “Let a bad thing return to its own master” (αὐθέντην)[970].

One of the most interesting features of Anna Comnena’s history is the aspect which the First Crusade assumes in her pages. To Western historians the Crusades appeared as, on the whole, a great material benefit to Europe, quite apart from their religious and moral motives and results. But we learn from this Byzantine Princess, herself an eye-witness of the Crusaders’ arrival in her father’s capital, how this religious movement struck the Eastern Christians. The incursion of vast masses of more or less undisciplined soldiers into the Byzantine Empire naturally inspired alarm in the mind of its ruler, who feared—and the diversion of the Fourth Crusade from the redemption of the Holy Land to the capture of Constantinople three generations later justified his fears—that the pilgrims might be tempted to occupy his territories on the way. East and West rarely thoroughly understand one another; and the mutual reproaches of bad faith, which Greek historians have flung at the Crusaders and Latin historians at Alexios, were probably largely due, as is usually the case when two different nationalities quarrel, to a misunderstanding of one another’s mentality.

Alexios could scarcely feel reassured, when he heard that one of the Crusading chiefs was that same Bohemond who had fought against him in Thessaly, and whose father had sought a shadowy pretext to invade his Empire and capture Durazzo, “the Metropolis of Illyricum[971].” Anna tells us what were the Emperor’s feelings when he first heard the news of the forthcoming Crusade and the approaching advent of vast Frankish armies. “He feared,” she wrote, “their attack, knowing their unrestrainable dash, their changeable and easily influenced minds, and all the other qualities, or concomitant attributes, of the French character.... For the French race is extremely hot-blooded and keen, and whenever it has once started on any course, impossible to check.” She accused the Crusaders of treating treaties like “scraps of paper” and of inordinate love of lucre; “for the Latin race,” she wrote, “is in other respects most devoted to money.” In her eyes these “barbarians,” as she called them in the contemptuous language of a highly cultivated Greek, were actuated by motives very different from the ostensible aim of freeing the Holy Sepulchre from the Infidels. “In appearance,” she remarked, “they were on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but in truth they wanted to oust the Emperor from his throne and seize the capital.” She noticed the sudden ups and downs of the French character, rapidly going from one extreme to the other, and pathetically described how one cause of her father’s rheumatism in his feet was the constant exertion to which they subjected that patient monarch, by worrying him with their requests all day and all night, so that he could not even find time to take his meals[972]!

In these circumstances, it was perhaps hardly to be expected that he should be very enthusiastic about taking an active part in the Crusade, although he more than once ransomed captured Crusaders. Nor was his enthusiasm increased by such acts of spoliation as the erection into a Latin County and a Latin Principality respectively of Edessa, still governed at the time of the Latin conquest by a Greek governor, and of Antioch, which only fourteen years earlier had been nominally a part of the Greek Empire. Again, no sovereign, and not least the ceremonious Emperor of Byzantium, could have been expected to put up with such an affront as that described by Sir Walter Scott after Anna Comnena, when a boorish Crusading noble seated himself on the Emperor’s seat. Yet Alexios took this unwarranted act of rudeness with great tact and dignity, even though it had been accompanied by an insulting remark about “a yokel remaining alone seated while so many nobles were standing in his presence.” Indeed, he not only deigned to ask who this unmannerly churl might be, but gave him some excellent advice, derived from long personal experience, of the safest way to wage war against the Turks. The arrogant Frank paid with his life at the battle of Dorylæum for his neglect of the Emperor’s well-meant warning[973].

The literary Princess was not, however, so far led away by her national prejudices as to see no good in the Crusaders. She said of a very good Greek horseman, that “one would have thought him to be not a Greek, but of Norman origin,” so well did he ride. Indeed, the incapacity of the French to fight on foot struck her so forcibly that she remarked: “A Frenchman on horseback is unrestrainable and would ride through the walls of Babylon, but once dismounted he is at the mercy of the first comer.” For that reason her father bade his archers kill the horses of the Western cavaliers, for then the riders would be helpless[974]. She specially eulogises the honesty of the Comte de St Gilles, Isangeles, as she calls him, who “differed in all things from all the Latins, as much as the sun differs from the stars[975].” While she expresses the horror felt by her fellow-countrymen at the Church militant as represented by the fighting Latin clergy, armed with shield and spear[976], in her character of Guiscard, who did so much harm to her father, she praises his courage and strategic ability, and her description of Bohemond’s personal appearance is so detailed and so flattering that it may have been prompted by a very feminine motive. “No such man, whether barbarian or Greek,” she wrote of him, “was ever seen in the land of the Greeks (for he was a marvel to behold and a wonder to be narrated)[977].” Of the warlike wife of Guiscard, Gaïta, she says with mixed admiration and alarm, that “she was a Pallas, but not an Athena,” skilled in battle but not in arts, and terrible when armed with her lance and piercing voice.

Students of Balkan geography are no less indebted to Anna Comnena than are historians of the First Crusade. Her pages are full of the names of places, rendered household words to us by the events of the last seven years. On this subject she had access to a very high authority, her father, who possessed a minute knowledge of both coasts of the Adriatic with their harbours, a list of which he sent to his Admiral, and with the prevailing winds of that turbulent sea. Alexios was, in fact, an Adriatic specialist, as he would be described in the jargon of to-day. No writer on the historical geography of Durazzo could afford to neglect our author, who minutely describes the origin, topography, and contemporary condition of that famous town. She tells us that at that time most of the inhabitants were colonists from Amalfi and Venice; and she describes the walls of that now squalid little Albanian town as at that time so broad that more than four horsemen could safely ride abreast along them, while there stood a bronze equestrian statue over the eastern gate. She talks of the old Bulgarian capitals of “Pliskova” and “Great Pristhlava” (Pliska and Prêslav); she narrates the origin of Philippopolis, where she herself had lived for some time; and she makes one interesting allusion to the comparatively recent Norman Conquest of England in the passage, in which she says that Bohemond was aided in his second invasion of Albania by men from “Thule” (Britain)[978], which she also mentions as furnishing the Varangian guard. We know from a contemporary British historian how glad the English exiles were to fight in Greece against the Normans, and how Alexios built a town for them at Civetot, the modern Guemlek, on the Asiatic coast near Constantinople. We hear, too, how 300 of them defended Kastoria.

She uses the correct word jupan (or “count”) for the Serbian chieftains[979], but designates both King Michael (who was the first ruler of Dioklitia to bear the royal title and whose dominions included Scutari, Montenegro, the Herzegovina and the coast), and his son and co-regent, Bodin, as Exarchs of the Dalmatians[980]. She mentions also the contemporary “great” jupan of the other and inland Serbian state of Rascia, the modern sandjak of Novibazar, Vukan, describing him as “wielding the entire authority over the Dalmatians,” of whom she says that, “although they were Dalmatians, still they were Christians.” It is interesting to find in this passage that one of his nephews already bore the name of Urosh, so famous in the later Serbian dynasty of Nemanja, which etymologists derive from the Magyar word úr, meaning “lord.” The identification of the Serbians with “Dalmatians” would tend to prove the predominantly Serbian character of Southern Dalmatia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. She was acquainted, too, with the pirates, who infested the mouth of the river Narenta, and whom she twice mentions under the name of “Vetones.”

The name of the Albanians was known to Anna Comnena, as to her predecessors, Attaleiates and Skylitzes, the first Byzantine authors who applied it to that mysterious race. She notices the exclusive admiration felt by the Albanians, as by the modern British school-boy, for physical prowess, and remarks that in that country bodily strength and size were the principal requirements that made a man a suitable candidate for the purple and the diadem[981]. In the case, however, of that tall but inane guardsman, Prince William of Wied, gigantic size was not sufficient to ensure the loyalty of the Albanians. Anna Comnena is also the first writer who mentions the existence of the Wallachs[982] in Thessaly, soon to be called “Great Wallachia” by her successor Niketas, and “Wallachia” by Benjamin of Tudela, at a place called Ezeva near Mount Ossa. Notices of this kind are what make her history valuable to us rather than the classical reminiscences, which to her and her contemporaries were doubtless its chief merit. She complained of having to insert “barbarous names[983],” which “befouled” her historical style, in her polished narrative, just as some modern imitators of Cicero objected to employing words for recent inventions unknown to the Roman orator. She cited as an excuse the example of Homer, who disdained not to mention the Bœotians and certain barbarous islands for the sake of historical accuracy. Fortunately, the more plastic Greek language is usually quite equal to this difficulty, and even the uncouth names of French Crusaders and Serbian jupani are admitted to the honours of the Greek declensions by this skilled writer, of whom a contemporary said that, if the ancients had known her, “they would have added a fourth Grace and a tenth Muse.”

The time has come when it is no longer the fashion to decry Byzantine history and to deny the name of literature to the writings of the mediæval Greeks. Finlay rehabilitated the Byzantine Empire from the contempt which Gibbon had thrown upon it; in Greece a succession of modern writers, beginning with Paparregopoulos, in his great History of the Hellenic Nation, have reminded his countrymen that Greek history is a whole, and that contemporary Hellas owes as much, or more, to the great figures of the Middle Ages as to the heroes of classical antiquity; in France MM. Schlumberger and Diehl have combined, in truly French fashion, great erudition with great literary skill in dealing with the “Byzantine epic” of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and with the female figures that in various ages filled the Court of Constantinople. Of these Anna Comnena is perhaps the most curious. We are too much accustomed to regard Byzantine personages as merely so many stained-glass portraits, all decorations and angles, instead of men and women of like passions with ourselves. Anna Comnena was, in her loves and her dislikes, her vanities and her ambitions, very much a woman. Beneath her Attic prose, acquired by study and polished by art, there transpire the feminine feelings, which lend a peculiar turn to her history. Among the sovereigns, lawyers, statesmen, soldiers, and ecclesiastics who form the corpus of the Byzantine historians, she is the only woman.

AUTHORITIES

1. Nicephori Bryennii Commentarii. Bonn: Weber, 1836.

2. Michaelis Attaliotæ Historia. Bonn: Weber, 1853.

3. Annæ Comnenæ Porphyrogenitæ Alexias. Two vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884.

4. Princesses Byzantines. Par Paul Adam. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1893.

5. Figures Byzantines. Par Charles Diehl. Deuxième Série. Paris: Armand Colin, 1908.

FOOTNOTES

[1] XL. 5.

[2] Plutarch, Sulla, 13.

[3] Two Athenian inscriptions (Böckh, C.I.G., I. 409) allude to this restoration.

[4] Plutarch, Pompey, 28.

[5] Epist. II. 2, 45.

[6] Epistolæ ad Diversos, IV. 5, 4.

[7] Paparregopoulos, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους (ed. 4), II. 440, inclines however to the view that their enfranchisement was of earlier date.

[8] Juvenal, I. 73, X. 170. Tacitus, Annales, II. 53-55, 85; III. 38, 63, 69; IV. 13, 30, 43; V. 10.

[9] Mustoxidi, Delle Cose Corciresi, pp. 403, 404, xi.

[10] In 1888 an inscription, containing this proclamation, was found at the Bœotian Karditza. Karolides, note 31 to Paparregopoulos, op. cit. II. 448.

[11] Suetonius, Nero, 19, 22-24.

[12] Tacitus, Historiæ, II. 8, 9.

[13] Pausanias, X. 34.

[14] Ibid. VII. 20.

[15] Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III. 4; IV. 23; Liber Pontificalis, I. 125, 131, 155.

[16] The passages of Zosimos (I. 29), who says Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν τοῦ τείχους ἐπεμελοῦντο μηδεμιᾶς, ἐξότε Σύλλας τοῦτο διέφθειρεν, ἀξιωθέντος φροντίδος, and of Zonaras (XII. 23) seem to support Finlay’s view that this was not a new wall. Paparregopoulos, op. cit., II. 490, agrees with it.

[17] Hertzberg: Die Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer, III. 79.

[18] Ἄλλος μετά τινος σαφηνείας Θουκυδίδης, μάλιστά γε ἐν ταῖς Σκυθικαῖς ἱστορίαις.—Photios, Cod. 82.

[19] Historici Græci Minores, I. 186-89.

[20] Zonaras, XII. 26.

[21] Trebellius Pollio, Gallien, 13.

[22] Historici Græci Minores, I. 438-40.

[23] A Greek inscription alluding to Jovian may still be read over the west door, but Mustoxidi (Delle Cose Corciresi, pp. 406-7) differs from Spon and Montfaucon in thinking that some other Jovian is meant.

[24] In Eutropium, II. 212 et seq.

[25] Procopios, De bello Vand., I. ch. 22.

[26] Hertzberg thinks it was the bronze statue of Athena Promachos which was carried off. But Gregorovius’ view (Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, I. 49), that given in the text, seems more probable.

[27] Agathias, II. chs. 30, 31.

[28] III. 217 (ed. Bonn).

[29] Menander in Hist. Gr. Min. II. 98.

[30] Hist. Eccles. VI. 10.

[31] Leunclavius, Jus Græco-Romanum, I. 278.

[32] The latest study of this Chronicle is by N. A. Bees in Βυζαντίς, I. 57-105.

[33] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηναίων, I. 36-72; Μνημεῖα, I. 41-46.

[34] Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin, 172.

[35] III. 53.

[36] Neroutsos, Χριστιανικαὶ Ἀθῆναι in Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστ. καὶ Ἐθν. Ἑταιρίας, III. 30.

[37] Constantine Porphyrogenitus, III. 217-20.

[38] Ibid. III. 220-24.

[39] Kedrenos (ed. Bonn), II. 170.

[40] Mustoxidi, Delle Cose Corciresi, 409.

[41] Constantine Porphyrogenitus, III. 243.

[42] The two large tombs in the crypt at Hosios Loukas are according to tradition those of Romanos II and Theophano who is known to English readers as the eponymous heroine of Mr Frederic Harrison’s novel. Leo Diakonos (p. 49) calls her “the Laconian”; some say she was of low origin, others of a noble family of Constantinople. I noticed a great number of Hebrew inscriptions at Mistra, near Sparta.

[43] Kedrenos, II. 475, 482, 516, 529; Zonaras (ed. Leipzig), IV. 123; Early Travels in Palestine, 32.

[44] An absolutely historical fact, because the Princes of Achaia claimed to be suzerains of the two Dukes of Athens and Naxos.

[45] G. de Vinsauf, Itin. Ricc. I, II. 24.

[46] Athenische Mitteilungen, XXXIV. 234-36.

[47] Niketas Choniates (ed. Bonn), pp. 840-42.

[48] Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La Conquête de Constantinople (ed. Bouchet), I. 226-32.

[49] Pitra, Analecta sacra et classica, VII. 90, 93.

[50] Marino Sanudo apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 101.

[51] Μόνη ἔμβασις, Monemvasia.

[52] Marino Sanudo apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 102.

[53] The Chronicle of the Morea, p. 296.

[54] Sanudo apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 108.

[55] Βυζαντινὰ χρονικά, II. 427.

[56] Μοῦλος is still Moreote Greek for “a bastard”; in the first part of the word we perhaps have the French gars.

[57] Cantacuzene (ed. Bonn), bk. IV. ch. 13.

[58] Mazaris apud Boissonade, Anecdota Græca, III. 164-78.

[59] Finlay, IV. 267; Ersch und Gruber, LXXXVI. 131-33; Rev. F. Vyvyan Jago in the Archæologia, XVIII. 83 sqq. I am indebted to the courtesy of the Rev. S. Gregory, the present rector of Landulph, for the following copy of the brass plate there:

Here lyeth the body of Theodoro Paleologus of Pesaro in Italye, descended from ye Imperyall lyne of ye last Christian Emperors of Greece, being the Sonne of Camilio ye Sonne of Prosper the Sonne of Theodoro the Sonne of John ye Sonne of Thomas, second brother to Constantine Paleologus the 8th of that name, and last of yt lyne yt raygned in Constantinople until subdewed by the Turkes; who married with Mary ye daughter of William Balls of Hadlye in Souffolke gent, and had issue 5 children: Theodoro, John, Ferdinando, Maria, and Dorothy & departed this lyfe at Clyfton ye 21st January, 1636.

[60] Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters, in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXV. 212, 321, LXXXVI. 24.

[61] Voyaige d’Oultremer, p. 89.

[62] Geschichte Griechenlands, I. 138.

[63] Finlay, I. 338, note.

[64] Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους, V. 300 (4th ed.).

[65] Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, V. 155-61.

[66] L. 8096.

[67] P. 275.

[68] L. 8469.

[69] P. 160.

[70] The form Abarinos does not occur in the French, Italian, and Aragonese versions of the Chronicle, because the Franks always called the place port de Junch, or Zonklon, from the rushes which grew there—a name very frequent, in a more or less corrupt form, in the Venetian documents of the thirteenth century, e.g. in that locus classicus for Frankish names the list of depredations by pirates in Greece drawn up in 1278 (Tafel und Thomas, Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abth. II. B. XIV. 237).

[71] Pp. 61, 66, 68 (ed. Burckhardt).

[72] Geogr. III. 16.

[73] Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea, I. 188.

[74] Buchon, Nouvelles Recherches, II. i. 332.

[75] Ed. Predelli, II. 231, 248.

[76] Tafel und Thomas, Fontes Rer. Austr. pt. II. vol. XII. 464-88.

[77] Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronicon, II. 439.

[78] A. Dandolo, Chronicon Venetum, apud Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, XII. 335; L. de Monacis, Chronicon, p. 143; Magno, apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 179.

[79] Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, III. 61.

[80] Innocentii III Epistolæ, XI. 111-113, 238, 240, 252, 256.

[81] Henri de Valenciennes (ed. Paulin Paris), ch. 35.

[82] Sanudo, apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 136.

[83] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, ll. 8071-8092.

[84] Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient latin, p. 382.

[85] Sathas in Annuaire des études grecques, vol. XIII. 122-133.

[86] D’Arbois de Jubainville, Voyage paléographique dans le département de l’Aube, pp. 332-340.

[87] Muntaner, ch. 240; Thomas, Diplomatarium, I. 111; Predelli, Commemoriali, I. 198.

[88] Hist. de’ suoi Tempi, VIII. 50.

[89] Raynaldi, Annales ecclesiastici, V. 22, 23.

[90] Thomas, Dipiomatarium, I. 120-122.

[91] Çurita, Anales de la Corona de Aragon, bk. X. ch. 30.

[92] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, ll. 8086-8092; Le Livre de la Conqueste, pp. 1, 274.

[93] Rubió y Lluch, Los Navarros en Grecia, p. 309, n. 2; a much more probable explanation, derived from the word bort (“bastard”), than that of Ducange (note to Cinnamus, p. 392), who says that he was so called because our Black Prince had conferred on him the freedom of Bordeaux.

[94] Rubió in Anuari de l’Institut (1907), 253.

[95] La Grèce continentale, 217; Recherches historiques, I. 409.

[96] Ibid., I. 409-10.

[97] St Genois, Droits primitifs ... de Haynaut, I. 337.

[98] Ibid., I. 215.

[99] Mélanges historiques: choix de Documents, III. 240

[100] Lettere di Collegio (ed. Giomo), p. 66.

[101] Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 178.

[102] Idem, apud Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXV. 321, 360. Cf. J. H. S. XXVIII. 238.

[103] Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, II. 166.

[104] Lampros, Ἔγγραφα (Documents), pp. 305, 324-27.

[105] Lampros, Ὁ τελευταῖος κόμης τῶν Σαλώνων (The Last Count of Salona).

[106] Gregorovius, Briefe, pp. 309, 310.

[107] “Nicolai de Marthono Liber,” in Revue de l’Orient Latin, III. 657.

[108] The earlier fourteenth-century traveller, Ludolf von Suchem, who mentions Athens, did not actually visit it.

[109] Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας (Report of the Historical and Ethnological Society), v. 827.

[110] Predelli, Commemoriali, III. 309.

[111] Cornelio Magni, Relazione, pp. 14, 49.

[112] Buchon, Nouvelles Recherches, II. i. 276.

[113] Michael Laskaris, the Athenian patriot of the fourteenth century, in K. Rhanghaves’ play, The Duchess of Athens, is unhappily a poetic anachronism.

[114] Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας (Memorials of Greek History), III. 427.

[115] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων (Greek Remembrancer), new series, I. 55.

[116] The anonymous traveller (?Domenico of Brescia) who describes Athens about 1466 speaks of the city as “ultimamente murata.” (Mitteilungen des K. deutschen Arch. Instituts, XXIV. 74.)

[117] Tozzetti, Relazione di alcuni viaggi fatti in ... Toscana, V. 439, 440. This letter, dated “Kyriaceo die, iv Kal. Ap.,” fixes the year of the second visit, because March 29 fell on a Sunday in 1444, and we know from another letter, written before June 1444, that Cyriacus left Chalkis for Chios, where the letter about Athens was written, on “v Kal. Mart.” of that year.

[118] Jahrbuch der K. preussischen Kunstsammlungen, IV. 81.

[119] Studi e documenti di Storia e di Diritto, XV. 337.

[120] Jorga in Revue de l’Orient Latin, VIII. 78.

[121] Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα (Memorials), III. 141. The legend places the scene in a still more romantic spot than Megara—the monastery of Daphni, the mausoleum of the French dukes.

[122] A contemporary note in MS., No. 103 of the Liturgical section of the National Library at Athens, fixes the date as “May 4, 1456, Friday”; but in that year June 4, not May 4, was on a Friday, which agrees with the date of June 1456 given by Phrantzes, the Chronicon breve, the Historia Patriarchica, and Gaddi.

[123] Archivio Storico per le province Napoletane, XXVIII. 203.

[124] De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianæ Urbis Romæ, II. i. 374.

[125] Spon, Voyage, II. 155, 172.

[126] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων (Greek Remembrancer), new series, I. 216-18.

[127] The portraits of the six Florentine Dukes of Athens in Fanelli’s Atene Attica are unfortunately imaginary. On the other hand, the figure of Joshua in one of the frescoes at Geraki in Lakonia seems to be intended to portray one of the Frankish barons of that Castle.

[128] Ἱστορία τῆς Πόλεως Ἀθηνῶν κατὰ τοὺς μέσους αἰῶνας (Ἐν Ἀθήναις, Κ. Μπὲκ’ 1904-6.)

[129] Barcelona, L’Avenç, 1906. Cf. Anuari de l’Institut d’Estudis Catalans (1907-8, 1911, 1913-14). Estudis Universitaris Catalans, VIII. (1915).

[130] Vols. XXVII. 3-93, 380-456, 555-634, 771-852; XXVIII. 154-212.

[131] Lampros, op. cit., II. 729; Παρνασσός, VII. 23.

[132] Cod. Palat. 226, f. 122; Lampros, op. cit., I. 421, note.

[133] Pressutti, Regesta Honorii III, II. 304; Les Registres d’Urbain IV, III. 426; Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας, II. 28; Les Registres de Clément IV, I. 214, 245.

[134] Lampros, op. cit., III. 119.

[135] Catalunya a Grecia, pp. 42, 53.

[136] Catalunya a Grecia, pp. 50, 91.

[137] “Geschichte Griechenlands,” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXVI. 18, 19; Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 475; Anuari (1911).

[138] Lampros, op. cit., p. 344.

[139] Ibid., pp. 234-6, 238.

[140] Ibid., p. 344.

[141] Ibid., pp. 279, 350.

[142] Ibid., p. 335.

[143] Ibid., p. 283.

[144] Ibid., p. 315.

[145] Ibid., pp. 240, 282, 330.

[146] Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, II. 156, note 1.

[147] Rubió y Lluch, Los Navarros en Grecia, p. 476.

[148] Op. cit., pp. 82-8.

[149] Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας, V. 824-7.

[150] Revue de l’Orient Latin, III. 647-53, 656.

[151] Catalunya a Grecia, pp. 57, 63.

[152] Predelli, Commemoriali, III. 206, 208; Hopf, Chroniques, p. 229; Buchon, Nouvelles Recherches, II. i. 257; Gregorovius, Briefe aus der “Corrispondenza Acciajoli,” p. 308; Chalkokondyles, pp. 145, 213.

[153] Archivio Storico per le province Napoletane, XXVII. 430-1.

[154] Op. cit., II. 747-52; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, I. 43-56.

[155] Op. cit., III. 407-9; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, I. 216-24.

[156] Archivio Storico per le province Napoletane, XXVIII. 203.

[157] Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἱστορίας τῶν Ἀθηναίων, II. 153.

[158] p. 385.

[159] p. 520.

[160] p. 124.

[161] Elogiographus, 300-1.

[162] Loysii Neroczi de Pictis nomine Neroczi eius patris pro venditione cuiusdam domus.

[163] R. Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Aul. della Repubblica, Balie, no. 29 c. 67.

[164] Buchon, Nouvelles Recherches, II. i. 292.

[165] p. 38.

[166] Apud Pagnini, Della Decima, II. 251.

[167] V. 28.

[168] Sauger, Histoire nouvelle des anciens Ducs, p. 65.

[169] See The Mad Duke of Naxos.

[170] See The Last Venetian Islands in the Ægean.

[171] Geschichte Griechenlands, apud Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXVI. 166; Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 482; Veneto-Byzantinische Analekten, p. 414.

[172] Les Ducs de l’Archipel, p. 13, in the Venetian Miscellanea, vol. IV.

[173] Sanuto, Diarii, VIII. 328, 337, 355, 366.

[174] Ibid., XI. 393, 394, 705.

[175] Ibid., II. 701.

[176] Ibid.

[177] Hopf, Gozzadini, apud Ersch und Gruber, op. cit., LXXVI. 425; LXXXVI. 166.

[178] Sanuto, Diarii, XII. 22, 175, 503.

[179] Sanuto, Diarii, XI. 450, 525, 748; XII. 175; XX. 354, 356, 376.

[180] Ibid., XVII. 35.

[181] Ibid., XXIV. 380, 384, 387-8.

[182] Ibid., XXIV. 467, 596, 645; XXV. 158, 185.

[183] Stavrakes, Στατιστικὴ τοῦ πληθυσμοῦ τῆς Κρήτης, 183 sqq.; Pashley, Travels in Crete, II. 326.

[184] Paparregopoulos, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους, V. 3. Cf. Gerland, Histoire de la Noblesse crétoise au Moyen Age.

[185] Cf. Gerola, La dominazione genovese in Creta.

[186] Hopf, in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, vol. 85, pp. 221-2, 241-3, 312-4; Paparregopoulos, V. 52.

[187] Cf. Gerola, Per la Cronotassi dei vescovi cretesi all’ epoca veneta; Monumenti veneti nell’ isola di Creta, II. 64, 67.

[188] See Pashley, I. 11-17, on this point. He identifies the two places, like Gerola (Mon. ven. I. 17), who derives the name of Canea from λαχανιά (“vegetable garden”), the first syllable being mistaken for the feminine of the article.

[189] Zinkeisen, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, IV. 611 et sqq.

[190] Cornelius, Creta Sacra, II. 355.

[191] Pashley, II. 150-156.

[192] Zinkeisen, IV. 629-723.

[193] Pashley, II. 285.

[194] The totall discourse (ed. 1906), pp. 70-83.

[195] Zinkeisen, IV. 789, 808. Like the British Government in 1819, the Turks did not know what Parga was.

[196] To this period belongs the fountain at Candia, described by Pashley (I. 203), and still standing. An inscription on it states that it was erected by Antonio Priuli in 1666, “when the war had been raging for four lustres.”

[197] Zinkeisen, IV. 992.

[198] Paparregopoulos, V. 552.

[199] Childe Harold, IV. 14.

[200] Von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, VI. 573, VII. 182; Tournefort, Voyage du Levant, I. 62.

[201] Stavrakes, 138 sqq.

[202] Pashley, II. 150-156.

[203] Ibid. I. 54.

[204] Sathas, Ἑλληνικὰ Ἀνέκδοτα, II., Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, 222-300; Κρητικὸν Θέατρον, which includes a comedy, a pastoral tragi-comedy, a tragedy and an imitation of Simeon’s Zeno.

[205] Paparregopoulos, V. 636-38.

[206] Stavrakes, 139-41.

[207] Mustoxidi, Delle Cose Corciresi, pp. 399 and vi.

[208] Ibid. p. 401.

[209] Mustoxidi, p. 441. Aleman belonged to a family from Languedoc, which received the barony of Patras after the Frank conquest of the Morea, and whose name is still borne by the bridge near Thermopylæ, the scene of the heroic fight of 1821.

[210] Idromenos, Συνοπτικὴ Ἱστορία τῆς Κερκύρας, p. 68. There is, however, a document of Philip II of Taranto in favour of the Greek clergy: Marmora, Della Historia di Corfù, p. 223.

[211] Romanos, Ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ κοινότης τῆς Κερκύρας, Mustoxidi, pp. 443-50.

[212] Mustoxidi, p. 452.

[213] Mustoxidi, pp. 456-64, lx-lxxii.

[214] Finlay, V. 62; Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, I. 315.

[215] This mediæval name, “the black saint,” applied first to a fortress, then to a chapel on the site of the fortress, then (like Negroponte) to the whole island, is said by Saint-Sauveur (Voyage Historique, Littéraire et Pittoresque, II. 339) to have come in with the Tocchi, and to be derived from the black image of the Virgin in the cathedral at Toledo. It occurs, however, in a Neapolitan document of 1343, a Venetian document of 1355, and a Serbian golden bull of 1361 and is mentioned in the French version of the Chronicle of the Morea, probably written between 1333 and 1341. It has now been officially superseded by the classic Levkas.

[216] Hopf, in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXVI. 168.

[217] Marmora, Della Historia di Corfù, p. 253.

[218] “Celsam Buthroti accedimus urbem,” III. 293.

[219] Cicero ad Atticum, IV. 8 a; Marmora, p. 431.

[220] Marmora, p. 387.

[221] Ibid. p. 396; Saint-Sauveur, I. 345.

[222] Marmora, p. 420.

[223] Viscount Kirkwall, Four Years in the Ionian Islands, I. 28.

[224] Marmora, p. 312.

[225] Lounzes, Περὶ τῆς πολιτικῆς καταστάσεως τῆς Ἑπτανήσου ἐπὶ Ἑνετῶν, pp. 188-90; Hopf, ubi supra, LXXXVI. 186.

[226] The words are quoted in the Ὁδηγὸς τῆς νήσου Κερκύρας (1902).

[227] Mustoxidi, p. lxvi.

[228] Marmora, pp. 394, 419, 445.

[229] Lounzes, p. 101.

[230] Saint-Sauveur, II. 15-21.

[231] Marmora, p. 369.

[232] Idromenos, p. 87.

[233] Saint-Sauveur, II. 22-31.

[234] Marmora, p. 430.

[235] Lounzes, pp. 178-82; Romanos, Ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ κοινότης τῆς Κερκύρας; Pinkerton’s Collection of Travels, IX. 4; Marmora, pp. 255, 286, 370, 430, 437. The last writer approvingly says about the Jews, loro non conviene di stabile, che il sepolcro.

[236] Viaro Capodistria, Remarks respectfully submitted to the Consideration of the British Parliament, p. 64.

[237] Marmora, p. 433; Paparregopoulos, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους (4th ed.), V. 644.

[238] Ibid. V. 530.

[239] Idromenos, Συνοπτικὴ Ἱστορία τῆς Κερκύρας, p. 90, and the same author’s essay Περὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς Ἰονίοις νήσοις ἐκπαιδεύσεως.

[240] Paparregopoulos, V. 635; Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, p. 127; Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία, pp. 138, 165.

[241] Quirini, Primordia Corcyræ, pp. 167, 168; Mustoxidi, Illustrazioni Corciresi, I. 10, 11.

[242] Marmora, p. 425.

[243] Finlay, V. 284-5; Idromenos, Συνοπτικὴ Ἱστορία τῆς Κερκύρας, pp. 91-3; Paparregopoulos, V. 645-7.

[244] Saint-Sauveur, III. 112, 140, 199, 260, 268, 277.

[245] Jervis, History of the Island of Corfù, p. 125.

[246] Marmora, p. 389.

[247] Hopf, ubi supra, LXXXVI. 186. Sathas, Μνημεῖα, IV. p. xxxvii; Ἑλληνικὰ Ἀνέκδοτα, I. 157-93.

[248] Quoted by Lounzes, p. 63 n.

[249] Saint-Sauveur, III. 8, 91. When, in the sixteenth century, the Cephalonians claimed precedence over Zante, they quoted to the Venetians, in support of their claim, the fact that in the Homeric catalogue the people of Zakynthos are only cited as the subjects of Odysseus (Sathas, Μνημεῖα, IV. p. iv).

[250] Hopf, ubi supra, LXXXVI. 186; Saint-Sauveur, III. 201.

[251] Andreades, Περὶ τῆς οἰκονομικῆς διοικήσεως τῆς Ἑπτανήσου ἐπὶ Βενετοκρατίας (1914).

[252] Lounzes, pp. 83-5; Hopf, ubi supra, LXXXVI. 160, 186; Grivas, Ἱστορία τῆς νήσου Ἰθάκης.

[253] Lounzes, p. 77; Saint-Sauveur, II. 351.

[254] Saint-Sauveur, II. 239-48.

[255] Mrs Dawes, Saint Spiridion, translated from L. S. Brokines’s work Περὶ τῶν ἐτησίως τελουμένων ἐν Κερκύρᾳ λιτανειῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Σπυρίδωνος. See also Marmora, pp. 261-7.

[256] Ibid. p. 333.

[257] Marmora, pp. 301-12; M. Mustoxidi, Ἱστορικὰ καὶ Φιλολογικὰ Ἀνάλεκτα, 24-44, 83-97; Paparregopoulos, V. 667; Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, 112-18.

[258] Idromenos, Συνοπτικὴ Ἱστορία τῆς Κερκύρας, pp. 24, 80, 94; Marmora, p. 414; Anagrafi dell’ Isola di Corfù, 1761; Daru, Histoire de Venise, V. 213; Saint-Sauveur, II. 154.

[259] One plan is in Jervis, History of the Island of Corfù, p. 126, the other in Marmora, pp. 364-5.

[260] Marmora, p. 345.

[261] Finlay, V. 85-6; Marmora, pp. 348-50.

[262] Marmora, p. 370.

[263] Pinkerton’s Collection of Travels, IX. 4.

[264] Marmora, pp. 389-91; Mrs Dawes, Saint Spiridion.

[265] Paparregopoulos, V. 672. A Latin inscription of 1684 at Santa Maura bears Morosini’s name.

[266] Viscount Kirkwall, Four Years in the Ionian Islands, I. 29-30.

[267] Zinkeisen, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, V. 501-2.

[268] Jervis, History of the Island of Corfù, p. 132.

[269] A recent Greek writer in the Ὀδηγὸς τῆς νήσου Κερκύρας states, I know not on what authority, that, as a reward for their bravery, Schulenburg called Mt Abraham at Corfù after the patriarch. The name occurs in Marmora long before Schulenburg’s time.

[270] Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, I. 464.

[271] Leben und Denkwürdigkeiten Johann Mathias Reichsgrafen von der Schulenburg, II; Zinkeisen, op. cit. V. 520-31; Daru, Histoire de Venise, V. 145-53; Greek chronicle of Epeiros printed by Pouqueville, Voyage de la Grèce, V. 294-9; Idromenos, Συνοπτικὴ Ἱστορία, pp. 81-6.

[272] Two plans, one of the siege, one of the works executed by Schulenburg, are in the British Museum, and are reproduced by Jervis, pp. 139, 145.

[273] Daru, V. 159, 171.

[274] Saint-Sauveur, II. 99, III. 251-3; Andreades, I. 278.

[275] Saint-Sauveur, II. 148. I copied down the dates 1759 and 1778 from two of the ruins there.

[276] Paparregopoulos, V. 686; Daru, V. 198-9; Jervis, p. 153.

[277] Paparregopoulos, V. 701; Saint-Sauveur, II. 288.

[278] Saint-Sauveur, II. 150-3; Hazlitt, The Venetian Republic, II. 311; Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia, VIII. 289-99; Legrand, Bibliothèque grecque vulgaire, III. 332-6.

[279] Saint-Sauveur, II. 199-206.

[280] Romanin, IX. 134-8.

[281] Daru, V. 221; Saint-Sauveur, III. 38-49.

[282] Daru, V. 30.

[283] Saint-Sauveur (an eye-witness), II. 63 et sqq.

[284] Romanin, X. 240-5; Rodocanachi, Bonaparte et les Îles Ioniennes, pp. 24, 26.

[285] Πολιορκία καὶ ἄλωσις τῆς Μονεμβασίας ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων τῷ 1821. Ἀθήνησι, 1874.

[286] p. 398.

[287] Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, II. 287; Dorotheos of Monemvasia, Βιβλίον Ἱστορικόν (ed. 1814), 397.

[288] Lampros, Μιχαὴλ Ἀκομινάτου, II. 137; Niketas, 97, 581-92.

[289] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, l. 2065.

[290] Ibid. ll. 2630, 2644.

[291] Ibid. ll. 2765-9.

[292] Ibid. ll. 2891-6; Romanos, Γρατιανὸς Ζώρζης, 136. The French version of the Chronicle omits the Naxian and Cephalonian contingents.

[293] Epistolæ, vol. II. p. 622; Les Registres d’Innocent IV, vol. III. 306, 397.

[294] La Grèce Continentale, p. 412; Sir T. Wyse, Excursion into the Peloponnesus, I. 6. Cf. Tozer in J.H.S. IV. 233-6.

[295] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, l. 1306; Le Livre de la Conqueste, p. 27.

[296] Les Registres d’Urbain IV, II. 100, 341; Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, ll. 4534, 4547, 4580, 4584, 4643, 5026, 5569, 5576.

[297] Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abt. II. B. XIV. 164, 192-3, 204, 215, 220, 226, 248.

[298] Antique Memorie di Cerigo, apud Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, VI. 301.

[299] Sanudo, Istoria del Regno, apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 127; Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abt. II. B. XIV. 181; Sansovino, Cronologia del Mondo, fol. 185; Hopf apud Ersch und Gruber, LXXXV. 310.

[300] Miklosich und Müller, op. cit. V. 155-61; Phrantzes, 399, 400; Dorotheos of Monemvasia, Βιβλίον Ἱστορικόν, 400.

[301] Le Livre de la Conqueste, 363; Libro de los Fechos, 107; Muntaner, Cronaca, ch. 117; Bartholomæus de Neocastro and Nicolaus Specialis apud Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script. XIII. 1185; X. 959.

[302] Chs. 199, 201.

[303] Thomas, Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, I. 127.

[304] Miklosich und Müller, l.c.

[305] Phrantzes, 57; Manuel Palaiologos, Theodori Despoti Laudatio Funebris, apud Migne, Patrologia Græca, CLVI. 228-9; Chalkokondyles, 80.

[306] Hopf, op. cit. LXXXVI. 79: see Appendix.

[307] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, I. 269; II. 181.

[308] Montfaucon, Palæographia Græca, 81, 89; Ἑλληνομνήμων, 336-46.

[309] Miklosich und Müller, V. 171-4; Παρνασσός, VII. 472-6.

[310] Ibid. III. 258.

[311] P. 447.

[312] Chalkokondyles, 476, 485; Phrantzes, 396-7; Spandugino (ed. 1551), 44-5.

[313] Magno, Annali Veneti, apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 203-4; Pii II. Commentari, 103-4.

[314] Phrantzes, 415; Magno, 204; Sathas, VI. 95; Chalkokondyles, 556. Regina, fol. 52, 56 (for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr Horatio F. Brown: see Appendix). The actual date is uncertain; Phrantzes and Magno give 1464, and the Venetian document above quoted points to that year; but Malatesta’s secretary in his account of the war (Sathas, l.c.) puts it in 1463, before the siege of Corinth.

[315] Sanudo, Diarii, I. 703.

[316] Predelli, Commemoriali, V. 228-30, 238-9, 241; Miklosich und Müller, op. cit. III. 293-309.

[317] Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, IV. 230; Sanudo, Diarii, XXIX. 482.

[318] Feyerabend, Reyssbuch des Heyligen Lands, fol. 182; Faber, Evagatorium, III. 314. The name was so long preserved that a wine-shop in Venetian dialect was called “Malvasia.”

[319] Sanudo, Diarii, VII. 714; XXIII. 536; XXIV. 669; XXV. 64; XXIX. 402; XXXI. 227; XXXV. 363; XLIV. 475; LV. 296; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, III. 56.

[320] Sanudo, Diarii, XI. 349; XXXIII. 366; Sathas, IV. 224, 227, 229, 234; Lamansky, Les Secrets de l’État de Venise, p. 659; Feyerabend, op. cit. fol. 112.

[321] Predelli, Commemoriali, VI. 236, 238.

[322] Paruta, Historia Venetiana, I. 451-3.

[323] Lami, Deliciæ Eruditorum, XV. 203; Sathas, op. cit. VIII. 310-3, 320-1, 335, 344, 377-8, 441-3.

[324] Ibid. 342, 413, 450, 454.

[325] Sathas, op. cit. VIII. 396; Meliarakes, Οἰκογένεια Μαμωνᾶ.

[326] Litta, Le famiglie celebri italiane, vol. v. Plate XIV.

[327] Epistolæ Innocentii III (ed. Baluze), II. 477.

[328] Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abt. II. B. XIV. 201, 213, 218, 222; Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Documents Arméniens, II. 508.

[329] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, ll. 1559, 3187; Le Livre de la Conqueste, 102; Libro de los Fechos, 25, 26; Cronaca di Morea, apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 424; Dorotheos of Monemvasia, Βιβλίον Ἱστορικόν (ed. 1814), 461; Sanudo, Istoria del Regno di Romania, apud Hopf, op. cit. 100.

[330] Canciani, Barbarorum Leges Antiquæ, III. 507; Muntaner, Cronaca, ch. 261.

[331] Archivio storico italiano, Ser. IV. I. 433.

[332] Rubió y Lluch, Los Navarros en Grecia, 482.

[333] Epistolæ Innocentii III, II. 265.

[334] Rubió y Lluch, op. cit. 481.

[335] Cairels apud Buchon, Histoire des Conquêtes, 449; Henri de Valenciennes apud Buchon, Recherches et Matériaux, II. 203, 205-6.

[336] Epistolæ Innocentii III, II. 261-2, 264, 477, 835-7; Honorii III Opera, IV., 414.

[337] Raynaldi Annales Ecclesiastici (ed. 1747), I. 492.

[338] Regesta Honorii III, II. 96, 167, 207, 333.

[339] Chroniques gréco-romanes, 478; and apud Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXV. 276.

[340] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, ll. 3196-3201, 3295-6, 4613; Le Livre de la Conqueste, 119, 160; Cronaca di Morea, 438-9; Libro de los Fechos, 56, 75.

[341] Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abt. II. B. XIV. 201, 213, 218, 222.

[342] Litta, l.c.

[343] Τὸ Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μορέως, l. 7915; Le Livre de la Conqueste, 260.

[344] Hopf, apud Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXV. 321. The original document has now been rendered illegible by the damp.

[345] Le Livre de la Conqueste, 465; Libro de los Fechos, 114.

[346] Ibid. 120; Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 177; Sanudo, op. cit. 125.

[347] D’Arbois de Jubainville, Voyage paléographique dans le Département de l’Aube, 337.

[348] Sanudo, l.c.

[349] Archivio Veneto, XX. 87, 89.

[350] Raynaldi op. cit. V. 95; Thomas, Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, I. 120-1.

[351] Archivio Veneto, l.c.; Misti, XVI. f. 97tᵒ. (See Appendix.)

[352] Rubió y Lluch, l.c.; Çurita, Anales de la Corona de Aragon, II. f. 537.

[353] Misti, XVII. f. 71; XVIII. f. 10; XX. ff. 37tᵒ, 40; XXIII. ff. 26, 30tᵒ, 46tᵒ; XXIV. 53tᵒ, 63, 102tᵒ, 103 (see Appendix); Predelli, Commemoriali, II. p. 153.

[354] Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium, III. 160; Predelli, Commemoriali, II. 181; Misti, XXVII. f. 3; XXVIII. f. 28.

[355] Orbini, Regno degli Slavi, 271.

[356] Raynaldi op. cit. VII. 224; Jauna, Histoire générale des royaumes de Chypre, etc., II. 882.

[357] Rubió y Lluch, op. cit. 436, 482; Çurita, l.c.; Misti, XXXIV. f. 88tᵒ.

[358] Chroniques gréco-romanes, 230.

[359] Misti, XLI. f. 58.

[360] Thomas and Predelli, Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, II. 292; Revue de l’Orient latin, IV. 295, 302.

[361] Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, II. 210.

[362] Predelli, Commemoriali, III. p. 310 (given in full by Lampros, Ἔγγραφα ἀναφερόμενα εἰς τὴν μεσαιωνικὴν Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, 399).

[363] Sathas, op. cit. II. 145.

[364] Revue de l’Orient latin, VI. 119; Sathas, op. cit. III. 431; Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum, IX. 90-91; Misti, XLVIII. ff. 143, 148.

[365] Revue de l’Orient latin, IV. 513; Thomas and Predelli, op. cit. 203.

[366] Revue de l’Orient latin, VI. 119; Sathas, op. cit. 430-1.

[367] Sathas, op. cit. II. 270-1.

[368] Sanudo and Navagero, apud Muratori, S.R.I. XXII. 890, XXIII. 1080; Cronaca di Amadeo Valier (Cod. Cicogna, N. 297), II. f. 259; Revue de l’Orient latin, IV. 546.

[369] Sanudo and Navagero, ibid., XXII. 911, XXIII. 1081; Revue de l’Orient latin, V. 196.

[370] Sathas, op. cit. III. 429-30; Hopf, Dissertazione documentata sulla storia di Karystos (tr. Sardagna, 91-5).

[371] La Grèce continentale et la Morée, 286.

[372] Sigillographie, 177.

[373] Γεωγραφία τοῦ νομοῦ Κεφαλληνίας, pp. 153, 190.

[374] Pertz, Monumenta Germaniæ historica, XVIII. 46.

[375] Gesta Regis Ricardi, Rolls Series, II. 197-200, 203-5.

[376] Libro de los fechos (Aragonese version of “The Chronicle of the Morea”), pp. 53-4.

[377] A. Dandolo apud Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script. XII. 336; Misti, VI. fol. 17, quoted in Archivio Veneto, XX. 93.

[378] Albericus Trium Fontium, II. 558.

[379] Miklosich und Müller, Acta Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, V. 44.

[380] Tafel und Thomas, Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Abt. II. B. XIV. p. 215.

[381] Riccio, Saggio di Codice Diplomatico, Supplemento, pt I., p. 87; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, XI. 415.

[382] Miklosich und Müller, op. cit. II. 139.

[383] Hopf, apud Ersch und Gruber, LXXXVI. 48.

[384] Dell’ Origine dei Principi Turchi (ed. 1551), pp. 12, 26, 27, 62.

[385] Buchon, Nouvelles Recherches, I. i. 319; II. i. 351, 352; Magno apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 196.

[386] p. 57 (ed. Sinner).

[387] Jorga, “Notes et Extraits pour servir à l’Histoire des Croisades,” in Revue de l’Orient latin, VI. 84.

[388] Epigrammata reperta per Illyricum, p. v.

[389] Hopf, apud Ersch und Gruber, LXXXVI. 160; Meliarakes, op. cit. 150.

[390] Lunzi, Della condizione politica delle Isole Ionie, p. 190.

[391] Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, VI. 215-6; cf. Lunzi, op. cit. p. 197.

[392] Sathas, op. cit. V. 157; Meliarakes, op. cit. 191; Sanudo, Diarii, V. 883, 1009.

[393] Karavias, Ἱστορία τῆς νήσου Ἰθάκης ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων χρόνων μεχρὶ τοῦ 1849.

[394] Sathas, op. cit. VI. 285.

[395] De la Ville, Napoli Nobilissima (1900), xii. 180-1.

[396] Geschichte Griechenlands in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXVI. 170, 173, 177, and 179; Geschichte der Insel Andros, p. 128.

[397] Geschichte Griechenlands, III. 26, 39, 190.

[398] Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, I. 14; II. 145, 163, 168, 178; III. 181. Predelli, Commemoriali, III. 278, 354.

[399] Library of St Mark, Venice, MS. Ital. Cl. VI. 286, vol. II. ff. 94, 95.

[400] Predelli, Commemoriali, VI. 236, 238.

[401] Lamansky, Secrets de l’État de Venise, p. 58.

[402] Sathas, op. cit. VIII. 451.

[403] Ibid. IV. 245.

[404] Histoire nouvelle des anciens Ducs de l’Archipel, p. 296.

[405] Lamansky, op. cit. pp. 641-2, 651 et sqq.; Sathas, op. cit. IV. 310-40.

[406] M. C. Scrutinio alle voci, vols. VII. and VIII.

[407] Chroniques gréco-romanes, pp. 373-6.

[408] L’Isole le più famose del Mondo, p. 77.

[409] P. 206.

[410] Relatione della Rep. Venetiana, pp. 18-9.

[411] Voyage de Levant, pp. 348-9.

[412] Viaggio di Levante (Ital. tr.), p. 3.

[413] Relation d’un Voyage, p. 196.

[414] L’Archipelago, p. 42.

[415] Vol. I. p. 687.

[416] Voyage, I. 145-7.

[417] Journey into Greece, pp. 62-5.

[418] Viaggio all’ Arcipelago, p. 68.

[419] The Present State of the Islands in the Archipelago, pp. 14-20.

[420] L’Egeo Redivivo, pp. 331-2.

[421] Naukeurige Beschryving (French tr.), pp. 267, 354.

[422] Voyage du Levant, I. 108.

[423] Vols. XV. to XVIII.

[424] Delle Notizie Storiche della Lega, p. 41.

[425] Greek mediæval scholars, owing to the disturbed political conditions, have scarcely had time since Salonika became Greek to continue the historical studies of Tafel, Papageorgiou, and Tafrali—for even the last composed his two valuable treatises on the topography of Salonika and its history in the fourteenth century early in 1912, therefore before the reconversion of the mosques into churches and while the city was still Turkish. But the well-known mediævalist. Professor Adamantiou, has already written a handbook on Byzantine Thessalonika, Ἡ Βυζαντινὴ Θεσσαλονίκη (Athens, 1914); M. Risal has popularised the story of this “Coveted City,” La Ville convoitée (3rd ed., Paris, 1917); K. Zesiou, the epigraphist, has examined the Christian monuments; the late Professor Lampros published “eight letters” of its Metropolitan Isidore, who flourished towards the end of the fourteenth century; and K. Kugeas has edited the note-book of an official of the archbishopric who was at Salonika between 1419 and 1425, a few years before its conquest by the Turks. See Πρακτικὰ τῆς ... Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας τοῦ 1913, pp. 119-57; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, IX. 343-414; Byz. Zeitschr. XXIII. 144-63.

[426] Migne, Patr. Gr., CXVI. 1116, 1169, 1173, 1185 (where “Maximian Herculius” of the text is corrected to Galerius, the younger Maximian).

[427] Akropolites (ed. Teubner), I. 82.

[428] Adamantiou, 49.

[429] A History of the Eastern Empire, pp. 381-401, 485-8.

[430] ii. 451.

[431] Ibid., pp. 529, 531-2.

[432] Migne, Patr. Gr., CX. 26.

[433] Kameniates, pp. 491, 519; Theodore Studita, in Migne, Patr. Gr., XCIX. 917.

[434] An inscription found in 1874 confirms Kameniates: Byz. Zeitschr. X. 151-4.

[435] Schlumberger, Sigillographie, pp. 102-6.

[436] Ellissen, Analekten, IV. 46-53.

[437] Tafel, De Thessalonica, p. 474.

[438] Eustathios (ed. Bonn), p. 449.

[439] Eustathios, p. 452.

[440] Niketas, pp. 384-401, 471.

[441] Salonika was still Lombard in May 1223: Pitra, Analecta sacra et classica, VII. 335-8, 577.

[442] Mission au Mont Athos, p. 64; Wroth, Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, pp. 193-203; Schlumberger, Mélanges d’Archéologie byzantine, I. 57.

[443] Migne, Patr. Gr. CIX. 644.

[444] II. 234, 393, 568-82; Nikephoros Gregoras, II. 673-5, 740, 795; Kydones, in Migne, Patr. Gr. CIX. 649; Sathas, Μνημεῖα, IV. pp. viii-xxxvi.

[445] Müller, Byz. Analekten in Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie, IX. 394; Chalkokondyles, pp. 47, 174; Phrantzes, p. 47; Doukas, pp. 50, 199; Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, II. 291; Βυζαντίς, I. 234.

[446] Doukas, p. 197; Phrantzes, pp. 64, 122; Chalkokondyles, p. 205; Sathas, Μνημεῖα, I. 133-50.

[447] Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, I. 257.

[448] Perhaps the name is a reminiscence of the bishop of Samaria, to whom Mount Athos belonged from 1206 to 1210: Innocent III, Epp. IX. 192.

[449] p. 235; Anagnostes; Phrantzes, pp. 90, 155; Doukas, pp. 199-201; Byz. Zeitschr. XXIII. 148, 152; Ν. Ἑλλ., V. 369-91.

[450] Nikephoros Gregoras, I. 29; Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata, I. 125.

[451] Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria, XVII. 227-9; XXVIII. 791-809; Dandolo, Chronicon, apud Muratori, R.I.S. XII. 370.

[452] Ibid. 371; M. da Canal, La Cronique des Veneciens, in Archivio Storico Italiano, VIII. 488; Annales Januenses, apud Pertz, M.G.H. Script. XVIII. 245.

[453] Atti, XXVIII. 500-4.

[454] Ogerii Panis, Annales, apud Pertz, ibid. 119; Atti, XXVIII. 805.

[455] Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Documents Arméniens, II. 747; Lanfranci Pignolli, etc. Annales, apud Pertz, ibid. 249.

[456] Pachymeres, I. 420; II. 558; Nikephoros Gregoras, I. 526; Sanudo, Istoria del Regno di Romania, apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 146; Atti, XXXI. ii. 37 n²; M. Giustiniani, La Scio Sacra del rito Latino, 7.

[457] Doukas, 161-2; Friar Jordanus, Mirabilia descripta (tr. H. Yule), 57.

[458] Genoese document of April 25, 1288, in Pandette Richeriane, fogliazzo II. fasc. 25, cp. Appendix.

[459] Sanudo, apud Hopf, op. cit. 133; Documents Arméniens, II. 789; Carini, Ricordi del Vespro, II. 4; Ptolomæi Lucensis Historia Ecclesiastica, apud Muratori, R.I.S. XI. 1186.

[460] J. Aurie Annales Januenses, apud Pertz, op. cit. XVIII. 307-8, 312, 315-8, 322-4, 336-7, 340, 344; Documents Arméniens, I. 745-54; II. 795-6, 801-2, 827; Liber Jurium Reipublicæ Genuensis, II. 275; Notices et extraits des Manuscripts de la Bibliothèque du Roi, XI. 41-52.

[461] Mas Latrie, Histoire de l’Île de Chypre, II. 129.

[462] J. a Varagine Chronicon Genuense; F. Pipini Chronicon; and R. Caresini Continuatio, apud Muratori, R.I.S. IX. 56, 743; XII. 406.

[463] Sanudo, apud Hopf, op. cit. 146.

[464] Raynaldi Annales Ecclesiastici (ed. 1749), IV. 319; Les Registres de Boniface VIII, III. 290-3.

[465] Pachymeres, II. 436, 510, 558; Muntaner, Cronaca, ch. 117; Le Livre de la Conqueste, 362; Libro de los Fechos, 107; B. de Neocastro Historia Sicula, apud Muratori, R.I.S. XIII. 1186.

[466] Cantacuzene, I. 370; N. Gregoras, I. 438.

[467] Muntaner, op. cit. ch. 234; J. Aurie Annales, apud Pertz, M.G.H. XVIII. 315; Atti, XXXI. ii. p. xxxvii. n¹.

[468] Atti, I. 73-5; XI. 322; Giornale Ligustico di Archeologia, Storia e Belle Arti, V. 361-2; B. Senaregae De Rebus Genuensibus Commentaria, apud Muratori, R.I.S. XXIV. 559.

[469] Muntaner, l.c.; Pachymeres, II. 638; Giomo, Lettere di Collegio, p. 96.

[470] Cantacuzene, I. 371.

[471] G. Adae De modo Sarracenos extirpandi, in Documents Arméniens, II. 531-3, 537, 542, who makes them “sons of Paleologo”; _Jean XXII, Lettres Communes_, V. 302.

[472] Secreta Fidelium Crucis and Epistolæ, apud Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, II. 30, 298.

[473] Brocardus, Directorium ad passagium faciendum, in Documents Arméniens, II. 457-8, makes Martino “nephew of the late Benedetto.”

[474] Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient latin, 413-5; Supplément, 16; Pls. XIV, XXI; P. Lampros, Νομίσματα τῶν ἀδελφῶν Μαρτίνου καὶ Βενεδίκτου Β’ Ζαχαρίων, δυναστῶν τῆς Χίου, 1314-1329, pp. 9-13; ibid. Μεσαιωνικὰ νομίσματα τῶν δυναστῶν τῆς Χίου, 6-11, Pl. I; Promis, La Zecca di Scio, 34-6, Pl. I.

[475] Libro de los Fechos, 137.

[476] Minieri Riccio, Saggio di Codice diplomatico. Supplemento, II. 75-7, where the year “MCCCXV” will not tally with “Indictionis octavæ” (= 1325). Gittio (Lo Scettro del Despota, 18) gives both correctly.

[477] Raynaldi Annales Ecclesiastici, V. 95; Archivio Veneto, XX. 87, 89.

[478] Schlumberger, op. cit. 326, 415-6, Pls. XII-XIII; Promis, La Zecca di Scio, 36-7, Pl. I; P. Lampros, Νομίσματα, 13-15; Μεσαιωνικὰ νομίσματα, 12-14, Pl. I; Ἀνέκδοτα νομίσματα καὶ μολυβδόβουλλα τῶν κατὰ τοὺς μέσους αἰῶνας δυναστῶν τῆς Ἑλλάδος, 31-2.

[479] Cantacuzene, I. 370-91; N. Gregoras, I. 438-9; Phrantzes, 38; Chalkokondyles, 521-2; Friar Jordanus, op cit. 57; Ludolphi De Itinere Terræ Sanctæ, 23-4; Continuazione della Cronaca di Jacopo da Varagine, in Atti, X. 510; Brocardus, l.c.; Archives de l’Orient latin, I. 274.

[480] Benoît XII, Lettres closes, patentes et curiales, I. 182-3; Ludolphi l.c.

[481] Clément VI, Lettres closes, patentes et curiales, I. 150, 171, 182, 431-3.

[482] Raynaldi op. cit. VI. 342-3.

[483] Cantacuzene, II. 582-3; Caresini op. cit.; Cortusii Patavini duo; G. Villani, Historie Fiorentine, and Stellae Annales Genuenses, apud Muratori, R.I.S. XII. 417, 914; XIII. 918; XVII. 1081; Folieta, Clarorum Ligurum Elogia, 90.

[484] Doukas, 162-3; Cantacuzene, I. 388-90, 476-95; N. Gregoras, I. 525-31, 534-5, 553; Phrantzes, 38; Chalkokondyles, 521; Friar Jordanus, op. cit. 57.

[485] P. Lampros, Ἀνέκδοτα νομίσματα, 69-70, 72.

[486] Jerosme Justinian, La Description et Histoire de l’Isle de Scios, ou Chios, part I. 19; part II. 166; Boschini, L’Arcipelago, pp. 72, 74; Piacenza, L’Egeo Redivivo, pp. 200, 216; Coronelli, Isola di Rodi, p. 360. To this occupation of Ikaria refers the ballad in Journal of Hellenic Studies, I. 293-300.

[487] G. Stellae Annales Genuenses, apud Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script., XVII. 1086-90; Uberti Folietæ Historiæ Genuensis Libri xii (Genoa, 1585), fo. 137-8ᵛ; 313ᵛ; Ag. Giustiniani, Castigatissimi Annali della eccelsa & Illustrissima Republi. di Genoa (Genoa, 1537), CXXXIIⱽ-IVⱽ; P. Interiano, Ristretto delle Historie Genovesi (Genoa, s.a.), fo. 107ᵛ-8ᵛ; Documenti, apud Pagano, Delle Imprese e del Dominio dei Genovesi nella Grecia, pp. 261-70; Cantacuzene, II. 583-4; Nikephoros Gregoras, II. 765-7; Chalkokondyles, p. 522.

[488] Comte de Mas Latrie, Histoire de l’Île de Chypre, II. 366-70; Promis, La Zecca di Scio, 14 n². Atti della Società Ligure di Storia patria, XXXV. 52, 210; Rhodokanakes, Ἰουστινιάναι—Χίος I. 8-9, n. 15; J. Justinian, part II. 143; Araldica e Diritto (Jan. 1915), p. 46.

[489] Documenti, apud Pagano, pp. 271-85; Liber Iurium Reipublicæ Genuensis, II. (Historiæ Patriæ Monumenta, IX.), 558-72, 1498-1512.

[490] Promis, p. 39.

[491] XIX. 140-1.

[492] Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient latin, pp. 422 f. and Plate XIV, 19, 25.

[493] Liber Iurium, II. 714-20; Documenti, apud Pagano, 285-91.

[494] Stella, op. cit. pp. 1217-20; Folieta, op. cit. fo. 531; Ag. Giustiniani. op. cit. CLXXIIⱽ.

[495] Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, II. 4.

[496] Cantacuzene, III. 81-4; Nikephoros Gregoras, II. 842, 851.

[497] Vlastos, Χιακά, 228-31.

[498] G. Stella, p. 1091; Raphayni Caresini Continuatio Chronicorum Andreæ Danduli, apud Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script., XII. 420-1; Sanudo, Vite de’ Duchi di Venezia, ibid. XXII. 621-2; Matteo Villani, Istorie, ibid. XIV. 117-18.

[499] Atti della Società Ligure di Storia patria, XIII. 198; J. Justinian, part II. 165; J. Stellae, Annales Ianuenses, in _Rer. Ital. Script._, XVII. 1307-8.

[500] Chalkokondyles, p. 519.

[501] Atti, VI. 20, 353-4; XIII. 222, 231, 260-2, 996-7; Doukas, p. 314.

[502] Doukas, pp. 322-8.

[503] Veneroso, Genio Ligure risvegliato, Prove, p. 30.

[504] Atti, VII. part II. 94-6, 480-7; The Chronicles of Rabbi Joseph ben Joshua (transl. Bialloblotzky), p. 289.

[505] Atti, XXVIII. 761, 767.

[506] Annual of the Brit. School at Athens, XVI. (1909-10) 154-5; Χιακὰ Χρονικά. (Athens, 1914), II. 127.

[507] Thuani, Historiarum sui temporis Libri cxxxviii. (ed. 1620), II. 368-70; Bosio, Dell’ Istoria della Sacra Religione et illᵐᵃ Militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano, III. 757-9; Luccari, Copioso Ristretto degli Annali di Rausa, p. 147; A. Mauroceni, Historia Veneta, p. 335; Rhodokanakes, facing I. 359.

[508] Vlastos, Χιακά, 232-4.

[509] Ann. of Brit. School at Athens, XVI. 146.

[510] F. W. Hasluck, ibid. pp. 137-84.

[511] J. Justinian, part III. 116-18.

[512] P. Belon du Mans, Les observations de plusieurs singularitez et choses memorables (Paris, 1588), pp. 185-7; N. de Nicolay, Les navigations, peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Turquie (Antwerp, 1576), pp. 66-7.

[513] Ibid. p. 76.

[514] Belon, p. 186.

[515] N. de Nicolay, p. 67.

[516] Targioni Tozzetti, Relazione di alcuni viaggi fatti in diverse parti della Toscana (ed. 2), V. 436; J. Justinian, part II. 71-7.

[517] Pp. 43-4.

[518] Published by G. Porro-Lambertenghi in Miscellanea di Storia Italiana, VI. 541-8.

[519] Tozzetti, V. 454.

[520] Thevet in Ann. of Brit. School at Athens, XVI. 183-4.

[521] J. Justinian, part I. 34-7; M. Giustiniani, La Scio Sacra del Rito Latino, pp. 15-16, 78-88; E. Alexandrides in Χιακὰ Χρονικά (Athens, 1911), I. 10-17; Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, II. 90-2.

[522] Miklosich und Müller, III. 260-4; Atti, XXVIII. 563-8; J. Justinian, part II. 82.

[523] J. Justinian, part I. 31-3; part II. 170-1; Thevet in Ann. of Brit. School at Athens, XVI. 183

[524] Atti della Società Ligure di Storia patria, I. 296; II. 1, 396; XI. 343; XVII. 241-51; XXVIII. 522, 543, 545-50, 805-6; XXXIV. 157, 253, 268, 322, 326, 345; Les Registres de Boniface VIII, I. 222-3; Giornale Ligustico di Archeologia, Storia e Belle Arti, I. 218; IX. 3-13.

[525] Doukas, 40-3, 46; Nikephoros Gregoras, III. 554; Chalkokondyles, 520; Kritoboulos: lib. II. c. 13; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VI. 39; M. Villani, Istorie, and G. Stellae, Annales Genuenses, apud Muratori, R.I.S., XIV. 447; XVII. 1094; Pii II Commentarii, 245; Ag. Giustiniano, Annali della Repubblica di Genova (ed. 1854), II. 95; P. Bizari, Senatus populique Genuensis ... historiæ, 134; U. Folietæ, Historiæ Genuensium libri XII (ed. 1585), 141-2; Clarorum Ligurum Elogia (ed. 1573), 97-8.

[526] Servion, Gestez et chroniques de la Mayson de Savoye, II. 138-9.

[527] M. Villani, Istorie, apud Muratori, R.I.S., XIV. 447.

[528] N. Gregoras, III. 503-4, 565.

[529] Servion, op. cit. II. 138-9, 143.

[530] Phrantzes, 48.

[531] Misti, XXVIII. f. 73 (Doc. of Sept. 20, 1358).

[532] Predelli, I Libri Commemoriali della Repubblica di Venezia, II. 266; Giornale Ligustico, I. 84-5.

[533] Predelli, op. cit. III. 156 (Documents of Jan. 11, 14, 1382).

[534] Raynaldi Annales ecclesiastici (ed. 1752), VII. 19, 172; Innocentii VI Epistolæ secretæ, IV. f. 164 (Reg. Vat. 238). Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, XII. 474-5.

[535] Raynaldi op. cit. 224. The invitation to Francesco, otherwise practically identical with that to John V, contains the important variant, that the Turkish race “tam potenter tamque fortiter terram tuam ... obsidet.” Gregorii XI Secret. Anno II. ff. 85-6 (Reg. Vat. 268). Jauna, Histoire générale des roiaumes de Chypre ... etc. II. 882.

[536] Raynaldi op. cit. VII. 249; Wadding, Annales Ordinis Minorum, VIII. 289; Gregorii XI Secret. Anno IV. f. 63 (Reg. Vat. 270).

[537] Miklosich und Müller, Acta et diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, I. 433, 513, 531; II. 129-30, 159, 212, 250, 252-3, 255-6, 264-6.

[538] Libri Bullarum, IV. (1365-6), f. 270ᵛ.

[539] Chalkokondyles, 520-1; Kritoboulos, lib. II. c. 13

[540] Giornale Ligustico, I. 86-7.

[541] Hasluck in B.S.A., XV. 262; Conze, Reise auf der Insel Lesbos, 5; Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the Levant, I. 115.

[542] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VI. 39-40, VII. 144, 344; Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo to the Court of Timour, at Samarkand, A.D. 1403-6 (tr. Markham), 23; Bondelmonti, Liber Insularum Archipelagi (ed. de Sinner), 115.

[543] Atti, XIII. 169, 953-67.

[544] Bauyn, Mémoires du voiage fait en Hongrie, f. 351-2; Froissart, Chroniques (ed. K. de Lettenhove), XV. 345, 347. The relationship was as follows:

Amedeo V of Savoy | +----------------+----------------+ | | Catherine = Leopold I Anne = Andronikos III | of Austria | | | Catherine = Enguerrand Maria = Francesco I of Austria | de Coucy Palaiologina | Gattilusio | | Enguerrand VII de Coucy Francesco II Gattilusio

[545] Le Livre des faicts du bon Messire Jean le Maingre dit Boucicaut (ed. Paris, 1825), part I. ch. 28; Delaville le Roulx, La France en Orient au XIVᵉ siècle, II. 33 (Doc. of April 15, 1397).

[546] Ibid. II. 34-5, 48, 91-3; Froissart, Chroniques, XVI. 38, 40, 261 (Doc. of June 24, 1397); Doukas, 52-3.

[547] Bauyn, Mémoires du voiage, f. 35; Froissart, Chroniques, XVI. 41-2.

[548] Le Livre des faicts, part I. ch. 28; Froissart, Chroniques, XVI. 46, 48-50. Le Roulx, op. cit. II. 43-5 (Doc. of Aug. 10, 1397).

[549] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, X. 248-51.

[550] Le Livre des faicts, part I. ch. 31; Narrative, 24.

[551] Revue de l’Orient latin, IV. 93; Constantine the Philosopher, Life of Stephen Lazarevich in Glasnik, XLII. 279; Archiv für slavische Philologie, XVIII. 429.

[552] Doukas, 75-6.

[553] Narrative, 23-4; Mélanges historiques. Choix de documents, III. 174.

[554] Le Livre des faicts, part II. chs. 14, 31; Le Roulx, op. cit. I. 484 n¹; II. 189.

[555] Narrative, 22-3.

[556] Gioffredo, Storia delle Alpi Marittime, in Monumenta Historiæ Patriæ, IV. 1001-2, 1077.

[557] Giornale Ligustico, I. 89-90, 217.

[558] Ibid. I. 219.

[559] Bibliotheca Carmelitana, II. 943; Fontana, Sacrum Theatrum Dominicanum, 238; Sp. P. Lampros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos, II. 305.

[560] Miklosich und Müller, Acta, II. 140, 234, 338.

[561] Noiret, Documents inédits pour servir à l’histoire de la domination vénitienne en Crète de 1380 à 1485, pp. 107, 127.

[562] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VI. 40; VII. 341. From Giornale Ligustico, I. 219, it has been assumed that he was still alive on May 25, 1409; but the Greek is confirmed by Noiret, Documents, 161, where Nicolò is described as regent on April 4, 1405, and by Libri Bullarum, XXIV. (1409-16) f. 194ᵛ, where Jacopo is addressed as “lord of Mytilene” on April 12, 1409.

[563] Bondelmonti, Liber Insularum, 115.

[564] Noiret, Documents, p. 161; Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, II. 127; Revue de l’Orient latin, IV. 279-80, 282.

[565] Innocent VII. Ann. I. Lib. Mist. ff. 53-4. Bened. XIII. Avin. t. XL. ff. 157-9.

[566] Probably between April 12 and May 25. Giornale Ligustico, I. 217-9; Libri Bullarum, l.c.

[567] Inscription at Ænos, B.S.A., XV. 251, 254: Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας Δελτίον, VIII. 16.

[568] Lib. IV. c. 13.

[569] Sathas, Μνημεῖα, I. 43-4; III. 24-5; Noiret, Documents, 230-1.

[570] Revue de l’Orient latin, V. 176, 188, 315.

[571] Libri Bullarum, XXIV. (1409-16).

[572] Doukas, 106, 108; Sathas, Μνημεῖα, III. 118-20; Revue, IV. 574; V. 193.

[573] Giornale Ligustico, I. 219-20.

[574] Between March 13, 1426 (probably after May 11, 1428) and October 14, 1428. Giornale Ligustico, I. 219-20; II. 86-7. Hopf’s assumption that it was Jacopo who was killed in the fall of the tower must be wrong, because Bondelmonti, writing in 1422, speaks of that event as having occurred meis diebus. The allusion to the lord of Foglia Vecchia as a distinct person in the document of May 11, 1428, indicates that Jacopo was still alive.

[575] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VI. 40, 492; VII. 95; Gioffredo, op. cit. 1077; Anselme, Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la Maison de France, IV. 501.

[576] Revue de l’Orient latin, V. 114.

[577] Giornale Ligustico, V. 347; Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Le Voyage d’Outremer in Recueil de Voyages et de Documents (ed. Ch. Schefer), XII. 173-4.

[578] B.S.A. XV. 258.

[579] B.S.A. XV. 254-6; Χρ. Ἀρχ. Ἑτ. Δελτίον, VIII. 13, 16-7, 19-20, 29-30.

[580] l.c.

[581] Conze, Reise auf den Inseln des Thrakischen Meeres, 55-6; Pl. II. 7, 8; Athenische Mitteilungen, XXXIV. 26-7; Atti, XI. 341.

[582] Tozzetti, Relazioni d’alcuni viaggi fatti in diverse parti della Toscana (ed. 1773), V. 452.

[583] Joannis Canabutzæ magistri ad principem Æni et Samothraces in Dionysium Halicarnassensem commentarius, 2, 14; B.S.A. XV. 256.

[584] Sathas, Μνημεῖα, I. 44.

[585] Giornale Ligustico, I. 220-1; II. 86-9; III. 314-5; Revue de l’Orient latin, V. 371-2; VI. 96.

[586] Documenti diplomatici tratti dagli Archivj Milanesi, III. 49 n¹.

[587] Giornale Ligustico, II. 90-3, 292-6, 313-4, 316; Atti, XXIII. 265; Revue de l’Orient latin, VI. 112.

[588] Chalkokondyles, 462; Pero Tafur, Andanças é viajes in Colleccion de libros españoles raros ó curiosos, VIII. 159, 187; Giornale Ligustico, II. 292-3; Lampros, Catalogue, II. 305. A Genoese document (Revue de l’Orient latin, VI. 67), proves that Alexios IV died in 1429, not, as usually assumed, c. 1445.

[589] Phrantzes, 191.

[590] Stefano Magno apud Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 199.

[591] Phrantzes, 193-5; Chalkokondyles, 306; Revue de l’Orient latin, VII. 75; Ekthesis Chronica, 7.

[592] Description des Îles de l’Archipel (ed. Legrand), 92; Phrantzes, 96; Ath. Mitt. XXII. 119 n³.

[593] Conze, Reise auf den Inseln, 37, Pl. III, 4; Libri Bullarum, XXXIV. (1432-3), f. 112.

[594] Sathas, Μνημεῖα, III. 24-5; Tozzetti, Relazioni, V. 436.

[595] Tozzetti, Relazioni, V. 449, 451; De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianæ Urbis Romæ, II. part I. 372 n⁴; Atti, XIII. 983.

[596] Tozzetti, Relazioni, V. 435-6, 447, 451-2; Pero Tafur, in op. cit. VIII. 134, 187.

[597] Colucci, Delle Antichità Picene, XV. pp. cxxxiii, cxxxvii-cxli; Codex Vat. lat. 5250, ff. 11-13, 15-17 (mostly published in Ath. Mitt. XXII. 115-7); Ciriaci Anconitani codex (in Biblioteca Capitolare of Treviso), I. 138, f. 152ᵛ et seqq.

[598] Ibid. f. 152 et sqq.; Colucci, Delle Antichità, XV. p. cxxxii; Tozzetti, Relazioni, V. 459; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VII. 341-2; De Rossi, Inscriptiones, II. part I. 370 n¹; Revue de l’Orient latin, VII. 53, 384.

[599] Conze, Hauser und Niemann, Archaeologische Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, I. 1 n¹, 2, 16, Pls. IV-VIII, LXII; vol. II. Pl. IX; Conze, Reise auf den Inseln, 62, Pl. XII; Cod. Vat. lat. 5250, f. 14; Annali dell’ Instituto (1842), XIV. 141 and tav. d’agg. p. 3, where the date should be, ͵ϛϡξγʹ = 1454/5; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VII. 94; Ath. Mitt., XXXIV. 28.

[600] Cod. Vat. lat. 5250, f. 11, published by Ziebarth, Eine Inschriftenhandschrift der Hamburger Stadtbibliothek, 15; Ath. Mitt., XVIII. 361; XXXI. 405-8; Conze, Reise auf den Inseln, 82, Pl. III, 5, 9, 13.

[601] Tozzetti, Relazioni, V. 435; Moschides, Ἡ Λῆμνος, I. 168.

[602] Leonardi Chiensis, De vera nobilitate, 55; Revue de l’Orient latin, VII. 427.

[603] Ibid. VIII. 54; Giornale Ligustico, V. 347-9.

[604] Chalkokondyles, 519. But Ænos was described in 1457 as semper in servitute Teucrorum (Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VII. 366).

[605] Giornale Ligustico, II. 295-6; Revue, VIII. 43.

[606] Giornale Ligustico, V. 350; Revue, VIII. 29, 65; Chalkokondyles, 519. Folietæ Clarorum Ligurum Elogia (ed. 1573), 97-8; B. Campofulgosi Exemplorum, hoc est, dictorum factorumque memorabilium ... lib. IX (ed. Bâle), 328 (who makes her the wife of Luchino); Æneæ Sylvii, Opera ... omnia, 355-6 (who calls the heroine a virgin, and who heard the story told in 1455 by the bishop of Caffa, who had heard it in Lesbos). Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VII. 317-8.

[607] Atti, XIII. 247.

[608] Phrantzes, 327.

[609] Doukas, 266.

[610] Kritoboulos, lib. I. cc. 74-5; Doukas, 314, 328; Magno apud Hopf, Chroniques, 198-9.

[611] Pp. 321-2.

[612] Doukas, 326, 328-35; Kritoboulos, lib. II. c. 5; Campofulgosi Exemplorum, 526; Ἱστορία πολιτικὴ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, 26; Ag. Giustiniani, Annali, II. 384; Giornale Ligustico, V. 354.

[613] Giornale Ligustico, V. 349-50.

[614] Kritoboulos, lib. II. cc. 11-16; III. 24; Doukas, 335; Chalkokondyles, 469; Ἱστορία πολιτικὴ, 25; Ecthesis Chronica, 17-18. Sa’d al-Dīn (tr. Bratutti), _Chronica dell’ origine e progressi di casa Ottomana_, II. 168; Hadji Khalfa, Cronologia historica (tr. Carli), 130; Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches (ed. 1828), II. 20 nᵃ; Conze, Reise auf den Inseln, 82, Pl. III, 11.

[615] Doukas, 335-7; Chalkokondyles, 469.

[616] Giornale Ligustico, V. 353-5; Raynaldi Annales, X. 56, 59, 61-2; Reg. Vat. 443, f. 140.

[617] Sathas, Μνημεῖα, I. 231.

[618] Guglielmotti, Storia della Marina Pontificia, 260 n; Æneæ Sylvii Opera ... omnia (ed. Bâle), 370.

[619] Kritoboulos, lib. II. c. 23; Doukas, 338; Chalkokondyles, 469; the two last say that Imbros was also captured in 1456—a statement contradicted not only by Kritoboulos, but by the omission of Imbros from the list of papal islands in Atti, VI. 937-8 and in Raynaldi Annales, X. 88, which shows that the capture of the other three took place before Dec. 31, 1456. Pius II’s letter (Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, X. 113) shows that Imbros was “still under the rule of the infidels” in 1459.

[620] Doukas, 338; Kritoboulos, lib. III. c. 10; Atti, VI. 800; Raynaldi, Annales, X. 111; Chalkokondyles, 519; Letter of Scarampi to Gaetani of Sept. 15, 1457, apud Guglielmotti, Storia della Marina Pontificia, II. 280; Reg. Vat. 443, f. 113.

[621] Giornale Ligustico, III. 313-4.

[622] Doukas, 346; Chalkokondyles, 520, 528; Kritoboulos, lib. IV. c. 2; Æneæ Sylvii, Opera ... omnia (ed. Bâle), 355; Ag. Giustiniani, Annali, II. 384; Magno, apud Hopf, Chroniques, 201.

[623] Giornale Ligustico, V. 363-4.

[624] J. Paulides, Μαρία Γατελούζη in Ἡ Ἑλλὰς τὴν Βάρβιτον. Rhodokanakes, Ἰουστινιάναι—Χίος, I. 115 n. 101; II. 107.

[625] Raynaldi Annales, X. 179-80.

[626] Kritoboulos, lib. III. cc. 14, 15, 17, 18, 24; Chalkokondyles, 469-70, 483, 494; Æneæ Sylvii Opera, 370; Magno, apud Hopf, Chroniques, 200 (confused); Phrantzes, 413-4.

[627] Raynaldi, Annales, X. 285-6; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, X. 113-5.

[628] Giornale Ligustico, III. 180-1 n; V. 352-3, 355-61, 363; Atti, V. 429; Rymer, Fœdera, XI. 418, 441.

[629] Atti, VII. part I. 77-8, 108; Giornale Ligustico, V. 364-6; Doukas, 341.

[630] Βυζαντίς, II. 266; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VII. 342-3; VIII. 94-5, 361.

[631] S. Cali (Καλή, the Greek equivalent of “Bonne”).

[632] Leonardi Chiensis De Lesbo a Turcis capta, apud Hopf, Chroniques, 359-66 (an eye-witness); Magno, ibid. 201-2; Doukas, 345-6, 512; Chalkokondyles, 518-21, 523-9, 553; Kritoboulos, lib. IV. cc. 11-14; Phrantzes, 94; Malipiero, Annali Veneti, in Archivio Storico Italiano, VII. 11; Pii II Commentarii, 244; Atti, VII. part I. 159-60, 190; Giornale Ligustico, V. 366-7; Sabellici Historiæ Rerum Venetarum (ed. 1556), 867, 873; Cambini and Spandugino apud Sansovino, Historia Universale dell’ Origine et Imperio de’ Turchi (ed. 1573), ff. 156, 191; Ἱστορία πολιτικὴ, 26; Bosio, Dell’ Historia della sacra religione di San Giovanni, I. 196; The Chronicles of Rabbi Joseph ben Joshua (tr. Bialloblotzky), 289.

[633] Atti, VII. part I. 227, 242, 244.

[634] Sabellici op. cit. 883; Malipiero in Arch. Stor. It., VII. 28; Sathas, Μνημεῖα, VI. 93, 97; Magno apud Hopf, Chroniques, 204; Chalkokondyles, 565; Phrantzes, 415.

[635] Sabellici op. cit. 885-6; Malipiero, l.c.; Sathas, Μνημεῖα, I. 244, VI. 98; Phrantzes, l.c.; Sanudo and Navagiero apud Muratori, R.I.S., XXII. 1170; XXIII. 1123, 1132; Kritoboulos, lib. V. c. 7; Sa’d al-Dīn, II. 223; Cepio, De P. Mocenigi rebus gestis, 30.

[636] Sathas, op. cit. VI. 99; Malipiero, 37; Sabellicus, 890; Navagiero, 1125; Secreta, XXII. f. 186; Magno, 204.

[637] Malipiero, 50; Sanudo and Navagiero in R.I.S., XXII. 1190, XXIII. 1128; Magno, 206; Phrantzes, 448.

[638] Magno, 205, 208; Sathas, Μνημεῖα, V. 48; Malipiero, 50, 59, 67, 107, 121; Sanudo, 1190, 1210; Kritoboulos, lib. V. c. 15; Miklosich und Müller, Acta, III. 297; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VI. 299-318.

[639] Malipiero, 44; Sabellicus, 895; Cambini apud Sansovino, f. 158; Phrantzes, 447; Sa’d al-Dīn, II. 244; Hammer, II. 98 nᵃ; Piacenza, L’Egeo Redivivo, 439.

[640] Giornale Ligustico, V. 370-2.

[641] Ibid. V. 367-70.

[642] Gottlob, Aus der Camera Apostolica, 293.

[643] Revue de l’Orient latin, I. 537-9.

[644] Anonymous, Οἱ Γατελοῦζοι ἐν Λέσβῳ, 70 n¹.

[645] Atti, XXXIV. 322, 326, 345.

[646] P. 521.

[647] Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient latin, 436-43; Supplément, 18-19; Pls XVI, XVII, XXI; Lampros, Catalogue, II. 305; Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, VI. 41, 491-2; VII. 87-8.

[648] Fontana, Sacrum Theatrum Dominicanum, 81; Scriptores Ordinis Prædicatorum (ed. Echard), I. 816-7; Rovetta, Bibliotheca Provinciæ Lombardiæ Sacri Ordinis Prædicatorum, 76; Bullarium Ordinis Fr. Prædicatorum (ed. Bremond). III. 210-11, 236, 336.

[649] De vera nobilitate, 53, 55, 82-3.

[650] Reg. Vat. 443, ff. 111-2.

[651] Jireček, Geschichte der Bulgaren, 449.

[652] Zinkeisen, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, III. 132, 319.

[653] Hopf, in Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, LXXXVI. 189.

[654] Rycaut in Knolles, Turkish History, II. 87 (ed. 1687).

[655] Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, V. 339. Paparregopoulos, V. 575.

[656] Finlay, VI. 11.

[657] P. 308.

[658] Historia Patriarchica, 102-7; Cobham, The Patriarchs of Constantinople; Paparregopoulos, op. cit. V. 502-36; Finlay, V. 130-49.

[659] The Serb Patriarchate of Ipek was practically removed to Carlovitz in 1738, and ceased to exist even in name in 1766. The Bulgarian Patriarchate of Ochrida was formally abolished in 1767.

[660] Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, p. 128.

[661] Paparregopoulos, V. 471.

[662] Rycaut, in Knolles, op. cit. II. 90. Ranke, Fürsten u. Völker von Süd. Europa, p. 69, says that it ceased between 1630 and 1650. Paparregopoulos (V. 471) puts the date of its abolition in 1638; Finlay (V. 163-4) at 1676.

[663] Paparregopoulos says that “all but one” were Greeks; but he includes the Albanian family of Ghika and the Kallimachai, who came, as their latest biographer, M. Jorga, has shown, from Moldavia. See my notice in The English Historical Review, XVIII. 577. Blancard, Les Mavroyéni.

[664] Finlay, V. 21, 31.

[665] Zinkeisen, III. 360.

[666] Paparregopoulos, V. 489.

[667] Paparregopoulos, V. 494.

[668] Sathas, Μνημεῖα, IV. pp. liv-lxi; and vols. VII.-IX., which contain documents relating to them from 1464 to 1570, some of their literary productions, and a picture of one of them fully armed.

[669] Finlay, V. 122

[670] Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, XIII. 273-317.

[671] Θρήνος τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, l. 354 apud Ellissen, Analekten, III.

[672] Gregorovius, Storia della Città di Roma nel medio evo [ed. 1901], III. 826; IV. 207, 240; Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste, II. 382; Lanciani, Wanderings in the Roman Campagna, 217.

[673] Paruta, Storia della Guerra di Cipro, 79-80.

[674] Op. cit. 294.

[675] Memorie istoriche dei Monarchi Ottomani, 401.

[676] Paruta, 299-300. Négociations de la France dans le Levant, III. 191.

[677] pp. 212-214.

[678] Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, p. 171.

[679] Paruta, 391.

[680] Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, p. 175, where the dates of their deaths, given in his Χρονικὸν Ἀνέκδοτον Γαλαξειδίου, p. 153, are corrected; Philadelpheus, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ἐπὶ Τουρκοκρατίας, I. 40.

[681] Zinkeisen, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, III. 529.

[682] Crusius, Turco-Græcia, VII. 10, 19; Laborde, Athènes aux xvᵉ, xviᵉ et xviiᵉ siècles, I. 55-60.

[683] It is headed Περὶ τῆς Ἀττικῆς and has last been published and annotated by my friend K. Philadelpheus, in his excellent Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ἐπὶ Τουρκοκρατίας, I. 189-92. He assigns to it the date 1628.

[684] Philadelpheus, I. 202-8; Konstantinides, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν (ed. 2), pp. 447-50.

[685] Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἱστορίας τῶν Ἀθηναίων (ed. 2), I. 191, 336.

[686] Konstantinides thinks his figures much too high (op. cit. 442-7).

[687] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηναίων, II. 77-83. Konstantinides (pp. 421-2) relying on a statement of Sanuto that the governor of Athens, even before 1470, was styled only subashi, thinks that all the time down to 1610 Athens was merely a district of a sandjak. Philadelpheus (I. 287-90) agrees with the latter view, but extends the duration of this arrangement to 1621 or even later.

[688] Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, pp. 178-9.

[689] See the Greek history of Epeiros given in Pouqueville, Voyage dans la Grèce, V. 82-90.

[690] Finlay, History of Greece, V. 57, 90-1, 94, 96, 101, 108.

[691] Dapper, Description des Îles de l’Archipel, p. 224.

[692] Spon, Voyage, II. 23 (ed. 1679).

[693] Finlay, V. 108, 114.

[694] Laborde, I. 67-70. An Austrian archæologist has suggested that the Hermes, Paris, or Perseus, of Antikythera, discovered some 20 years ago, and now at Athens, was part of the spoil of a vessel bound for England which foundered in 1640 off that island.

[695] His genealogy is given in Sathas, Τουρκοκρατουμένη Ἑλλάς, p. 197, n. 2.

[696] Sathas, p. 209.

[697] Ibid. pp. 197-210.

[698] Nani, Istoria della R. Veneta, pt. II. p. 134.

[699] Randolph, The Present State of the Morea, p. 9; Guillet, Athènes ancienne et nouvelle, pp. 28-38. It must be added, however, that the Capuchins of Athens, upon whose notes this book was based, may from theological bias have exaggerated the misdeeds of the Orthodox clergy. On this ground the local historian, Alexandrakos, in his Ἱστορία τῆς Μάνης, p. 18, indignantly rejects these accusations. But in 1894 I heard in Athens a similar story about a Thessalian priest, implicated in a celebrated case of brigandage.

[700] Finlay, V. 116-7; Spon, I. 123; Sathas, pp. 308-10; Paparregopoulos, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους, V. 493; Leake, Travels in the Morea, III. 450.

[701] Laborde, I. 63; Philadelpheus (I. 184, 187) puts his visit in 1621. The passage about Athens is in his Voyage de Levant (ed. 1645), pp. 473-5.

[702] Laborde, I. 75, 201; Guillet, p. 223.

[703] His Relation d’État présent de la ville d’Athènes is reprinted in full in Laborde’s book.

[704] Laborde, I. 176; Finlay, V. 104, n. 2; Ray’s Collection of Curious Travels and Voyages, vol. II.; Randolph, The Present State of the Morea; Magni, Relazione della città d’Atene.

[705] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, III. 135.

[706] Laborde, II. 358, 363. The Venetian report, given in Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστ. καὶ Ἐθν. Ἑτ. V. 226, says the borgo in 1687 contained “4000 and more houses.”

[707] Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, II. 417 n.

[708] Ubi supra, II. 187.

[709] There is a picture, taken from Stuart, of this Παναγία στὴν πέτρα in Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, II. 280. See his Μνημεῖα, I. 93. It was destroyed by Hadji Ali, to provide materials for the defences of Athens against the Albanians in 1778.

[710] Laborde, I. 126 n.

[711] In the third volume of Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία.

[712] Spon, II. 180. Even now there is no synagogue in Athens.

[713] E.g. the thief who pillaged the king’s study at Tatoi in 1902 was an Albanian from Markopoulo, between Athens and Laurion. Many of the names of the Attic villages—e.g. Tatoi, Liosia and Liopesi—are Albanian.

[714] Printed by Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, II. 238-43.

[715] Guillet, who tells the story, upon which Spon casts doubt, places this under Ahmed I. Spon says the boon was granted about 1645.

[716] Ἄρχοντες, νοικοκυραῖοι, παζαρῖται, ξωτάρηδες.

[717] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, II. 102.

[718] The Present State of the Morea, p. 22.

[719] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, III. 120.

[720] Ἐπῆραν τὰ παιδιὰ ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀθήνα [sic] are the words. This chronicle, which is dated 1606, has been re-published by Kampouroglos in his Μνημεῖα, I. 89-90, and by Lampros, Ecthesis Chronica and Chronicon Athenarum, 85-6.

[721] Spon, II. 103.

[722] Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, I. 33; Paparregopoulos, V. 597.

[723] The θρῆνος for him is published in Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, I. 7-27, and by Legrand, Bibliothèque grecque vulgaire, II. 123-47.

[724] Laborde, I. 208.

[725] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, II. 174.

[726] Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, III. 120.

[727] Vernon, in Ray’s Collection of Curious Travels and Voyages, II. 22.

[728] Spon, II. 194; Paparregopoulos, V. 645. Philadelpheus has treated exhaustively of the Athenian schools in the Turkish period (II. ch. XIX.).

[729] In Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, vol. III.

[730] Kampouroglos, (Ἱστορία, II. 37) thinks that it had been the metropolitan church of Athens during the whole Frankish period. Philadelpheus (I. 178, 273, 312) agrees with him. When I visited it I could see not only that it had been a mosque, but that it might easily have been a church. There are old pillars inside it, a continuation of those in the Roman market outside.

[731] Ἱστορία, II. 275, 304. Philadelpheus, I. 273. This identification is conclusively proved not only by tradition among very old Athenians, but by an entry in a Gospel found at Ægina with the words τοῦ Καθολικοῦ τῆς Ἀθήνας τοῦ Ἁγίου Παντελεήμονος. This church stood in the square where the public auctions are still held.

[732] Spon, II. 155, 172. “Deli-Dagh” is a translation of “Monte Matto,” the Italian version of Hymettos. Kampouroglos, Ἱστορία, II. 50.

[733] Babin in Laborde, I. 188 n.

[734] Finlay, V. 100.

[735] Spon, II. 192-4; Laborde, I. 163.

[736] Laborde, I. 81, 198; Spon, II. 121.

[737] Spon, II. 122.

[738] Spon, II. 107-8; Laborde, I. 81.

[739] Babin, in Laborde, I. 199.

[740] Randolph, The Present State of the Islands in the Archipelago, p. 5.

[741] Spon, II. 179.

[742] The Greeks call any large beast a δράκος.

[743] Spon, II. 211, 213, 220, 223, 230; Randolph, Present State of the Morea, p. 1.

[744] Vernon, ubi supra, II. 22, 25.

[745] Spon, II. 16, 23, 28, 41, 51, 57-62, 65, 73, 232, 246; Finlay, V. 100; Vernon, ubi supra, II. 27.

[746] Paparregopoulos, V. 590.

[747] Spon, II. 219, 270-3.

[748] Randolph, The Present State of the Morea, p. 4.

[749] Pègues, Histoire ... de Santorin, 591-619.

[750] Spon, I. 149.

[751] Randolph, The Present State of the Islands in the Archipelago, 8-14.

[752] Sanger, Histoire nouvelle des anciens Ducs, 305-24; Sathas, Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία, 345; Dowling, Hellenism in England, 46-7, 80-5.

[753] Hopf, ubi supra, LXXXVI. 172-3.

[754] Hopf, Veneto-byzantinische Analekten, pp. 422-6; and in Ersch und Gruber, LXXXVI. 177.

[755] Racconto historico della Veneta Guerra in Levante (Colonia, 1691), I. 62, 65.

[756] Laborde, Athènes aux xvᵉ, xviᵉ et xviiᵉ siècles, II. 74-8.

[757] Ἡμερολόγιον Μάτεση apud Sathas, Ἑλληνικὰ Ἀνέκδοτα, I. 198; Chiotes, Ἱστορικὰ Ἀπομνημονεύματα, III. 281, 318.

[758] La Morea combattuta dall’ armi Venete (Venetia, 1686), pp. 180-2.

[759] Locatelli, I. 151, 161, 167, 174, 213.

[760] Mateses apud Sathas, I. 210; Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, II. i. 139; Locatelli, I. 263, 276.

[761] Ibid. I. 338.

[762] Journal d’Anna Akerhjelm, apud Laborde, II. 307.

[763] Locatelli, I. 348.

[764] Morosini’s dispatches apud Laborde, II. 121-31.

[765] Locatelli, II. 3.

[766] Laborde, I. 116-17.

[767] Morosini’s dispatch apud Laborde, II. 158; Chandler, Travels in Asia Minor and Greece (ed. 1825), II. 111.

[768] Apud Laborde, II. 277; Locatelli, II. 3; Ranke, “Die Venezianer in Morea,” in Sämmt. Werke, XLII. 297.

[769] Locatelli, II. 8; Morosini’s dispatch apud Laborde, II. 162.

[770] Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστ. καὶ Ἐθν. Ἑταιρίας, V. 222-7: Locatelli, II. 24-34.

[771] Laborde, II. 358.

[772] Ibid. II. 279.

[773] Ibid. II. 279, 313.

[774] Ibid. II. 179, 317.

[775] Ibid. II. 150, 172, 176, 180, 182; Fanelli, Atene Attica, pp. 113, 308, 317.

[776] Laborde, II. 90; Mateses apud Sathas, I. 216.

[777] Atene Attica, p. 344.

[778] Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, I. 43; Philadelpheus, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, II. 315; Δελτίον, V. 545.

[779] Mateses, loc. cit.; Locatelli, II. 50; Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, I. 189, 296; Ἱστορία, I. 343; III. 256.

[780] Δελτίον, V. 457; Lampros, Ἱστορικὰ Μελετήματα, p. 217.

[781] Locatelli, II. 109, 164, 247; Garzoni, Istoria della Repubblica di Venezia (ed. 1720), I. 365.

[782] Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, I. 34-6.

[783] Ibid. I. 211; Philadelpheus, II. 62.

[784] Kampouroglos, Μνημεῖα, II. 339; Konstantinides, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, p. 494, n. 1.

[785] J. Benizelos, Ἱστορία τῶν Ἀθηνῶν apud Philadelpheus, II. 273.

[786] Garzoni, I. 432-4, 509-10; Δελτίον, V. 525.

[787] Garzoni, I. 622, 629; Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage du Levant, I. 141.

[788] Authorities, the reports of the Venetian governors, used by Ranke for his essay “Die Venezianer in Morea” (Sämmt. Werke, XLII. 277-361), and by Zinkeisen (Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, V. 473-89), have since been published by the late Professor Lampros in his Ἱστορικὰ Μελετήματα, pp. 199-220, and in Δελτίον τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ Ἐθνολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας, II. 282-317, 686-710; V. 228-51, 425-567, 605-823. For the campaign of 1715 Brue, Journal de la campagne; Diedo, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia, IV. 73-107; the Greek poem by Manthos of Joannina (an eye-witness), “Conquête de la Morée par les Turcs” in Legrand, Bibliothèque grecque vulgaire, III. 280-331; Ferrari, Delle notizie storiche della lega ... contra ... Acmet III, pp. 41-69; Chronique de l’expédition des Turcs en Morée, 1715, attribuée à Constantin Dioikétès.

[789] Itinéraire (ed. 1826), I. 80-2; Lampros, p. 209.

[790] Chroniques gréco-romanes, pp. 385-90.

[791] Buchon, Nouvelles Recherches, II. i. 99, 102, which disprove the statement that it was introduced from Naxos about 1580.

[792] French Consular dispatches apud Zinkeisen, V. 486, n. 2.

[793] Voyages, I. 462.

[794] IV. 83.

[795] Lamprynides, Ἡ Ναυπλία, 230-40.

[796] I. 138.

[797] Δελτίον, V. 802; Ferrari, p. 44.

[798] History of Modern Greece, I. 242 n.; Depellegrin, Relation du voyage dans la Morée, p. 14; Lamprynides, p. 284.

[799] Philadelpheus, II. 69.

[800] Zinkeisen, V. 499 n.; Gerola, Monumenti Veneti nell’ Isola di Creta, I. ii. 535.

[801] Art. Am. II. 658; Epist. ex Ponto, IV. xiv. 45.

[802] H. N. III. 26.

[803] II. 627; V. 650.

[804] VII. 480.

[805] III. 12, § 2.

[806] Ed. Wesseling, 323, 329, 332, 489, 497, 549, 608, 611-12.

[807] Ed. Teubner, p. 13.

[808] Travels in Northern Greece, I. 2.

[809] Voyage dans la Grèce, I. 284.

[810] Acta et Diplomata res Albaniæ mediæ ætatis illustrantia, I. 4, 5, 7.

[811] Procopius (ed. Teubner), II. p. 23.

[812] III. 56.

[813] Jireček, Geschichte der Bulgaren, 167, 191, 202 n.

[814] Ed. Teubner, I. 49-50, 126, 132, 137, 161, 177, 187, 193-94; II. 168-69, 189, 194, 197; Recueil des historiens des Croisades: Historiens occidentaux, III. 177.

[815] Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, II. xii. 118, 184.

[816] Niketas, 118-19.

[817] Font. Rer. Aust. II. xii. 472, 570.

[818] Miklosich und Müller, Acta et Diplomata Græca Medii Ævi, III. 240; M. Sanudo, ap. Hopf, Chroniques gréco-romanes, 107; Ughelli, Italia Sacra, VI. 774.

[819] Del Giudice, Codice Diplomatico del Regno di Carlo Iᵒ e IIᵒ d’Angiò, I. 308; Pachymeres, I. 508.

[820] Buchon, Recherches et Matériaux, I. 33.

[821] Del Giudice, II. i. 239; Act. et Dip. Alb. I. 73, 84, 85, 93, 94.

[822] Ibid. 106, 115, 117, 127, 139; Archivio Storico Italiano, ser. IV. ii. 355; Font. Rer. Aust. ii. xiv. 226, 243.

[823] Act. et Dip. Alb. I. 146, 157.

[824] Ducange, Histoire de l’Empire de Constantinople (ed. 1729), II. Recueil, 21, 22.

[825] Act. et Dip. Alb. I. 159; Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, I. 150, 233; Miklosich und Müller, III. 109.

[826] Dip. Ven.-Lev. I. 135, 161; Act. et Dip. Alb. I. 214, 215, 220, 237; Archivio Veneto, XX. 94.

[827] Dip. Ven.-Lev. I. 125, 130, 136-38, 147-49, 154, 159-62, 191; Arch. Ven. XX. 92; Act. et Dip. Alb. I. 217, 245.

[828] Cantacuzene, I. 495.

[829] Starine, IV. 29; Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, I. 385 (thus disproving Hopf’s statement, for which there is no authority, that Valona became Serbian in 1337).

[830] Spomenik, XI. 29, 30.

[831] Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, III. 176; Predelli, I Libri Commemoriali, III. p. 307.

[832] Hopf apud Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXV. 458ᵇ.

[833] Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer. IV. 58.

[834] Ibid. XXVII. 264; Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica, 178.

[835] Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, 289; Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer. IV. 100-103. For the history of Saseno cp. Lampros in Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, XI. 57-93.

[836] Ibid. VII. 145; Historia della casa Musachia ap. Hopf, Chroniques, 290.

[837] From turri del Prego, turris Pirgi, Hopf has evolved Parga, which in 1320 formed part of the Despotat of Epeiros (Dip. Ven.-Lev. I. 170), and became Venetian in 1401. Pyrgos was at the mouth of the Semeni (Act. et Dip. Alb. II. 107, III).

[838] Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer. IV. 226.

[839] Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer. IV. 263, 266, 308, 349.

[840] Miklosich und Müller, II. 230; Hopf, Chroniques, l.c.; Chalkokondyles, 251.

[841] Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer. IV. 384, 412, 423; V. 81, 120; XII. 198, 199, 263; Gelcich, La Zedda e la Dinastia dei Balšidi, 204.

[842] Sathas, Μνημεῖα Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱστορίας, I. 173.

[843] Epigrammata reperta per Illyricum, p. XXI.

[844] Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer. XXII. 372.

[845] Hopf ap. Ersch und Gruber, LXXXVI. 159ᵃ.

[846] Sathas, Μνημ. VI. 135, 137, 139, 173, 218.

[847] Sathas, Μνημ. IX. 174.

[848] A. Mauroceni, Historia Veneta (ed. 1623), 172.

[849] Sathas, Μνημ. IX. 218; Paruta, Storia della guerra di Cipro, 225.

[850] Predelli, Commem. VII. pp. 190-93.

[851] Garzoni, Istoria della Repubblica di Venezia (ed. 1720), I. 365-71.

[852] Ibid. 390-407; Epirotica, 254.

[853] Voyage, I. 285.

[854] Aravantinos, Χρονογραφία τῆς Ἠπείρου, I. 190-92, 248-49.

[855] Ibid. I. 261, 288, 306, 311, 319, 328-29, 383, 400-1, 409-10.

[856] Diplomatische Aktenstücke (Wien, 1914), p. 71.

[857] Il Messaggero, Oct. 31, 1914.

[858] I. 333.

[859] Lost in 1903, but recently re-discovered at Corfù. See Morning Post, July 25, 1916.

[860] Ur = “Prince” in Hungarian.

[861] Justly, as Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer., I. 131 show.

[862] Jireček (II. 120 n. 2) has shown that the form “Obilich” was substituted in the eighteenth century, because “Kobilich” (= “son of a mare”) was considered vulgar.

[863] Il Regno degli Slavi, p. 294.

[864] Copioso Ristretto degli Annali di Rausa, pp. 85, 132.

[865] Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, XXI. 123.

[866] Historia Byzantina, I. 347.

[867] Abhandlungen der historischen Classe der k. bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, VIII. 698.

[868] Istorija Crne Gore, p. 43.

[869] Turcs et Monténégrins, pp. 20, 30, 33.

[870] Istorija o Černoj Gorê, Italian translation by Ciàmpoli, pp. 23, 25, 29-30.

[871] In Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyklopädie, LXXXVI. 101; Chroniques gréco-romanes, p. 534.

[872] Trésor de Chronologie, p. 1773.

[873] Mon. sp. hist. Slav. Merid. IV. 301, 305, 372, 377.

[874] Gelcich, La Zedda e la Dinastia dei Balšidi, p. 226.

[875] Mon. sp. hist. Slav. Merid. V. 68; XVII. 36.

[876] Ersch und Gruber, LXXXVI. 42-3.

[877] Die serbischen Dynasten Crnojević, p. 61.

[878] Mon. sp. hist. Slav. Merid. XXI. 10.

[879] Ibid. XXI. 164-5, 167-8, 202, 205, 382, 384.

[880] Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica, p. 566.

[881] Between May 2 and November 11: Mon. sp. hist. Slav. Merid. XXII. 364, 383.

[882] Ibid. XXVII. 212.

[883] Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina, II. 229.

[884] I have drawn largely for this essay from the Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina, of which twelve volumes were published during the Austro-Hungarian occupation, and which throw new light on many points of Bosnian history. I have also visited all the chief places of historic interest in the occupied territory and the sandjak of Novibazar.

[885] P. 159 (ed. Bonn).

[886] Wiss. Mitth. I. 333, 434.

[887] Constantine Porph. III. 156, 160.

[888] Pp. 104, 131-32 (ed. Bonn).

[889] Wiss. Mitth. VII. 215-20; Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica, 1; Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium historiam illustrantia, I. 6, 12-13, 15, 19-20, 22.

[890] Miklosich, Mon. Serb., 24, 28-30, 32-34; Theiner, Vetera Monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, I. 31-32, 55-56, 72, 113, 120, 128-30, 133, 137, 147, 162-63, 168-73, 201-06; Thomas Archidiaconus in Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer., XXVI. 91, 103, 105, 113, 121, 195.

[891] Wiss. Mitth. XI. 260, 262.

[892] Ibid. XI. 278; Orbini, Il Regno degli Slavi, 350.

[893] L. v. Thallóczy in Wiss. Mitth. XI. 268-73 (reprinted in his Studien zur Geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im Mittelalter, 7-75).

[894] Miklosich, Mon. Serb. 42, 44, 60, 69; Theiner, Mon. Hung. I. 230, 273-76, 303, 348, 359-60, 364, 375-78, 395, 403, 456, 458, 463; Mon. Slav. I. 135.

[895] Wiss. Mitth. XI. 184, 235, 239-44; Miklosich, Mon. Serb. 101-03, 105-07; Thallóczy, op. cit., 273.

[896] Wiss. Mitth. IV. 324-42; Miklosich, Mon. Serb. 187.

[897] Makuscev, Monumenta historica Slavorum Meridionalium, I. 528; Doukas (Italian version), 354 (ed. Bonn).

[898] Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, II. 126.

[899] Wiss. Mitth. II. 94-124; IV. 390-93; VI. 284-90; Thallóczy, op. cit., 303.

[900] Recueil de Voyages et de Documents (Paris, 1892), XII. 195; Thallóczy, op. cit., 79-109.

[901] P. 249; Wiss. Mitth. II. 125-51.

[902] Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, IV. 68.

[903] Another theory is that he received the ducal title from the Pope in 1449, when he turned Catholic, or the King of Aragon, or that he took it with the agreement of the Sultan. (Wiss. Mitth. III. 503-09; X. 103 n.; Thallóczy, Studien zur Geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im Mittelalter, 146-59.) But he is styled dux terre Huminis as early as Aug. 23, 1445 (Mon. sp. hist. Slav. Mer. XXI. 226), “Duke of St Sava” in 1446 (Farlati, l.c.), and “Duke” in a dubious inscription of that year (Wiss. Mitth. III. 502).

[904] Chalkokondyles, 459; Kritoboulos, III. ch. 2.

[905] Chalkokondyles, 532; Kritoboulos, IV. ch. 15.

[906] Wiss. Mitth. I. 496; III. 384; Hopf, Chroniques, 333; Historia Politica, 33; Chalkokondyles, 535-44; Makuscev, I. 309, 532; II. 25.

[907] Kritoboulos, V. chs. 4-6.

[908] Wiss. Mitth. IV. 395; Mon. sp. h. Sl. Mer., VI. 114, 126; XXV. 386; Orbini, 388.

[909] Campani Vita Pii II, apud Muratori, R.I.S., III. pt ii. 981.

[910] Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria, VI. 648-9.

[911] Mélanges historiques, IV. 395.

[912] Her stay in Rome on this occasion may be dated approximately by two letters which she wrote there on October 23 and November 5 (Mon. Pat. Script. II. 115; Mas Latrie, Histoire de l’île de Chypre, III. 114). Capgrave, Ye Solace of Pilgrimes, 138.

[913] P. 179 (Ed. 1614).

[914] Cronaca di Bologna, apud Muratori R.I.S. XVIII. 742.

[915] P. 94.

[916] Mélanges historiques, V. 411.

[917] Volaterranus apud Muratori, R.I.S. (ed. 1904), XXIII. 87, 127, 148.

[918] Torrigio, Le sagre grotte Vaticane (ed. 1675), 285-6, 288-9, 299; J. Burchardi, Diarium (ed. 1883), I. 272-3.

[919] Archivio storico italiano, Ser. III. iii. 226, 234-5.

[920] Histoire de l’île de Chypre, III. 346-7, 408, 412-3.

[921] Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, II. 318, 373-4.

[922] Libro nel qual s’ insegna a scriver ogni sorte lettera (ed. 1578) f. 55; (ed. 1553) f. 54.

[923] Memorie Istoriche della Chiesa e Convento di S. Maria in Araceli, 129, 148 (which give the Slavonic inscription, taken from Palatino).

[924] Copioso ristretto degli Annali di Ragusa, 10; Thallóczy, op. cit., 110-20, 309-10.

[925] Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hung. II. 442, 447, 452; Makuscev, Monumenta historica Slavorum Meridionalium, II. 95.

[926] Arch. stor. ital. Ser. III. iii. 229; Gottlob, Aus der Camera Apostolica, 292-4.

[927] Mas Latrie, Histoire, III. 174; Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, II. 474.

[928] Migne, Patrologia Græca, CLXI. pp. lxxxvi-vii.

[929] Steinmann, Die Sixtinische Kapelle, I. 386; Abb. 25; Schrader, Mon. Ital. IV. 216.

[930] William of Tyre, Bk XVI. 29; Jacques de Vitry (ed. Bongars), 1068-9, Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem, 191.

[931] Ludolphi, De Itinere Terræ Sanctæ, 40-1.

[932] William of Tyre, Bk IX. 2.

[933] Recueil des Hist., Lois, I. 22; Jacques de Vitry, 1116.

[934] William of Tyre, Bk XVII. 1.

[935] Recueil des Hist., Lois, I. 22-26.

[936] Bk XI. 10.

[937] Recueil des Hist., Hist. Occid., II. 47, 58; Morning Post, Jan. 11, 1918.

[938] Ibid. II. 36, 50; Archives de l’Orient Latin, I. 663-8.

[939] Röhricht, Regesta Regni Hieros., pp. 285, 321, 325.

[940] From pullus, a “colt,” and probably of the same origin as the Moreote termination -όπουλος.

[941] Pp. 1088-9.

[942] Lois, I. 426-7.

[943] Bk XXI. 7.

[944] Jacques de Vitry, p. 1082.

[945] Bk XII. 7.

[946] William of Tyre, Bk XX. 29-30; Jacques de Vitry, p. 1063.

[947] Radulfus de Diceto, II. 80-1; Annales de Dunstapliâ, 126; Röhricht, Regesta, pp. 321, 361; Geschichte, 965; Mas Latrie, Hist. de l’Île de Chypre, II. 81-2, 213.

[948] Mas Latrie, Histoire de l’Île de Chypre, I. 200, 256.

[949] I. 214-5.

[950] Ibid. I. 178-82; II. 54.

[951] Ibid. I. 231.

[952] Ibid. II. 230, 253-54, 316-17.

[953] Ibid. I. 34.

[954] Ibid. I. 151; II. 252, 273.

[955] Ibid. I. 30.

[956] Ibid. I. 113.

[957] Ibid. II. 18, 58.

[958] Ibid. II. 106, 186, 259, 296.

[959] Ibid. I. 230-1; II. 89-90.

[960] Ibid. I. 101, 181; II. 149.

[961] Ibid. I. 204; II. 149, 253.

[962] Ibid. I. 109-11, 120-3.

[963] Ibid. II. 209-22.

[964] Ibid. I. 128.

[965] Ibid. I. 220, 227, 246; II. 82, 83, 169.

[966] Ibid. I. 69, 240; II. 162.

[967] Ibid. I. 28, 55, 169, 174; II. 81.

[968] Ibid. I. 89.

[969] Ibid. II. 13, 26, 60, 71, 104, 114, 115, 138, 176, 204, 209.

[970] Ibid. II. 8, 15, 97.

[971] Ibid. I. 27.

[972] Ibid. I. 199; II. 76, 78, 86, 205, 241-2.

[973] Ibid. II. 94, 111.

[974] Ibid. II. 65, 199.

[975] Ibid. II. 99.

[976] Ibid. II. 84.

[977] Ibid. II. 206.

[978] Ibid. I. 84, 128-9, 154, 179, 183, 197; II. 170, 256.

[979] Ibid. II. 53.

[980] Ibid. I. 57.

[981] Ibid. I. 27, 153, 202.

[982] Ibid. I. 169.

[983] Ibid. I. 222; II. 81, 194.

INDEX

Abarinos, 108, 109

Abdul Hamid II, 269, 271

Abraham, Mount, 224, 226

Academy, the, 3, 542

Acciajuoli, family of (dukes of Athens), 100, 130, 136, 138, 142 ff., 148, 154, 390, 498, 499 Angelo, cardinal, 138 Antonio I, 80, 100, 139, 142 ff., 154, 159, 255 Antonio II, 147, 150, 159 Donato, 138, 139 Francesca, 81, 144, 263 Francesco, 150 Franco, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 159 ff. Nerio I, 127, 129, 130, 135 ff., 154, 156, 159, 169, 254, 263 Nerio II, 80, 100, 146 ff., 159, 160, 236 Nicholas, 96

Achaia, 7 ff., 12, 13, 18 ff., 26, 31, 70 ff., 78, 79, 81 ff., 89 ff., 100, 103, 107 ff., 111, 112, 114 ff., 120, 125 ff., 138, 143, 164, 166, 178, 202, 232, 246 ff., 262, 263, 265, 283, 290, 298, 321, 325, 327, 418, 419, 500, 501, 520, 533

Achaian League, 1

Acheron, 111

Achilleios, St, Thessalian archbishop, 47

Achilles, 25, 115, 543

Achilles, Romance of, 118

Achmet Pasha, 264 son of Turakhan, 102

Achsah, 113

Acre, 58, 517, 518, 520, 523 ff., 532

Acts of the Apostles, The, 9, 10, 270, 392

Adalia, 175 Michael of, 537

Adam, Guillaume, archbishop of Antivari, 125, 246, 450

Adamantiou, Prof., 269 n.

Adelaide, queen of Baldwin I of Jerusalem, 518

Admetos, 62

Adorno, Gabriele, 304

Adrianople, 25, 106, 255, 299, 334, 335, 339, 448, 484, 488, 499, 535

Adriatic Sea, 49, 175, 271, 380, 429 ff., 439, 443, 444, 449, 451, 454, 461, 462, 474, 480, 481, 498, 508, 534, 535, 540, 548

Ædepsos, baths of, 5, 246

Ægean Islands, 20, 37, 197, 355, 357

Ægean Sea, 37, 55, 149, 151, 162, 166, 168, 171, 175, 234, 239, 267, 283, 289, 294, 298, 316, 340, 384, 399, 417

Ægeopelagos, 68

Ægina, 6, 44, 45, 53, 61, 66, 117, 131, 143, 144, 172, 173, 271, 373, 394 n., 413, 415 ff., 422

Aeironesion, 430

Ælian, Tactics, 537

Æneas of Gaza, 311

Æneid, the, 205, 504

Ænos, 106, 298, 306, 313, 318 ff., 323 ff., 331, 333, 334, 338, 339, 344, 351, 353, 498, 499

Æschylus, 150, 237, 375 Agamemnon of, 171

Ætolia, 15, 37, 356, 451, 453

Africa, 29, 168

Aga, Isouf, 396

Agallianos, 38

Agamemnon, 136

Aglauros, grotto of, 408

Agnes, queen-mother of Jerusalem, 521

Agora, 131

Agrippa, 7

Ahmed I, sultan, 382, 389 III, sultan, 425

Aigion, 7, 72, 101, 106, 376, 418

Aigle, Guillaume de l’, 320

Aila (ʿAkaba, Eloth), 516, 517

Aivan Serai, 319

ʿAkaba, see Aila

ʿAkaba, gulf of, 523

Akamir, Slav chieftain, 39

Akarnania, 12, 37, 131, 223, 356, 379, 404, 451, 453

Akerhjelm, Anna, 408

Akominatos, Michael, 53, 54, 60, 63, 64, 66, 88, 111, 112, 135, 156, 232

Akova, 72 the lady of, 95

Akrocorinth, 52, 62, 87, 88, 96, 101, 104, 129, 136, 145, 156, 397, 405

Akropolis, the, 3, 6, 7, 15, 18, 30, 32, 33, 46, 47, 53, 63, 65, 76, 85, 111, 121, 128 ff., 135 ff., 140, 142, 144, 147, 148, 150 ff., 157, 160, 274, 279, 381, 387, 389, 393, 395, 396, 407 ff., 411, 412, 414, 415

Aktian festival of Augustus, 23

“Aktian games,” 6

Aktion, battle of, 6

Alaric, 25, 26, 27, 29

Albania, and the Albanians, 50, 59, 103 ff., 129, 146, 149, 188, 193, 217, 228, 361, 368, 370, 383, 384, 388 n., 412, 419, 430 ff., 434 ff., 438 ff., 442, 443, 447, 449, 450, 453, 454, 456, 461, 480, 498, 499, 512, 536, 541, 549

Albanon, 443

Albigenses, the, 472

Alcestis, 62

Aldobrandini, the, 175 Pietro, 507

Aldoin, count of Acerra, 276

Aleman, Guillaume, 72, 78, 89, 200

Aleppo, 516, 522

Alessio, 437, 456

Alexander V, pope, 198 VI, pope, 507, 510, 513 VIII, pope, 439 crown prince of Serbia, 451 of Trebizond, 328, 329, 349 the Great, 51, 270 the name of, 390 Severus, 17

Alexandrakos, historian, 383 n.

Alexandretta, 516

Alexandria, 43, 289, 371, 528, 532

Alexiad, the, 537, 541

Alexios IV, emperor of Trebizond, 177, 328, 329 nephew of Manuel I, 275, 276

Alfonso V, king of Aragon, 143, 149, 151, 156, 159, 327, 334 V, king of Portugal, 340

Alfred, king of England, 32

Algerines, the, 228

Algiers, 380, 384

Ali, pasha of Joannina, 224, 440 Turkish admiral, 374

Alibret, cardinal, 510

Alikianou, 186

Alkinoös, 229

Alkmaion, 153

Almiro, gulf of, 246

Alonzo of Naples, 506

Alpheios, valley of the, 72

Alps, the, 275

Al Rashid, Haroun, 40

Altavilla, family of, 202

Amalasuntha, 430

Amalfi, 499, 523, 528, 548

Amari, 45

Amaury I, 519, 521, 523, 529

Ambelaki, 413

Ambelokepoi, 395

Ambrakian gulf, the, 205, 404, 426

Ambrose, St, archbishop of Milan, 271

Amedeo of Savoy, pretender to Achaia, 137, 263 V of Savoy, 320 n. VI of Savoy, 316, 317 VIII of Savoy, 326

America, and the Americans, 93, 311, 367

Ammiraglio, ponte dell’, 52

Amoiroutses, George, 154, 360

Amorgos, 8, 165, 167

Amphiktyonic Council, the, 7, 16

Amphissa, 63

Ampurias, 122

Anacletos, bishop of Rome, 16

Anæa, 283

Anand, Col. Thomas, 195

Anaphiótika, the, 416

Anargyroi, monastery of the, 36, 413

Anastasios II, 269

Anatolia, 492

Ancona, 340, 372, 439, 499

Andravida, 71, 73, 88, 93 Norman arch of, 84

Andreville, see Andravida

Andrew, St, 17, 41, 106 St, head of, 499 ff. duke of the Herzegovina, 470

Andronikos, the Syrian, 7

Andros, 43, 142, 163, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 373, 394, 398, 400

Androusa, 97

Androutsos, 228

Anemas, Michael, 545

Anephorites, pass of, 142

Angelos, family of (despots of Epeiros), 88, 115, 124, 182, 200, 201, 263 Helene, 80, 115, 116, 431 Isaac II, emperor, 54, 55, 58 Manuel, 278 Michael I, 58, 69, 199, 431 Michael II, 199, 200, 249, 431 ff. Nikephoros I, 262, 432, 433 Nikephoros II, 318, 434 Theodore, emperor of Salonika, 277, 278 Thomas, 433

Angevins, the, 95, 116, 118, 124, 166, 169, 199 ff., 208, 209, 262, 263, 432 ff., 441, 454

Angles in England, the, 444

Angora, 99, 254, 322, 323, 456, 483

Anguillara, count of, 340

Anjou, house of, 93, 95, 252 Charles I of, 93, 116, 166, 200, 249 Charles II of, 94

Anna, St, foot of, 513 Lady, of Epeiros, 83, 84

Anne of Savoy, 278, 299, 305, 314, 320 n., 450

Anoe, 265

Anopaia, pass of, 33

Antelme of Clugny, 72

Antikyra (Aspra Spitia), 5

Antikythera, see Cerigotto

Antioch, 50, 516 ff., 520 ff., 524, 526, 527, 530, 541, 547 George of, admiral, 51 Marie of, 76, 117

Antiparos, island of, 170

Anti-Paxo, 204, 214

Antirrhion, 417

Antivari, 435, 437, 446, 450, 451, 454, 456, 498

Antonine, Maritime and Jerusalem Itineraries, 429

Antonines, the, 14 ff.

Antonius, Caius, 4

Antony, 6

Antwerp, 174

Aoos, see Vojussa

Apelles, 543

Apellikon, 2

Apollo, statue of, 381

Apollonios of Tyana, 10

Apollos, 9, 10

Apostoles, Arsenios, 241

Apulia, 43, 49, 69, 109, 262, 385, 458, 466, 530

Aquileia, patriarch of, 340, 501

Aquinas, St Thomas, 311

Arabs, the, 36, 37, 191, 202, 526

Aragon, 82, 123, 124, 128, 130, 140, 141, 143, 149, 151, 152, 158, 159, 200, 285, 504

Arangio, family of, 301 Francesco, 304

Arbe, island of, 492

Arcadia (Mesarea), 59, 72, 88

Arcadius, son of Theodosius, 25

Arch of Trajan, see Philopappos

Archipelago, duchy of the, 70, 81, 85, 112, 120, 154, 161 ff., 170, 171, 178, 184, 194, 289, 310, 312, 314, 324, 332, 352, 399, 401, 498

Archivio di Stato, 502

Archon Eponymos of Athens, 12, 13, 19, 31

Ardiæi, the, 460

Areopagos, the, 9, 11, 16, 21, 31, 66, 135, 396, 407

Aretousa, 198

Arezzo, 145

Argives, the, 23

Argolis, 100

Argos, 15, 19, 26, 62, 76, 87, 88, 98, 102, 106, 111, 114, 121, 124 ff., 136, 159, 232, 372, 424

Argostoli, 215

Argyroi, family of the, 267

Argyropoulos, 515

Ariadne, 162

Arian controversy, the, 22, 23, 25 monks, 26

Arianiti, Angelina, 512 Costantino, 512 Giorgio, 512

Ariobarzanes II, king of Cappadocia, 3

Aristarchos, 270

Aristides, philosopher, 16

Aristion, 2, 3

Aristogeiton, 6, 410

Aristophanes, 35, 65, 393, 537 the Birds, 443 the School of, 153

Aristotle, 2, 3, 32, 84, 144, 311, 514, 515, 537, 541 study of, 141, 147 Natural History of Animals, 515

Arius, 23

Arkadia (Kyparissia), 14, 72, 89

Armeni, 45

Armenia, and the Armenians, 197, 276, 278, 361, 498, 506, 516, 526, 528

Arnauts, the, see Albanians

Arsenios, metropolitan of Corfù, 46

Arta, 53, 70, 88, 163, 264, 377, 379, 513

Arundel, earl of, 381

Asan, Alexander, 344 Manuel, 332 Matthew, 238, 343

Ascalon, 520

Asên, Alexander, 434, 435 George, 435 II, John, of Bulgaria, 448 III, John, of Bulgaria, 433 John Alexander, of Bulgaria, 434 John Comnenos, 434

Asia, 323, 446, 483, 541 Minor, 58 Minor, king and despot of, 290

Asian Diocese, the, 20, 21

Asklepios, shrine of, 30

Aspra Spitia, see Antikyra

Assassins, sect of the, 528, 529

Assicurati, the, 213

Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois, 520

Assizes of Antioch, 526 of Cyprus, 520 of Jerusalem, 71, 112, 520, 527 of Romania, 122

Assos, 336

Atalante, 76, 111, 395 channel, the, 246, 249, 255

Athanasios, metropolitan, 405

Athena, 413, 543, 548 goddess, 12, 25, 46 statue of, 30, 32 Archegetis, gate of (Temple of Augustus), 7, 13, 153, 410 Promachos, statue of, 30 n.

Athenais, see Eudokia, empress

Athenion, 2

Athens, 1 ff., 5 ff., 29 ff., 36 ff., 45 ff., 53, 54, 60, 61, 63 ff., 74 ff., 80 ff., 85, 97, 98, 100, 110 ff., 121 ff., 129 ff., 135 ff., 167, 169, 171, 198, 232, 233, 236, 242, 247 ff., 268, 273, 277, 278, 290, 292, 351, 356, 371, 372, 377 ff., 381, 383 n., 385 ff., 406 ff., 418, 425, 498, 499, 515, 525, 533 archbishops of, 66, 67, 88, 130, 131 castle of, 157 cathedral of Our Lady of, 65, 138, 139, 156 Christian Archæological Museum, 94, 131, 235 church of St Mary of, 140, 141 convent of St Andrew, 378 dukes and duchy of, 59, 70, 74, 76, 78 ff., 82, 83, 85, 92, 95, 96, 100, 114 ff., 125 ff., 132, 133, 138, 144, 147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 245, 360 first bishop of, 17 National Library at, 160 the Olive Grove, 19 the Sindici of, 130 the Sire of, 114 university of, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 31, 32 also see Churches

Athos, Mount, 281 n., 331, 447

Attaleiates, see Michael of Adalia

Attica, 4, 16, 22, 25, 47, 49, 54, 63, 64, 66, 75, 76, 97, 110 ff., 118, 123, 127 ff., 137, 141, 142, 144, 146, 182, 236, 356, 387, 389, 393, 414, 416

Atticus (also see Herodes Atticus), 5, 205

Augerinos, see Molivos

Augustin, St, 230

Augustus, temple of, see Athena Archegetis Aktian festival of, 23 (Octavian), emperor, 6, 7, 461

Aurelian, 20

Aurelius, Marcus, 14, 15, 17

Australia, 523

Australians, 533

Austria, and the Austrians, 323, 407, 462, 471, 474

Austria-Hungary, 422

Autariatæ, the, 460

Avars, the, 34, 35, 37, 109, 463

Avarinos, 235

Avesnes, Jacques d’, 58

Axios, river, see Vardar

Baal, prophets of, 530

Babin, jesuit, 386, 392, 393, 413

Babuna, pass of, 447

Babylon, 548

Baden, Prince Louis of, 496

Badoer, governor, 426

Baffo, family of, 174

Bairam, the season of, 393, 396

Balbi, commander, 424

Baldaja, Lope de, 239

Balduini, Antonelli, 147

Baldwin I, Latin emperor, 58, 63, 110 II, Latin emperor, 115, 200, 233, 246, 290, 318, 431 I of Jerusalem, 516, 518 ff., 523, 524, 526, 528, 541 II of Jerusalem, 516, 518, 519, 523 III of Jerusalem, 519, 523, 530 IV of Jerusalem, 519, 523 V of Jerusalem, 519

Balkans, the, 18, 25

Ballester, archbishop of Athens, 130, 158

Balliol, Russell (Oursel Bailleul), 540

Balsha, family of, 435, 453, 454 II, 435 Dame (Comita Musachi), 435, 436 Peter, 492 Regina, 435, 437 titular duke of St Sava, 509

Balsignano, Giacomo di, 432, 441

Baltaoghli, admiral, 333

Baltos, 404

Banca, Paolo, 304

Bandiera, Monte, 441

Banias, the triangle of, 516

Bâniyâs, see Valénia

Banjaluka, 461, 462, 491, 493, 494, 496, 497

Baphius, De Felicitate Urbis Florentiæ, 161

Barbarossa, Frederick, 447 Khaireddîn, admiral, 172, 173, 187, 219, 266, 268, 365

Barbary, 193, 228, 438

Barberini manuscript, the, 148

Barcelona, 57, 110, 128, 157

Barcelona, the Customs of, 122

Bargello of Florence, 125

Bari, 109, 432, 446, 447, 449, 535, 544 St Nicholas of, 93

Barozzi, the, 167 Francesco, 400

Basante, river, see Bosna

Basil I, emperor, 42, 43, 44 II, “the Bulgar-slayer,” emperor, 47, 48, 53, 65, 113, 272, 273, 275, 430, 445, 465, 466, 534 ff.

Basil, heretic, 542

Basilakios, 540

Basilike, 389

Basingstoke, Master John of, 66

Bassano, 309

Bato, 461

Baudrand, Geographia, 267, 268

Bautzen, 443

Baux, family of, 453 Jacques de, 97, 107, 128, 201

Bayezid I, sultan, 137, 159, 171, 237, 254, 280, 319 ff., 455 II, sultan, 365, 492

Beaufort, duc de, 195 Henry, bishop of Winchester, 171

Beaumont, John, viscount, 345

Bees, N. A., 35

Beibars, sultan of Egypt, 517

Beirût, 506, 516, 518, 521

Beithmann, minister, 411

Béla II, king of Hungary, 467 III, king of Hungary, 469, 470

Belgrade, 442, 443, 448, 456, 457, 486, 497

Bellarbe, Romeo de, 128

Belvoir, 528

Bembo, commander, 425 Giovanni Matteo, 438, 439

Benaldes, Dr Argyros, 407, 414, 415

Benedict, archbishop of Patras, 249 of Peterborough, 61, 262 XII, pope, 293

Benevento, 199, 202, 263, 431, 498, 512

Benizelos, family of, 390, 397, 414 Angelos, 393 Demetrios, 393 Joannes, 393 Palaiologos, 416

Benizelou, Philothee, 378

Benjamin of Tudela, 52, 53, 60, 275, 527, 549

Bentley, 83

Bérard, 77, 112

Berat, 431 ff., 436, 440

Bergikios, Joannes, 198

Bergotes, K., 261

Berlin, 65 Museum, 148

Berre, Louis Cossa of, 326

Beshik, lake, 273

Bessarion, Cardinal, of Trebizond, 372, 500, 505, 513 ff.

Bestami, Ali, 348, 490

Bethany, 531

Bethlehem, 517, 518, 520, 527, 529, 530

Béthune, Conon de, 83

Bettòlo, admiral, 436

Biandrate, 277

Bistue, 462

Bjelopolje, 470

Black Cape, see Karaburun Mountain, the, 229 Prince, 128 n. Sea, the, 58, 272, 283, 285, 289, 295, 300, 328, 333, 341, 449, 499

Blagaj, 465, 490

Bobovatz, 475, 478, 482, 487, 489

Boccaccio, 79, 93, 114, 138 History of the King of Scotland and the Queen of England, 212

Boccanegra, Simone, 303

Bocche di Cattaro, 447, 454, 478

Bodin, Constantine (Peter of Bulgaria), king of the Zeta, 446, 466, 549

Bodleian Library, 389

Bœotia, and the Bœotians, 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 25, 49, 55, 63, 75, 76, 82, 97, 110 ff., 123, 124, 128, 132, 144, 151, 153, 161, 356, 550

Bœthius, Consolation of Philosophy, 32

Bogomiles (Patarenes), the, 447, 469 ff., 475 ff., 480, 485, 489 ff., 494 ff., 508, 541

Bohemond of Taranto, 516, 520, 541, 542, 544, 546, 548

Bologna, 69, 84, 311, 314, 504

Bonaparte, see Napoleon I

Bondelmonti, 330, 331

Boniface of Montferrat, 58, 59, 62, 63, 67, 69, 83, 87, 110, 113, 121, 177, 245, 246, 277, 278 of Verona, 117, 120, 121, 123, 133, 236 VIII, pope, 76, 118, 286, 314

Bonne of Savoy, 326

Book of Guido, 47

Book of the Customs of the Empire of Romania, 71, 73

Bordeaux, 128

Bordo de San Superan, Pedro, 97, 100, 128

Borgia, Rodrigo, see Alexander VI, pope

Borgo, the, 497

Borich, ban of Bosnia, 467, 473

Boris of Bulgaria, 272

Boschini, 267

Bosna (Basante), river, 464, 470, 471, 483, 496

Bosnia, 173, 365, 422, 435, 447, 451, 454, 457, 460 ff., 498, 499

Bosporos, the, 47, 181, 299, 322, 446, 451, 499, 535

Botaneiates, Nikephoros, emperor, 535, 537, 538, 540

Boua, family of, 368 Peter, “the lame,” 103 Grivas, family of, 264

Boubounistra gate, the, 141

Bouchart, William, jouster, 82, 118

Boucicault, Marshal, 305, 313, 320 ff.

Boudonitza (Mendenitza), bishop of, 395 marquesses and the marquisate of, 62, 63, 81, 85, 111, 119, 124, 127, 134, 143, 150, 245 ff., 290

Boulgaris, family of, 218

Boulgaris, Eugenios, 213

Boulogne, 368

Bouniales, poet, 198, 384

Bourbons, the, 486

Bourbon, Marie de, 201, 321

Bousat, Hugh, 507

Boutron, 522

Boyl, bishop of Megara, 129

Bracciolini, Poggio, 311

Branas, Alexios, 276 Theodore, 332

Brankovich, George, 281, 456, 487 Lazar III, 457 Maria, 490 Stephen, 512 Vuk, 455, 456, 479

Brazza, island of, 479, 481

Brenthe, the Hellenic, 72

Brescia, 144, 417 Domenico of, 148 n.

Brienne, family of, 124, 136, 158 Hugh de, 116 Isabelle de, 125 Walter I de, 118 ff., 123, 250 Walter II de, 121, 124 ff., 138, 203, 251

Brindisi, 121, 535 Margaritone of, 261, 262

Bristol, 344

British, the, 186, 198, 207, 208, 211 ff., 227, 229, 234, 298, 364, 478, 503, 515, 516, 549 Adriatic Mission, 441 Museum, 226 n., 270, 531 School at Athens, 72

Brod, 496

Brokines, L. S., 219

Brown, Mr Horatio F., 63, 239 n.

Brue, interpreter, 425

Brunswick, duke of, 404 Prince Maximilian William of, 404

Brusa, 294, 320

Brutus, 5, 6

Bruyères, Geoffroy de, 72 Hugues de, 72, 89

Bryennios, Nikephoros, 538 ff.

Buchon, historian, 70, 86, 118, 132, 233, 257

Buckingham, duke of, 345, 381

Buda-Pesth, 451, 483, 493, 496

Budua, 451, 454, 456, 458, 459

Bulgaria, and the Bulgarians, 18, 29, 34, 40 ff., 46, 48, 49, 59, 65, 271 ff., 277, 316, 361, 370, 418, 442 ff., 450, 453, 464, 466, 469, 480, 535

Buna, river, 465

Buondelmonti, Liber Insularum, 263

Burgundy, 75, 90, 112, 113, 321 duke of, 320 Louis of, 95

Bury, Professor, 272

Bustron, Florio, 531

Butrinto, 205, 217, 219 ff., 224, 225, 373, 403, 417, 426

Byron, Lord, 66, 196, 204, 386 Corsair, 399 The Siege of Corinth, 425

Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 109

Byzantium, 22, 120, 123, 136, 232, 283, 299, 313, 316, 323, 329, 351, 445, 449 ff., 502, 512, 534, 536, 537, 543, 547

Cæsar, 5, 7, 50, 140, 538

Cæsarea, 527 Philippi, 516

Caffa, 307, 309, 329, 333

Caffaro, historian, 61 Liberatio Orientis, 261

Cairo, 506

Caius Antonius, 4

Calabria, 49, 67, 210, 369 duke of, 344, 501

Calbo, Antonio, 264

Calemanus, 432

Caligula, 8

Caliph, the, 37

Calixtus III, pope, 340, 343, 352

Calvi, Francesco, secretary, 331

Cambrai, bishop of, 158

Camogli, 345

Campi, Andriolo, 304 Giovanni, 304

Campo-fregoso, Gian Galeazzo de, 328 Ludovico de, 328, 332, 345

Canaia (Panaia), island, 161, 246

Canale, Nicolò da, 351

Cancelleria, the, 515

Candia, 44, 130, 163, 167, 176, 179 ff., 183 ff., 190 ff., 222, 356, 365, 384, 385, 403

Canea, 180, 181, 184, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 194, 356, 416, 418, 426

Caneto, Nicolò de, 304

Cantacuzenes, the, 130

Cantacuzene, John, emperor, 62, 96, 103, 104, 269, 278, 279, 291, 292, 299, 305, 306, 313 ff., 318, 433, 450 Manuel, 96, 97, 316 Matthew, 315, 316 Michael (Saïtan Oglou), 375 de Flory, Charlotte, 507

Canterbury, archbishop of, 345 St Thomas of, 518, 529

Caopena, family of, 131, 143

Cape Colonna (Cape Sunium), 83 Matapan, 29

Capello, Vettor, 349, 350, 372

Capgrave, 503

Capistrano, franciscan, 457

Capitan Pasha, the, 268, 365, 438

Capodistria, Count Viaro, 211

Capsulum, 332

Capuchins, the, 383, 386, 388, 393, 397, 400, 410, 411

Caracalla, 17, 18

Caracciolo, 106, 513

Cargèse, 385

Carlini, archbishop, 421, 425

Carlo, duke of Regina, 265

Carlone, 308

Carlovitz, and treaty of, 203, 223, 361 n., 417, 422, 424, 497

Carmel, Mt, 530

Carniola, 487

Carrey, Jacques, painter, 387, 395

Casa dei Mercanti, 59

Casape, 372

Cassino, 513

Cassius, 6

Castello dell’ Uovo, 96, 482

Castelnuovo, 454, 478, 492

Castel Rosso, see Karystos Tornese, see Chlomoutsi

Castile, 158

Castro, Giovanni de, 502

Catalan Chronicle, the, 95 Grand Company, 95, 119, 121, 130, 236, 279, 288, 501

Catalans, the, 76, 77, 96, 97, 115, 119 ff., 129 ff., 143, 167, 169, 182, 236, 250 ff., 288, 290, 318, 341

Cataluña, 57, 119, 120, 130, 131

Catherine of Austria, 320 n. queen of Bosnia, 488, 491, 508 ff., 512 daughter of Stephen Thomas of Bosnia, 508 of Savoy, 320 n. of Valois, Latin empress, 97, 201, 252, 290, 433 wife of Andrew Palaiologos, 514

Cattaneo, family of, 313, 337 Andriolo, 288, 289, 294, 295, 296 Domenico, 294 ff., 316 Luchino, 295

Cattaro, 424, 435, 445, 451 ff., 456, 475, 477 ff., 484

Catullus, 271, 540

Caumont, de, traveller, 107

Ceba, commander, 328

Celts, the, 275, 460

Cephalonia, 4, 13, 37, 50, 55, 61, 69, 70, 81, 136, 139, 144, 153, 154, 202 ff., 209, 213, 215, 216, 221, 222, 232, 243, 257, 261 ff., 325, 374, 498, 512 counts of, 82, 84, 135, 139, 146

Cerigo (Kythera), 69, 183, 204, 217, 221, 223, 225, 226, 228, 233 ff., 242, 245, 267, 422, 426

Cerigotto (Antikythera), 225, 234, 245, 381 n., 426

Cérines (Kyrenia), 503 ff.

Cerone, Signor, Archivio Storico per le province Napoletane, 156

Certosa, the, 96, 145, 154

Cetina, river, 464, 474, 478

Chafforicios, John, 507

Chaironeia, 2, 3, 12, 96

Chalandritza, 72, 290

Chalcedon, the council of, 31

Chalil Pasha, 439

Chalkidike, peninsula of, 270, 274

Chalkis, 54, 69, 148 n., 159, 160, 193, 306, 356, 379, 396, 397

Chalkokondyles, family of, 76 Laonikos, historian, 101, 145, 152, 159, 237 ff., 280, 281, 351, 371, 390, 484 Demetrios, 145, 369, 371 father of the historian, 146, 147

Chalouphes, Nikephoros, 52

Chamaretos, Joannes, 88

Champagne, 64, 75, 87, 88, 90, 111, 116 count of, 58

Champlitte, Guillaume de, 58, 67, 74, 87, 89, 246 Robert de, 74, 90

Chandak, the, 44

Charbon, 72

Charkondyles, see Chalkokondyles

Charles IV, emperor, 184 V, emperor, 219, 220, 373, 374 I of Anjou-Naples, 93, 109, 116, 166, 200, 247, 249, 285, 431, 432 II of Anjou-Naples, 94, 108, 201, 262, 433 III of Durazzo, 201, 202 I of England, 61, 381 V of France, 127 VI of France, 321 VII of France, 303, 344 VIII of France, 106, 240, 381, 514 II of Navarre, 127 of Savoy, 506, 519 XII of Sweden, 223 of Taranto, 133 Robert of Hungary, 474

Charlotte of Cyprus, 502 ff., 519

Charvati, 59

Chases, 46

Chastel-Rouge, 528

Châtaignier, M., consul, 387

Château Pèlerin, 518

Chateaubriand, 419

Châtillon, Renaud de, 522

Chaucer, 114 The Knight’s Tale, 64

Cheimarra, 404, 434 ff., 438

Cherson, 272

Chian Chartered Company, 337, 342, 345, 373, 501

Chilandar, monastery of, 447

Chinardo, Filippo, admiral, 199, 200, 431 ff., 441

Chios, 148, 160, 168, 173, 250, 283, 287 ff., 296, 298 ff., 313, 314, 319, 322, 325, 328, 332, 334, 336, 337, 341, 342, 344 ff., 349, 356, 373, 417, 420, 498, 501

Chlomoutsi (Castel Tornese), 78 ff., 85, 91, 405, 501

Choniates, Niketas, historian, 53, 86

Chortatzai, 181

Chosroes, king of Persia, 32

Choumnos, Nikephoros, rhetorician, 269

Chronicle of Galaxidi, 376

Chronicle of Monemvasia, 35

Chronicle of the Morea, see Morea

Chronicon Breve, 160

Chrysostom, 84, 149

Church of Ara Cœli, Rome, 508 ff. Georgios Tropæophoros, Valona, 437 La Martorana (Sta Maria dell’ Ammiraglio), 52 Landulph, 106, 107 Our Lady, Athens (also see Parthenon), 31, 46, 61, 65, 85, 112, 140, 141, 145, 151 St Andrew, Salonika, 274 St Arsenios, Corfù, 210 St Athanasios, Kastro, Thasos, 330 St Catherine, Jajce, 510 Salonika, 279 St Demetrios, Salonika, 279, 281 the Bombardier, Athens, 396 St Elias, Salonika, 275 St George, Salonika, 271, 274, 279 St James, Compostella, 74 St John Baptist, Lesbos, 319 St John Baptist, Salonika, 281 St Mark, Venice, 143, 407 St Martin, Tours, 79 St Mary’s-on-the-rock, Athens, 145, 388 St Nicholas, Ænos, 326 St Panteleemon, Athens, 390, 394 Salonika, 275 St Peter, Rome, 74, 500, 506, 507, 513 St Saba, Acra, 525 St Sophia, Salonika, 279, 282 Constantinople, 22, 33, 54, 235, 282 Monemvasia, 235 St Spiridion, Corfù, 210, 222, 224, 225 St Theodore, Patras, 78 SS. Jason and Sosipater, Corfù, 218, 237 SS. Nereus and Achillios, Rome, 515 SS. Peter and Paul, Naples, 376 San Ciriaco, Rome, 503 San Clemente, Salonika, 272 San Giacomo, Sestri Ponente, 314, 324, 351 San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, 131 San Pietro in Montorio, Rome, 240 Sant’ Andrea della Valle, Rome, 500 Sant’ Antonio, Naxos, 171 Sta Maria de Clusurio, Boudonitza, 248 della Pace, Rome, 198 della Passione, Milan, 371 del Popolo, Rome, 507 sopra Minerva, Rome, 515 the Archangels, Athens, 378 the Chrysopege, Ænos, 326 the Holy Apostles, Athens, 360 the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, 531 the Panagia Gorgoepekoos, Athens, 40, 233, 378 the Prophet Elias, Athens, 131 the SS. Apostoli, Rome, 514 the Twelve Apostles, Salonika, 279 the Virgin, Corfù, 24 Salonika, 275, 281

Ciacconius, Lives and Acts of the Popes and Cardinals, 511

Cicero, 4, 5, 16, 99, 205, 270, 514, 550

Cicon, Agnes de, 117 Sibylle de, 248

Cilicia, 4

Cinnamus, 468

Cistercians, the, 118

Civetot, 549

Claudius, emperor, 8, 18, 20

Clavijo, Ruy Gonzalez de, 323

Clement III, pope, 446 V, pope, 529 VI, pope, 253, 293 VII, pope, 158 VIII, pope, 507 IX, pope, 195 XI, pope, 424 St, relics of, 272

Cleopatra, 6

Clerkenwell, priory of St John of Jerusalem, 522

Clermont, castle of, 78, 91

Clugny, Antelme of, 72

Cocco, Constantine, 400

Colomboto, Spineta, 340

Colonna, Marcantonio, 374

Columbus, Christopher, 311

Commemoriali, the, 109

Communio, abbey of, 247

Comnena, Anna, 430, 446, 526, 533 ff.

Comnenos, family of, 61, 231, 247, 297, 350, 353, 467, 536 Alexios I, 34, 50, 51, 430, 534 ff., 546 ff. II, 539 III, 54 Andronikos I, 275 David, 275 Isaac I, 536 John, father of Alexios I, 536 John II, 539, 543 Manuel I, emperor, 52, 171, 275, 434, 445, 446, 467 ff., 539, 540, 544

Compar, Fale (Valle) de, 262

Compostella, 74

Condocalli, Cristofalo, 221, 374

Conqueste, Le Livre de la, 86, 108, 125, 133

Conquistadors, the, 123

Conrad III, king of the Romans, 303

Conradin, 73

Constance, daughter of Duke of Athens, 158

Constans I, emperor, 23 II, emperor, 36, 37, 47

Constantine I the Great, emperor, 3, 20 ff., 31, 37, 38, 269 V Copronymos, emperor, 39, 534 VII Porphyrogenitus, emperor, 32, 39, 44, 46, 430, 442, 443, 464 VIII, emperor, 535, 536 X Doukas, emperor, 538 XI, emperor, see Palaiologos king of Greece, 273, 535 “the Philosopher,” 456 (Cyril), Slavonic apostle, 272

Constantinople, 1, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29 ff., 33, 37 ff., 47 ff., 55, 58, 59, 65, 67, 68, 80, 86 ff., 92, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107, 110, 113, 115, 116, 128, 151, 152, 159, 162, 164 ff., 171, 173, 174, 181, 186, 192, 194, 199, 202, 203, 209, 212, 218, 228, 233 ff., 266, 268 ff., 276 ff., 280, 282, 284, 287, 290 ff., 298, 306 ff., 311 ff., 319 ff., 326, 329, 333 ff., 338, 344, 348, 349, 352, 355, 357 ff., 369 ff., 375, 377 ff., 385, 387, 389, 391, 392, 395, 398, 411 ff., 416, 429 ff., 437, 444, 445, 448 ff., 456, 461, 465, 466, 475, 476, 486, 487, 490, 494, 495, 498, 499, 502, 514, 532, 534, 538, 543, 546, 549, 550 the patriarch of, 39, 113 university of, 23, 31

Constantius II, emperor, 23

Contarini, Bartolommeo, 150

Conversano, count of, 126, 128

Conybeare, Mr F. C., 66

Copaic basin, the, 120

Copronymos, Constantine V, emperor, 39, 534

Coquerel, Mahiot de, 128

Cordoba, Gonsalvo de, 203

Corfù, 1, 10, 11, 21, 24, 33, 46, 49 ff., 55, 69, 72, 74, 90, 105, 179, 188, 197, 199 ff., 204 ff., 237, 242, 283, 369, 370, 373 ff., 403, 406, 413, 414, 425, 426, 430, 437, 438, 446 n., 498 ff. the Old Fortress, 225 San Rocco, 220

Corinna, 533

Corinth, 1 ff., 5, 7 ff., 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 47, 50, 52, 53, 62, 82, 84, 87, 88, 100, 102, 104, 124, 138, 139, 141, 203, 231, 233, 236, 239, 242, 247, 250, 356, 380, 397, 398, 405, 406, 409, 410, 412, 414, 417, 418, 421, 423, 425 archbishop of, 62, 84 baron of, 127 gulf of, 5, 7, 26, 41, 44, 51, 63, 70, 76, 98, 100, 101, 111, 144, 374, 375, 405, 422, 424, 451

Corinth, isthmus of, 8, 67, 81, 85, 94, 118, 219

Corinthians, Epistles to the, 10

Cornaro, admiral, 268 Andrea, baron of Skarpanto, 250, 251 governor of Crete, 193 Historia di Candia, 266 Catherine, 505, 507 Girolamo, 414, 418, 421, 438 Vincenzo, Erotokritos, 198

Corogna, Januli da, 167

Coron, see Koron

Coronelli, 423

Coronello, Francesco, 174

Cornaro, Teodoro, 438

Correr, Pietro, 134

Corsica, 188, 302, 385

Coruña, 167

Corvinus, Matthias, 491, 511

Cosconius, Caius, 461

Cossa, Louis, lord of Berre, 326

Costa, Alamanno, count of Syracuse, 180

Coucy, Enguerrand VI de, 320 n. VII, de, 320

Courcelles, Henri de, 432

Courtenay, Emperor Peter of, 90

Crawford, Marion, Arethusa, 534

Crécy, 299

Cremona, 314

Crete, and the Cretans, 4, 10, 16, 19 ff., 36, 37, 43 ff., 47, 58, 68 ff., 75, 78, 81, 82, 98, 162, 163, 166 ff., 172, 176 ff., 204, 209, 217, 221, 222, 240 ff., 250, 267, 273, 275, 280, 283, 298, 325, 356, 357, 362, 366, 373, 385, 400, 403, 416, 426, 443, 498, 541

“Creticus” (Quintus Metellus), 4

Creveliers, Hugues, 399

Crimea, the, 228

Crispi, Francesco, Italian prime minister, 69

Crispo, family of (dukes of Naxos), 68, 69, 79, 498 Elisabetta, 339 Francesco I, 170 III, 172, 175 ff. Giacomo I, “The Pacific,” 171 II, 332, 339 IV, 173, 174 Giovanni III, 172 IV, 172, 176, 177, 266

Crispus, Sallustius, 173

Crnoje, Raditch, 458, 459

Crnojevich, John, 458

Crnojevich, Stephen, 458, 459

Croatia, and the Croats, 442, 443, 463 ff., 467, 468, 474, 476, 479 ff., 487 ff., 491 ff., 496, 497

Crusade, the first, 532, 534, 536, 541, 546, 548 the fourth, 57, 61, 67, 110, 162, 177, 234, 276, 277, 283, 293, 430, 540, 546

Crusaders, the, 58, 59, 63, 67, 318, 516 ff., 524, 525, 531, 541, 542, 546, 547, 550

Crusius, Martin, see Kraus

Culuris, see Salamis

Cumans (Scythians), the, 536, 541, 546

Curzola, 474, 479, 481

Cybo, Kalojanni, 300, 306

Cyclades, the, 8, 21, 38, 44, 68, 78, 83, 84, 161 ff., 179, 232, 254, 265 ff., 355, 381, 384, 387, 398 ff.

Cyclopean stones, 63

Cydonia, 180

Cyprus, 78, 187, 198, 218, 221, 243, 285, 286, 298, 302, 304, 356, 373 ff., 377, 379, 422, 498, 502 ff., 517, 519, 522, 526, 528, 529, 531, 532, 541

Cyriacus of Ancona, 65, 147 ff., 152, 160, 171, 264, 310, 311, 330 ff., 352, 437

Cyril (Constantine), Slavonic apostle, 272

Cyrillic alphabet, the, 272

Dabisha, Stephen, 480, 481

Da Corogna, family of, 131

Dadi, 246, 247

Dagno, 437

Daimonoyannes, 233 family of, 234, 242, 368

Dalassene, Anna, 536, 541, 544

dalle Carceri, family of, 168 Maria, 250 Nicolò II, 169, 170 Ravano, 59 Realdo, 59

Dalmatia, 243, 272, 380, 443, 461 ff., 467, 468, 474, 476, 479 ff., 488, 491, 493, 498, 549

dal Verme, Luchino, 184

Damala, baron of, 290, 291

Damaris, 9

Damascus, 321

Dambira, Father, 405

Damestre, 405

Damietta, 325

Damirales, 440

Dandolo, Andrea, historian, 168 Enrico, doge, 68, 162 Leonardo, 183 Marino, 166

Danegeld, 307

Danielis of Patras, 42, 43, 55

Danilo I, bishop of Montenegro, 424

Dante, 64, 73, 114, 272 Paradiso, 303, 449 Purgatorio, 111

Danube, river, 34, 47, 81, 225, 366, 443, 445, 449, 456, 487, 499, 511

Daphni, abbey of, 118, 150 n., 397 pass of, 407

Dardanelles, the, 21, 194, 301, 313, 334, 340, 375, 451, 501, 534

David, the tower of, 519, 521, 527

Dead Sea, the, 516, 520, 530

Decameron, the, 79

De Cigalla, family of, 131 Dr (Dekigallas), 167

Decius, emperor, 18, 20

Decuriones, 21

Defensor, 22

Deffner, Dr, 60

Dei, Benedetto, 161

de la Brocquière, Bertrandon, traveller, 326, 327, 484

de la Motraye, traveller, 423

de la Roche, family of (dukes of Athens), 82, 118, 125 Guillaume (William), 80, 115, 116, 249 Guy I, 64, 76, 79, 92, 112 ff., 232, 248, 249 Guy II, 76, 81, 82, 116 ff., 123, 124, 133 Jacqueline, 292 John, 83, 115, 116 Othon, 58, 63, 64, 67, 75, 110 ff., 156, 248

de la Salle (Sala), 425

de la Trémouille, Audebert, 72

Delenda, family of, 131

Deli-Dagh, see Hymettos

della Valle, Pietro, 222

Delminium, 461

Delos (Le Sdiles), 2, 4, 15, 44, 148, 265, 381, 399 confederacy of, 14

Delphi (Kastri), 1, 3, 10, 13, 15, 22, 46, 51, 116, 137, 375, 397 oracle of, 11, 16, 24

Delyannes, M., Greek prime minister, 72, 89

Demakes, Michael, 405

Dematra, castle of, 116

Demetrias, 44, 50

Demetrios, St, 269 ff., 273, 275 ff., 281, 478

Demetrius, king of Salonika, 248

Demetsana, 72

Demosthenes, 22, 410, 537, 542 lantern of, see Lysikrates

De Novelles, family of, 122, 157

Dentuto, Cristoforo, 331

Denys, St, of France, 141

Derben-aga, 38

Dervenaki, pass of, 102

Desa, jupan, 468

Desimoni, 301

Deslaur, Roger, 119 ff.

Deslaurs, the, 137

Detchani, monastery of, 449

Detchanski, Stephen, see Urosh III of Serbia

Devon, earls of, 90

Dexippos, historian, 19

Dezia, Jacomo, 176

Diakonos, Leo, 47 n.

Diakophto, 72

Diana, temple of, 330

Diavoli, 451

Diedo, 423

Diehl, M., 535, 550

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 381

Diocletian, emperor, 20, 21, 461, 463, 503

Diogenes, Constantine, 275

Diokleia or Dioklitia, 444 ff., 448, 450, 466, 468, 549

Diolkos, 44

Dionysios, archbishop of Trikkala, 379 of Halikarnassos, 327, 330, 352 the Areopagite, 9, 17, 141, 411

Dionysos, 30, 162 theatre of, 13, 14, 18, 412

Diplovatatzes, George, 340

Djakovo, 481, 482

Djem, prince of Turkey, 514

Djouneïd of Aïdin, 325

Doboj, 461, 496

Dobor, 481, 483

Doclea, 444, 466

Dodekannesos, the, 37, 68, 163

Dodona, ruins of, 148 shrine of, 33

Doge’s Palace, the, 57, 79

Dolnja Tuzla, 462, 496

Domenico of Brescia, 148 n.

Dominicans, the, 467

Domitian, emperor, 12, 13

Domoko, 62, 254

Don Quixote, 375

D’Oria, family of, 326, 328 Andrea, 373 Corrado, 305 Domenico, 295 Lanfranchino, 295 Marco, 351 Orietta, 333 Valentina, 326

Dorians, the, 91

Dorotheos, the Chronicle of, 371

Dorylæum, battle of, 547

Doukas, family of, 538 Constantine X, emperor, 538 son of Michael VII, 539, 543 Michael VII, emperor, 49, 538, 539 historian, 335, 337, 340, 341

Dousmanes, family of, 414 General, 405 George, 405

Doxapatres, 88

Dragash, Constantine, 436

Dragutin, Stephen, 473, 478

Drakos, 379

Drapperio, Francesco, 307

Dratch, see Durazzo

Drin, Albanian river, 430

Drina, Bosnian river, 462, 465, 468, 474, 480

Drivasto, 437, 456

Drizzacorne, Lanfranco, 303

Dromokaïtes, George, 340

Droungários, 37

Drusus, 8

Drymalia, 165

Ducange, historian, 458

Duchesne, Monsignor, 278

Dukati, the, 434

Dulcigno, 228, 437, 456, 498

Durazzo, 50, 51, 70, 128, 271, 275, 429 ff., 434, 435, 437, 438, 440, 444, 445, 448, 449, 454, 456, 464, 498, 540, 541, 544 ff., 548 Charles III of, 201, 202

Dushan, Stephen (Urosh IV of Serbia), 253, 279, 299, 434, 441, 450 ff., 457, 475, 476, 480

Dushmani, 405

Dyme, 2, 4, 6

Echinades islands, 374

Edessa (Urfa), 516 ff., 520, 521, 523, 526, 528, 530, 541, 547

Edrisi, Arabian geographer, 52, 55

Edward I of England, 516, 517, 528, 529 III of England, 299, 441

Eginhard, biographer of Charlemagne, 443

Egypt, 89, 91, 177, 286, 325, 327, 423, 503, 505, 506, 516 ff., 520, 528

Eichstätt, bishop of, 35

El-ʿArîsh, 516, 517

Elateia, 14, 18

Elbassan, 454 monastery of St John, 445

Elena, St, 141

Elephantis, 533

Eleusinian mysteries, the, 7, 14, 19, 23 ff.

Eleusis, 14, 26, 66, 118, 396, 397

Elgin, Lord, 381, 386, 407 marbles, the, 66

“El Greco” (Theotokopoulos, Domenicos), 198

Elijah, the prophet, 455, 530

Elis, 67, 71, 73, 78, 88, 89, 414, 418, 501

Eloth, see Aila

Emerich, king of Hungary, 470

Emerson, historian, 425

Emo, Angelo, 228

Engaddi, 529

Enghien, the house of, 136, 158 Marie d’, 136 Sohier d’, 158 Walter d’, 125

England, and the English, 50, 66 ff., 85, 125, 171, 193, 197, 212, 214, 220, 279, 286, 300, 307, 344, 372, 381, 387 ff., 422, 444, 452, 455, 482, 514, 516, 517, 523, 525, 532, 534, 548, 549

Enrique III of Castile, 323

Eparchos, Antonios, Lament for the Fall of Greece, 212

Epeiros, 12, 25, 26, 29, 33, 39, 47, 69, 70, 83, 88, 92, 111, 114, 116, 119, 124, 146, 199, 200, 202, 203, 248, 249, 262, 263, 277, 379, 404, 417, 431 ff., 451, 453, 510, 513 Old, 20, 21 the lady of, 83, 117

“Epeirotes,” “king of the”, see Tocco, Carlo II

Ephesus, 288, 501 council of, 31

Ephors, the, 16

Epidamnos, see Durazzo

Epidauros, 3, 376 the Hieron of, 14 Limera, 231

Epimenides, 178

Epiphania, John of, 537

Epitome of Strabo’s Geography, 39

Eponymos Archon, see Archon Eponymos

Erastus, 9

Erechtheion, the, 65, 396

Eregli, 284

Eresos, 348

Erinna, 533

Eros, statue of, 8, 10

Erotokritos, 198

Eschcol, brook of, 530

Eschive, lady of Beyrout, 118

Estañol, Beranger, 122, 123

Este, Azzo VII d’, 249

Estives, 83, see Thebes

Etheling, Edgar, 516

Etna, 126

Eubœa, 5, 12, 37, 53, 54, 69 ff., 76, 81, 83, 85, 111, 114, 116 ff., 120, 121, 123, 125, 130, 131, 143, 150, 151, 166 ff., 184, 186, 232, 236, 246, 248 ff., 252, 254, 256, 290, 335, 343, 350, 356, 366, 367, 375, 378, 379, 383, 389, 393, 398, 498, 499, 514, see Negroponte

Eudokia, empress, 30, 39, 40, 535, 538

Eudoxos, astronomer, 537

Eugène, prince of Savoy, 223, 496

Eumolpidæ, 26

Euphrates, river, 516, 528, 535

Euphrosyne, empress, 55

Euripides, 537

Euripos, 50, 379, 389

Eurotas, the, 90

Eurychos, harbour, 430

Eusebius, historian, 16

Eustathios, archbishop of Salonika, 53, 269, 275, 276, 279

Eustokkia, 534

Evagrios, historian, 34

Evrenos Beg, 99, 137

Exarch, the Bulgarian, 135

Exedra, the, 15

Exoe, 265

Ezerits, the, 41, 45, 46

Ezeva, 549

Faber, Father, 240

Fadrique, family of, 130, 137 Don Alfonso, 123 ff., 236, 250, 251

Fair Havens, 10

Fallmerayer, Professor, 34 ff., 39, 59, 72, 107, 109, 414, 458

Famagosta, 298, 323, 498, 505, 519, 532

Fanelli, Atene Attica, 154 n., 413

Ferdinand of Bulgaria, 444, 447 I of Hungary, 493 of Majorca, 95, 288 I of Naples, 506, 512 of Spain, 106

Feredchik, 338

Ferrara, 171, 249

Ferrari, historian, 268

Fethijeh Jamisi, 152

Fiammengo, Antonio, see le Flamenc

Fiesole, Mino da, 343

Finlay, George, historian, 1, 29, 85, 96, 110, 161, 221, 311, 443, 542, 550

Flangineion, school, 212, 371, 407

Flangines, 212, 371

Flatro, Giorgio, 507

Flavian dynasty, the, 12

Flemings, the, 58, 94, 96, 525

Fleuri, Marquis de, 399

Flor, Roger de, 201, 236, 287

Florence, 96, 125, 136, 138, 144, 147, 148, 154, 159, 160, 369, 455, 479, 498, 504, 514 archbishop of, 136 the Certosa, 96, 145, 154 gonfaloniere of, 139 Lung’ Arno Acciajuoli, 154 National Museum at, 343

Florenz of Hainault, 94

Floriano, Colonel, 223

Foglia Nuova, 285, 294 ff., 300 ff., 306, 307, 309, 313, 337, see Phocæa Vecchia, 296, 300 ff., 306, 307, 313, 316, 322, 323, 326 ff., 330, 335, 337, 351 ff., see Phocæa

Folco of Forlì, Benedetto, 328

Fontana, Giovanni, 340

Forbin, 378

Forneto, Pasquale, 303 Raffaelle di, 304

Fortune, temple of, 15

Forum, the (Salonika), 271

Foscari, the, 297 Francesco, 439

Foscarini, Giacomo, 187 ff., 267 Michele, 439

Fotcha, 488

Foucher, chaplain, 524

Foucherolles, family of, 124

France, and the French, 31, 57, 58, 72, 74, 75, 86, 89, 90, 96, 106, 111, 114, 121, 125, 130, 131, 155, 156, 174, 193, 195, 197, 201, 230, 231, 257, 271, 299, 321, 345, 361, 372, 376, 385 ff., 400, 422, 424, 441, 472, 482, 502, 514, 516, 522, 523, 525, 527, 532, 546 ff., 550

France, king of, 82, 117, 184, 240, 305, 320, 351 St Denys of, 141 St Louis of, 91

Francis Joseph, emperor of Austria, 467, 509

Franciscans, the, 473, 476, 485, 495

Frangipane, count, 493

Franks, the, 59, 60, 67, 68, 70 ff., 75 ff., 83, 84, 86, 88, 92 ff., 96, 99, 105, 108, 111, 115, 117, 118, 120 ff., 126, 135, 170, 186, 232, 233, 348, 368, 370, 371, 386 ff., 393, 396, 500, 517, 518, 520, 525 ff., 530 ff.

Franz Ferdinand, archduke, 455

Frederick II, emperor, 517, 527, 528 III, emperor, 485 II, king of Sicily, 122, 123, 127, 290 III, king of Sicily, 126, 127, 158 of Randazzo, 126

Free Laconians, the, 7, 16

Freeman, Prof., 441

Frères Prêcheurs, 292

Froissart, 81, 144

Fulk, son-in-law of Baldwin II, 518, 519

Furies, the, 11

Gaddi, 151 n., 160

Gagliano, battle of, 118

Gaidaronisi, islet of, 168

Gaius, 9

Galata, 284, 292, 314

Galates, family of, 217, 264

Galatians, Epistles to the, 10

Galaxidi, 63, 375, 376

Galaxidi, Chronicle of, 376

Galen, 84

Galerius, 270, 271

Galilee, 517, 520, 521, 530, 533

Gallienus, emperor, 19

Gallio, 9

Gallipoli, 288, 315, 316

Ganza, George, 433 Nicholas, 433

Gardiki, 99, 105

Garibaldi, Francesco, 304

Garzoni, Antonio, 243 Giulio de, 192

Gasmoûloi, the, 86, 96, 233

Gaspari, Demetrios, 407, 413 Peter, 407, 413, 414 Stamati, 405

Gastouni, 414, 420

Gattilusio, Andronico, 319 Baptista, 342 Caterina, 328, 329 Costanza, 328 Domenico, 297, 319, 332, 334 ff., 339 ff., 352, 353 Dorino I, 148, 297, 324, 326 ff., 332 ff., 346, 352, 353 II, 297, 298, 331, 338, 339, 351, 353 Eugenia, 321, 322, 329 Francesco I, 296, 303, 306, 313 ff., 320 n., 325, 327, 353 II (Jacopo), 296, 319 ff., 345, 352, 353 III, 297, 330 ff., 353 Ginevra, 328, 332, 345 Giorgio, 331, 338 Giuliano, 321, 344, 345, 351 Hector, 351 Helene, 322 Jacopo (Francesco II), see above Jacopo, son of Francesco II, 297, 324 ff., 330, 353 Luchetto, 314 Luchino, 342, 347, 348, 352 Maria, 328, 349, 352, 353 Nicolò I, 296 ff., 318 ff., 323 ff., 352, 353 II, 297, 335 ff., 339 ff., 345 ff., 351, 353 Oberto, 314 Palamede, 297, 298, 324 ff., 331, 332, 334, 337, 338, 352, 353 Stefano, 351

Gattilusj, the, 283, 301, 307, 312 ff., 326, 327, 498, 499, 532

Gautier III, titular duke of Athens, 158

Gavi, 284

Gaza, Æneas of, 311 battle of, 517

Gazes, Theodore, 269, 514, 515

Geneva, the Council of, 504

Geneva, Count Louis of, 502 Robert of, 158

Gennadios II, 359, 360

Genoa, and the Genoese, 76, 113, 126, 137, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 178, 180 ff., 184, 199, 201, 218, 234, 279, 283 ff., 298 ff., 313 ff., 498, 501, 523, 525

Genseric, king of the Vandals, 29

Gentili, general, 230

George of Antioch, admiral, 51 count of Corinth, 238 I, king of England, 223, 404 king of Greece, 5, 75, 112, 269 of Trebizond, 514 St, head of, 131, 159

Georgians, the, 66, 67

Georgirenes, archbishop of Melos, A Description of the present state of Samos, Nicaria, Patmos and Mount Athos, 399

Gerace, marquess of, 149, 159

Gerakares, Liberakes, 384, 385, 415 ff.

Geraki, 72, 85, 154 n., 257

Germanicus, 8

Germanos, archbishop, 57

Germany, and the Germans, 58, 85, 171, 193, 197, 224, 372, 388, 407, 410, 446, 447, 452, 457, 493, 518, 525, 529

Gerola, Prof., Venetian Monuments in the island of Crete, 197

Gerovolia (Uroglia), 438

Ghika, family of, 365 n.

Ghirlandajo, 515

Ghisi, the, 164 ff., 246 Bartolommeo II, 125 George I, 120 III, 265

Gibbon, 392, 518, 538, 550

Gibelin, 528

Giblet (Jebeil), 516

Giorgio, family of, see Zorzi

Giovanni of Novara, 331

Gipton, see Lamia

Giraud, M., consul, 387, 388, 411

Gislenus, St, 36

Giustiniani, Alessandro Rocca, 311 Andriolo Banca, 311 Gerolamo Garibaldi, _La Description et Histoire de l’Isle de Scios, ou Chios_, 311 Leonardo, 310 Timoteo, 308 Vincenzo, 308 Negri, 309 Banca, 148, 311 the, 173, 283, 301, 304, 305, 307, 311, 312, 334 the Maona of the, 373, 498 the Palazzo, 309

Giustiniano, Orsato, 350

Gladstone, Rt Hon. W. E., 215, 299, 414

Glagolitic alphabet, the, 272

Glarentza, 78, 79, 91, 93, 105, 249, 265, 380, 398

Glossa, Cape, 430

Godfrey of Bouillon, 516, 518, 519, 538

Goethe, Faust, 70, 86, 533

Golden Book, the, 207, 217, 305 Rose, the, 500

Gonzaga, Charles, duc de Nevers, 381, 382

Gonzalez de Clavijo, Ruy, 323

Gorgon’s head, story of the, 141, 147

Gortyna, 21

Gortys, the, 72

Goths, the, 18 ff., 25, 26, 29

Gottlob, German scholar, 502

Govino, 205, 219, 224, 227

Gozzadini, Giacomo I, 176 of Bologna, the, 69

Grabusa, 196, 403, 416, 417

Gradenigo, family of, 181, 297 Marco, 183, 184 Tito, 183, 184

Gradishka, 462

“Graikoi,” 32

Grand-Komnenos, family of, 499

Granvali, corsair, 266

Gravia, pass of, 63

Gravina, John of, 80, 95, 97, 202

Gravosa, harbour, 478

Grbljanovich, Lazar, 454, 455, 477, 479 Militza, 455

Great Britain, 422, 426, 441

Greco-Turkish war of 1897, 205

Greek Church, the, 77, 199, 359 ff.

Gregoras, Nikephoros, historian, 121, 125, 453

Gregorian Calendar, the, 362

Gregorovius, 30 n., 85, 157 Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter, 155

Gregory, metropolitan of Corinth, 53 II, pope, 38 VII, pope, 49 XI, pope, 126, 253, 317, 473 of Nazianzos, 24 Rev. S., 107

Greveno, 105

Grifon, 72

Grimaldi, family of, 298 Bonne de’, 326 Carlo de’, 331 Giovanni de’, 324 Oberto de’, 297, 330, 353 Pietro de’, 326

Grimani, bishop, 267 admiral, 383 governor-general, 420, 423, 424

Gritzena, 72

Grivas, Theodore Boua, 379

Grottaferrata, 68, 515

Gruba, Helena, 481, 482

Guemlek, 549

Guillet, author, 386 ff., 394

Guiscard, Bohemond, 50, 51, 430 Gaïta, 548 Robert, 49, 50, 430, 540, 544, 548

Gyaros, island, 6, 8, 64, 174

Habsburg, family of, 480, 493, 496

Hadji Ali, 388 n.

Hadrian, 13 ff., 23, 141 palace of, see Olympian Zeus the arch, porch, stoa of, 13, 156, 378, 410, 415

Hagia Laura, monastery of, 331

Hagiostephanitai, family of, 180

Hainault, 36, 133 Florenz of, 94 Matilda of, 80, 95 ff.

Hajji Kalifeh, 266

Halil, son of the sultan Orkhan, 315, 316

Halmyros, 53

Hamilton, the duke of, 148

Hamza, admiral, 334, 335, 339

Hardrada, Harold, 48, 64, 396

Harmodios, 6, 410

Harold, king of England, 48

Haroun Al Rashid, 40

Harrison, Frederic, Theophano, 47 n., 534

Hasân-Babâ, pirate, 384

Hattin, battle of, 517, 522, 523, 527, 531

Hayes, Louis des, 267, 386, 395

Hebraïká, the, 211

Hebrew inscriptions at Mistra, 47

Hebron (St Abraham), 521, 530, 533

Hedjaz, the, 523

Helej, family of, 496

Helen of Serbia, 508, 510

Helikon, the muses of, 22

Helios, sun-god, 30

“Helladikoi,” the, 32, 38

“Hellenotamias,” 14

Helots, 186

Henry IV, emperor, 544 emperor of Romania, 113, 163, 164, 247, 277 II, king of England, 286, 522 III, king of England, 66, 529 IV, king of England, 171, 540 VI, king of England, 307, 340, 345 VIII, king of England, 197, 368, 449

Hera, temple of, 13

Heraclius, patriarch of Jerusalem, 521, 522

Herakleios, emperor, 442, 443, 463

Heredia, grand-master of the knights of St John, 84

Hermoniakos, Constantine, 83

Hermonymos, George, 369

Herod, king of the Jews, 7

Herodes Atticus, the Odeion of, 15, 54, 153, 396

Herodotus, 83, 115, 145, 149, 162, 237, 537

Hersek, 492

Hertzberg, 30 n., 107, 265

Heruli, 19

Herzegovich, Ahmed Pasha, 492

Herzegovina (duchy of St Sava, the land of Hum or Zahumlje), 365, 422, 443, 445, 447, 450, 457, 459 ff., 468, 470 ff., 483 ff., 488, 489, 491, 492, 495, 499, 508, 549

Hesychasts (or Quietists), the, 279

Hethum II of Armenia, 286

Hexamilion, the, 98 ff., 149

Hide, Sir H., consul, 398

Hierokles, the Synekdemos, 108, 429

Hildburghausen, duke of, 497

Hildebrand, 445

Hippocrates, 84, 311

Hippodrome, the, 22

Historia Patriarchica, 160

Hobson, Launcelot, 388

Holland, 95, 378

Holy House of the Hospital, the, 289

Holy Land, the, 77, 95, 117, 133, 179, 286, 289, 392, 515 ff., 544, 546 Sepulchre, the, 57, 74, 416, 517, 518, 520, 521, 547

Hombergk, Hessian officer, 387

Homer, 192, 223, 275, 311, 371, 534, 537, 539, 542, 545, 550 the Iliad, 83 the Odyssey, 207, 231

Honorius, son of Theodosius, 25 III, pope, 75, 78, 85, 156, 248, 447, 471

Hopf, Dr, 85, 86, 94, 97, 107 ff., 134, 155, 157, 161, 175, 177, 235, 237, 248, 255, 265 ff., 420, 458, 459

Horace, 5, 369

Hormisdas, pope, 271, 429

Hosios Loukas, 47 n., 397

Hospital, knights of the, 144, 529

Hranich, Sandalj, 484, 485 Vlatko, 479

Hugues, duke of Burgundy, 318

Hum, the land of, see Herzegovina Mt, 464

Humbert II, dauphin of Vienne, 253

Humphry, duke of Buckingham, 345

Hungary, and the Hungarians, 58, 149, 381, 406, 448, 456, 467, 469 ff., 486 ff., 491 ff., 496, 497, 511

Huns, the, 33, 463

Hunyady, John, 456, 457, 484 ff.

Hydra, 358

Hyginos, 16

Hymettos (Deli-Dagh), 66, 114, 145, 152, 395

Hypatia, 32

Iatraioi, the, 384

Iatropoulos, 136

Iatros, 136

Ibelin, family of d’, 521 Jean d’, Assises de la Haute Cour, 519, 520

Ibrahim I, sultan, 193, 194, 398 Pasha, 440

Iconium (Ikonium), bishop of, 10 sultan of, 52, 538

Ikaria, 290, 296, 300, 301

Ilissos, 388, 395

Illyricum, and the Illyrians, 21, 24, 25, 26, 460, 461, 546

Imbros, 297, 306, 332, 334, 339, 340, 343, 344, 350, 353

Indictions, cycle of, 22, 25

Innocent III, pope, 78, 89, 112, 233, 247, 470 IV, pope, 526 VI, pope, 317 VIII, pope, 300, 351, 507 XI, pope, 403

Ionia (Violarium), 538

Ionian Islands, the, 1, 6, 21, 37, 44, 51, 69, 78, 84, 198 ff., 267, 355, 403, 417 ff., 422, 426, 498 Sea, 29

Ipek, Serb patriarchate of, 361 n., see Petch

Ipsala, 338

Ipsili, monastery of, 401

Ipso, 224

Irene, empress, wife of Leo IV, 36, 39, 40

Irene, empress, wife of Alexios I, 538, 539, 543

Irish, the, 189, 525

Isaac, governor of Vrhbosna, 483 II, Greek emperor, 58, 232, 277

Isabella, marchioness of Boudonitza, 134 of Spain, 106

Isidore, metropolitan of Athens, 152; of Salonika, 269 n.

Ismael, admiral, 339, 341, 344

Ismaïdi, mosque, 378

Ismail Kemal Bey, 440 Pasha, 440

Ismid, gulf of, 492

Isokrates, 371, 539

Isthmian games, 11

Istria, 272, 487, 491

Italy, and the Italians, 11, 49 ff., 55, 58, 67, 73, 93, 125, 138, 139, 145, 174, 175, 184, 198, 224, 233, 238, 253, 271, 275, 277, 280, 298, 311, 315, 343, 344, 349, 369, 371, 374, 375, 432, 438, 440, 441, 449, 453, 456, 487, 499, 513, 516, 525, 534, 541, 544

Itea, 51, 375

Ithake, 21, 61, 69, 202 ff., 216, 217, 228, 261 ff., 379, 540

Ivan III, grand duke of Russia, 106, 368, 513

Ivry, Galeran d’, 249

Jablanitza, 495

Jacob, metropolitan, 405, 414

Jacobus, physician, 31

Jacques I of Cyprus, 319

Jaffa, 116, 504, 517, 519, 520 count of, 507, 530

Jagellon, Alexander, of Poland, 106

Jajce, 457, 471, 481, 487, 489 ff., 495, 510, 511

Jala Göl, lake, 338

James II of Aragon, 123, 235 II of Cyprus, 513 II of England, 388, 399 St, of Compostella, 74

Janissaries, the, 362 ff., 368, 389, 425, 457, 491

Janjichi, 475

Janus, king of Cyprus, 323 statue of, 405

Jarkovich (“Marchisa” or Merksha), 436, 437

Jaskopolje, castle of, 471

Jason, bishop of Tarsus, 10

Jean, count of Lecce, 158

Jebeil (Giblet), 516

Jeptche, 496

Jeremiah, 65

Jericho, 430, 529, 530

Jerome, St, 25, 33

Jerusalem, 30, 58, 116, 498, 506, 515 ff., 540, 541, 547

Jerusalem, Assizes of, 71, 112, 520, 527

Jerusalem, patriarch of, 416

Jesuits, the, 396, 397, 400

Jews, the, 46, 53, 60, 98, 113, 174, 186, 191, 200, 210, 211, 214, 216, 224, 230, 270, 271, 275, 276, 278, 313, 362, 379, 397, 419, 439, 527

Jezero, lake, 462

Jezreel, plain of, 529

Jireček, Constantin, 442, 455 n.

Joanna I, queen of Naples, 97, 201, 252

Joannina, 145, 213, 224, 356, 371, 379, 425, 440, 451

John V, emperor, 534 VI, emperor, 160, 329 VII, emperor, 278 hagiographer, 269 XXII, pope, 78, 124, 251, 289, 290 I of Aragon, 156, 157 of Austria, 374, 376 of Bari, 544 of Basingstoke, 66 count of Cephalonia, 82 king of England, 66 II, despot of Epeiros, 434 of Epiphania, 537 of Gravina, 80, 95, 97, 202, 263, 433 of Randazzo, 126, 158 IV of Trebizond, 329, 333 St, the Evangelist, 288, 331, 501 St, the Merciful, 528 the Reader, historian, 269

Jolanda of Montferrat, 278

Jonson, Ben, The Fox, 197

Jordan, river, 516, 523

Jorga, M., 365 n.

Joseph I, patriarch, 359

Joshua, 154 n.

Josselin I of Edessa, 523

Jove, baths of, 330

Jovian, emperor, 24

Julian the Apostate, emperor, 23, 24

Julius II, pope, 507

Junch, port de, 108 n., see Navarino

Junis, admiral, 336, 338, 339

Jupiter Cassius, altar of, 224

Jurashevich (Jurash), George, 459 Alexius, 459

Justin, St, 141 History, 414

Justinian, emperor, 29, 32 ff., 36, 98, 414, 429, 463, 534

Juvenal, 4, 8, 533

Kabasilas, Neilos, theologian, 269 Nicholas, theologian, 269 Simeon, 377, 378

Kadmeia, the, 95, 115, 247

Kaïkos, 336

Kainepolis, 29

Kaisariane (Syriane), monastery of, 152, 390, 395, 397

Kakè Skála, the, 114, 397

Kalamata, 72, 89, 384, 404, 419, 423

Kalamos, islet, 223, 404

Kalavryta (La Grite), 57, 72, 83, 104, 105, 149, 418, 420

Kallergai, the, 182, 185, 374

Kallerges, Alexios, 181, 182, 194

Kallikles, physician, 538

Kallimachai, the, 365 n.

Kallirrhoe, 54, 66, 145

Kallistos, Andronikos, 514

Kallone, 333

Kalochairetes, priest, 218

Kalocsa, archbishop of, 471, 472

Kalopheros, 263

Kalophrenas, priest and copyist, 159

Kalothetos, John, 316 Leon, 291, 293

Kameniates, John, historian, 269, 273

Kampouroglos, D. G., 160, 394

Kamurgi, Ali, 425

Kamytzes, Manuel, 55

Kanaboutzes, John, 327, 330, 352

Kanina, 429 ff., 441

Kapnikarea, 30

Kapsi, Joannes, 399

Karaburun (the “Black Cape”), 273, 274

Kara-Djouneïd, 298

Kara Mustapha Pasha, 224

Karavias, 264

Karditza, inscription on church at, 11 n., 117, 132, 133, 134

Karlili, 356

Karyatides, 271

Karydi, battle of, 114, 249

Karytaina, castle of, 72, 85, 89

Karystos (Castel Rosso), 117, 150, 236, 254 ff., 306, 307

Kassander, king of Macedon, 270

Kassandra, 270

Kassimié mosque, the, 271

Kassim Pasha, 242

Kassopo, 11, 224

Kastamouni (Kastamon), 536

Kastoria, 50, 549

Kastos, islet, 223

Kastrades, 224

Kastri, see Delphi

Kastritza, 105

Kastro, 330, 340, 343

Katalianos, 131

Katsones, Lampros, 228

Kavalla, 6, 356, 450

Kedrenos, historian, 273, 445

Keglevich, Peter, 492, 493

Kehr, Professor, 309

Kekaumenos, Michael, 430

Kenchreæ, 9, 101

Kendal, duchess of, 223

Keos, island of, 63, 112, 135, 165, 167, 306

Kephissia, 15, 397

Kephissos, the, 95, 120, 122, 126, 132 ff., 250

Kerpine, village, 72

Kés, Magyar chieftain, 465

Kharezmians, the, 517

Khoja, Janum, 224

Kielapha (Kielefa), 404, 424

Kimolos, 162, 174

“Kirjath-sepher,” 113

Kishon, 530

Kissavos (Ossa), 545, 549

“Kleidion,” 273

Kleisourárches, 38

Kleonides, palace of, 153

Klepsydra fountain, the, 7

Klesich, Radich, 509

Kljuch, 489

Knights of St John, Rhodes, and Malta, 73, 84, 89, 128, 144, 167, 171, 296, 318, 319, 321, 325, 343, 346, 373, 380, 401, 518, 528 of St Mary of Bethlehem, 343 of Santo Stefano, 380 Templars, 73, 89, 248, 518, 528, 529 Teutonic, 68, 73, 89, 529

Knin, 481

Knossos, 4

Kobilich, Milosh, 455

Koenigsmark, Otto William von, 404, 407

Kokkinos, castle, 297, 329, 330, 332, 343, 350, 353

Kolchis, 349

Koloman, 467, 472

Kommagene, 13

Konieh, 440

Konjitza, 485, 496

Konstantinides, K., 158

Konstantinovich, 488

Kontostephanos, admiral, 430

Köprili, Ahmed, 195, 196, 384, 385

Koraes, 213

Koran, the, 362

Koron (Korone, Coron), 41, 50, 68, 89 ff., 98, 106, 154, 227, 241, 362, 373, 377, 382, 404, 414, 420, 424

Koronos, castle of, 262

Korydalleus, 393

Kos, 268, 290, 318

Kosatcha, house of, 484, 485

Kosmas, 38

Kossovo, 137, 436, 444, 453 ff., 479, 481, 486

Köstendil (Velbujd), 450

Kostobokes, the, 14, 18

Kotroman, Stephen, 473

Kotromanich, family of, 473, 484, 511 Stephen, 473 ff. Stephen Tvrtko I, 435, 454, 455, 473, 476 ff., 482, 483 II, 478, 483 ff.

Koundoura, 68, 88

Koutso-Wallachs, 55, 60, 100, 453

Krak, de Montréal, 520, 521, 523 des Chevaliers, 521, 528

Kraljevich, Marko, 454

Kraus (Crusius), Martin, 36, 267, 377, 378, 394

Kreshimir, king of the Croats, 465

Kritoboulos, Hermodoros Michael, historian, 151, 152, 325, 332, 334, 339 ff., 343, 344, 457

Kroja, 443, 512

Krum of Bulgaria, 444

Krumbacher, Prof., 108, 109 History of Byzantine Literature, 57

Krushevatz, 454 ff.

Kryoneri (Acqua Fredda), 438, 439

Kugeas, K., 269 n.

Kulenovich, family of, 471

Kulin, ban of Bosnia, 468 ff.

Kumanovo, 455

Kydones, Demetrios, essayist, 269, 278

Kydonia, 4

Kyparissia (or Arkadia), 14, 72, 89

Kyrenia (Cérines), 503 ff.

Kythera, see Cerigo

Kythnos, 8, 12

Laborde, 413

La Cava, monastery of, 523

Lacedæmonia (La Crémonie), and the Lacedæmonians, 7, 23, 41, 73, 83, 90, 91, 382

Laconia (Lakonia), and the Laconians, 6, 32, 59, 60, 72, 88, 100, 131, 154, 368, 419

Laconians, the Free, 7, 16

La Crémonie, see Lacedæmonia

“Ladies’ Parliament,” 79

Ladislaus, duke of Bosnia, 467 IV, king of Hungary, 484 king of Naples, 138, 202, 481 ff.

La Grite, see Kalavryta

La Guilletière, 386

Lake Copais Company, 132

La Martorana, church of, 52

Lamia (Gipton or Zeitounion), 59, 62, 63, 83, 113, 115, 117, 119, 131, 157, 246, 248, 251, 254

Lampros, Professor, 64, 155 ff., 159, 160, 269 n., 392, 430

Lampsakos, 115

Landulph, church of, 106, 107

Langlois, Hugh, 506 James, 506 Philip, 507

Languedoc, 200 n.

Laodicea, 541

La Patre, see Neopatras

Laranda, Pedro de, 346

Larissa, 6, 16, 29, 33, 47, 50, 53, 62, 248, 360, 371

Larissa of Argos, the, 87

Larmena, 251, 252

Larsa, Guglielmo de, 62

Lasithi, 185

Laskaris, 433 Chrysanthos, 382 Janus, 515 Joannes, 263, 373 Manuel, 382 Michael, 146

La Sole, see Salona

Latin Church, the, 187, 190

Laudisio, 334

Laurence, St, 303

Laurentios of Megara, 397

Laurion, 2, 389 n.

Lazar (prince) of Serbia, 454, 455, 477, 479 III of Serbia, 457

Lazarevich, Stephen, 322, 455

Leaina, mistress of Harmodios, 410

Leake, Col., 39, 429

Lebanon, the, 443, 526, 530

Lecce, 116, 118, 119, 121, 158

le Flamenc, Antoine, 117, 132 ff. Jean, 133

Leicester, archdeacon of, 66

Lemnos, 83, 239, 297, 306, 322, 329, 332, 334, 335, 339 ff., 343, 344, 350, 351, 353, 356

Lenormant, historian, 458

Leo I the Great, emperor, 31 III the Isaurian, emperor, 37, 38 IV, emperor, 39 VI, emperor, 43, 77 III of Armenia, 286 X, pope, 209, 241, 507, 513 XIII, pope, 446 mathematician, 43, 269 metropolitan, 275

Leonardo of Chios, 332, 344, 348, 352 Treatise concerning true nobility against Poggio, 352

Leondari, 105, 356

Leonidas, 25, 62, 87, 245, 255, 410

Leonidi, 60, 91 Tzakones of, 72

Leontios, emperor, 37 professor, 30

Leopold I of Austria, 320 n.

Lepanto, 83, 98, 106, 109, 174, 221, 222, 256, 264, 356, 373 ff., 380, 384, 397, 405, 417, also see Naupaktos

Lesbos, 148, 171, 283, 287, 290, 294 ff., 301, 306, 310 ff., 356, 388, 498, 499, 532, also see Mytilene St Bonne’s, 346 St Nicholas’, 346

Le Sdiles, see Delos

Lesina, 479, 481

Le Tenedee, 185

Letres dou Sepulcre, 520

Levkas, see Santa Maura

Levkimo, 214

Libanios, sophist, 24

Liberius, senator, 430

Licario, admiral, 164 ff., 204, 234

Licinius, 21, 269

Ligurian Republic, the, 283, 313 traders, 113

Lille de Charpigny, Hugues de, 72

Limehouse, 388

Limponas, family of, 390, 407, 414 Michael, 392

Liopesi, 146

Liosia, 146

Lithgow, 192

Livadia, 46, 122, 123, 128, 129, 131, 139, 159, 228, 356, 360, 395, 398

Livadostro (Rive d’Ostre), 76, 111, 144

Ljubich, 459

Lluria, Roger de, 126, 157, 165, 201, 235, 287

Locatelli, historian, 404, 409

Loir, du, 267

Lombards, the, 58, 69

London, 106, 171, 351, 366, 371, 399, 400, 441, 497, 522, 537 Crown Street, Soho, 400 Greek Street, 399 Hog Lane, 400

Longinus, 18

Longo, Paride Giustiniani, 337, 345 Tommaso, 304

Loredano, Antonio, admiral, 176, 177, 264 Lucrezia, 176 Luigi, 350 Taddea, 176

Louis, prince of Baden, 496 of Burgundy, 95 VII of France, 522 IX (St Louis) of France, 64, 91, 114, 517, 526 XIV of France, 195 count of Geneva, 502 the Great, king of Hungary, 474 ff. II, king of Hungary, 493 of Savoy, 502, 505

Louvre, the, 332

Loverdo, Gerasimos, 264

Lucan, 9, 429

Lucca, 197

Luccari, historian, 458, 511

Lucera, 432

Lucian, 16, 98

Luke, baron, 72 St, 10, 141, 510 St, the younger, 45

Lüneburg, 408

Lung’ Arno Acciajuoli, the, 154

Lusignan, family of, 498 Charlotte de (queen of Cyprus), 502 ff., 519 Eugène de, 507 Guy de, 519, 522, 526, 528 James de, 503 Jean II de, 502 John de, 507

Lyceum, the, 3

Lycurgus, 31, 71, 186, 228, 419 arsenal of, see Pinakotheke

Lykabettos, 141

Lykoudas, Theodore, 433

Lysikrates, choragic monument of (Lantern of Demosthenes), 65, 153, 386, 410

Macedon, Philip of, 63, 96, 119

Macedonia, 1, 4, 6, 21, 37, 39, 45, 47, 92, 103, 119, 135, 153, 270, 273, 277, 279, 318, 338, 339, 357, 436, 441, 448, 450, 453, 512, 535

Machiavelli, family of, 144 Nicolò, 145

Macola, Joannes, 414

Macrinus, 17

Magistros, Thomas, grammarian, 269

Maglaj, 496

Magni, Cornelio, 387

Magno, Stefano, 263, 264

Magyars, the, 465

Mahmûd Pasha, 336, 338, 345 ff., 365

Maina, 72, 79, 89, 91, 92, 228, 236, 237, 373, 376, 381, 382, 384, 385, 399, 415, 417, 418, 420, 426

Maisy, Jean de, 120, 121

Majorca, 129, 295 Ferdinand of, 95, 288

Makarios, Greek metropolitan, 139 St, head of, 141

Makryplagi, pass of, 423

Malagaris, Michael, 433

Malamos, 379

Malatesta, 239 n.

Malaxos, Patriarchal History, 371

Malea, Cape, 233, 240

Malerba, family of, 202

Maliac gulf, 161, 246

Malipiero, 405, 416

Malmsey, the Podestà of, 241 wine, 70, 88, 234, 236, 237, 240

Malta, 193, 308, 380 count of, 178, 180

Malvasia, see Monemvasia

Mamonades, the, 234

Mamonas, 233, 242 Paul, 237

Manassia, monastery of, 456

Mandoukio, 224

Mandrachi, 327

Manfred of Sicily, 122, 123, 199, 200, 431, 433, 441

Manthos, poet, 425

Mantineia, 13, 104

Mantua, 504

Manuel I, Greek emperor, see Comnenos

Manzikert, battle of, 446

Maraclée, 516

Maramonte, Stefano, 458

Marathon, 3, 15, 66, 112, 114, 375, 390

Marcellinus, general, 463

“Marchesopoulo,” the, 62, 247

“Marchesotto,” the, 253

Marcus Aurelius, 14, 15, 17

Mardîn, 517

Margaret of Montferrat, 248, 277, 381

Margaritone, Sicilian admiral, 55, 202, 261, 262

Margat, castle of, 516, 528

Maria, dowager-empress, 543 duchess of Athens, see Melissene, Maria queen of Hungary, 479 queen of Sicily, 158, 253 Giorgio, privateer, 399

Marie, princess of Antioch, 76 de Bourbon, 201

Maritza, battle of the, 435, 454 river, 318, 338

Markopoulo, 389 n.

Markos II, patriarch, 360

Marmara, 290

Marmora, Andrea, historian, 207, 208, 210, 212, 219, 221, 224 n.

Marmora, sea of, 100, 284

Marris, forest of, 516

Marseilles, 299, 326, 395, 523

Martin I, pope, 37

Martoni, Nicolò da, 159

Marulla of Verona, 81, 123 of Lemnos, 350

Marullus, 369

Mas Latrie, count de, 175, 458

Matagrifon, barony of, 71, 80

Matapan, Cape, 29, 45

Matchva, 473

Matilda of Hainault, 80, 95 ff.

Maurice, emperor, 34, 36, 231

Mavrogenes, family of, 365 Nicholas, 365

Maximian Herculius, 270 n.

Mazarin, cardinal, 195

Mazaris, satirist, 60, 98

Mecca, 523

Medici, family of, 136, 144, 242, 384 Cosimo I de’, 380 Lorenzo de’, 369

Medina, 523

Meerbeke, William of, 84

Megalopolis, 6, 16, 72

Meganisi, 403

Megara, 5, 12, 13, 26, 29, 80, 110, 114, 127, 129, 131, 139, 150, 194, 397, 399, 406

Megarid, the, 63, 76, 111

Megaskyr, the, 156

Megaspelæon, monastery of, 10

Melanoudion, 347, 348

Meletios, geographer, 416 monk, 49

Meliarakes, Antonios, 261

Melik-el-Aschraf, sultan of Egypt, 518

Melings, the, 41, 45, 46

Mélisende, daughter of Baldwin II, 518, 519, 531

Melissene, Maria, duchess of Athens, 80, 127, 146

Melissenos, family of, 144, 376

Melos, 162, 164, 165, 167, 170, 194, 351, 399

Mendenitza, see Boudonitza

Menelaos, 114

Meniates, Elias, 213

Mentebone, Jacopo, 508

Merbaka, Argive church of, 84

Merksha (Jarkovich), 436, 437

Mesarea, see Arcadia

Mesembria, 316

Meshtrovich, M., 454

Mesolonghi, 404

Messe, the Homeric, 91

Messenia, and the Messenians, 16, 67, 68, 87, 88, 97, 131, 154, 376, 419

Messina, 71, 276, 376

Metaxas, family of, 404 Nikodemos, 212

Metellus, Quintus, 4

Meteoron, monastery of, 453

Methodios, Slavonic apostle, 272

Methone, 41, 50, 67, 68, 263, also see Modon

Methymna, see Molivos

Metkovich, 461

Mezzomorto, admiral, 425

Miani, admiral, 202

Michael II, the Stammerer, emperor, 42 III, emperor, 272 of Adalia (Attaleiates), 537, 538, 540, 546, 549 king of Dioklitia, 549

Michiel, Venetian commissioner, 418

Miklosich, 459

Milakovich, historian, 458

Milan, 110, 153, 159, 160, 231, 271, 303, 314, 327, 328, 371, 504, 509

Mileshevo, monastery of, 448, 454, 477

Milly, Jacques de, 503

Miltiades, palace of, 153

Milton, 382

Milutin, Stephen, see Urosh II of Serbia

Minotaur, the, 363

Minotto, 425

Miquez, João (Joseph Nasi), 174

Mirandola, Contessa de, 513

Mirkovich, Paola, 509, 511

Miroslav, prince of the Herzegovina, see Nemanja family

Misglenovich, Maria, 509, 511

Misti, 258 ff.

Mistra, 79, 86, 91, 92, 96, 98 ff., 102, 103, 105, 136, 149, 237, 343, 356, 368, 382, 398, 405, 419, 420, 422, 498 Hebrew inscriptions at, 47 n.

Mithridates, king of Pontus, 2, 119

Mithridatic war, the first, 4

Mitrovitz, 20

Mitrovitza, 450

Mnesikles, 145

Moab, land of, 520, 530

Moawyah, caliph, 37

Mocenigo, admiral, 241, 307 Domenico, 439

Modène, Raimond de, 401

Modon, 87, 88, 90, 91, 98, 106, 184, 240, 241, 323, 362, 373, 376, 382, 405, 408, 418, 420 ff.

Mœsian Diocese, the, 20

Mohács, battle of, 493

Mohammed I, sultan, 256, 307, 325, 483 II, sultan, 22, 83, 102 ff., 150 ff., 159, 238, 239, 264, 307, 334 ff., 343, 345 ff., 356, 358 ff., 364, 365, 367, 394, 395, 425, 457, 486 ff., 499, 504, 505, 514 IV, sultan, 194

Moldavia, 365, 371, 382, 499

Molivos (Augerinos, Methymna), 318, 333, 341, 348, 352

Monaco, 298, 324 cathedral of, 139

Monastir, 446, 447

Moncada, Matteo de, 157

Monemvasia, 35, 39, 51, 54, 55, 68, 70, 79, 88, 91, 92, 94, 105, 106, 108, 165, 221, 231 ff., 245, 368, 371, 373, 405, 406, 414, 416, 419, 424, 426 wine-trade at, 244, also see Malmsey wine

Mongols, the, 322

Monopoli, 69, 262

Monoyannes, Paul, 204, 243

Montenegro (the Zeta), 435, 445, 447, 450, 452, 453, 456 ff., 464, 466, 490, 498, 549

Monte Santangelo, 93

Montferrat, Jolanda of, 278 William of, 248

Montona, Matteo de, 140, 142

Montréal, 520, 523

Moors, 380

Morava, river, 486

Moravia, 272

Morea, the, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85 ff., 106, 107, 128, 136, 143, 147, 152, 153, 164, 168, 171, 181, 186, 193, 195, 198, 200 n., 201, 204, 214, 218, 221, 223, 233, 234, 236 ff., 240 ff., 249, 250, 264, 288, 290, 293, 299, 329, 344, 355, 356, 358, 361, 365 ff., 372, 373, 375 ff., 382, 383, 394, 397, 398, 401, 405, 406, 409, 412 ff., 416 ff., 433, 434, 439, 498 ff., 521

Morea, Chronicle of the, 69, 70, 73, 80, 81, 83 ff., 89, 91 ff., 96, 108, 121, 125, 126, 203 n., 246, 247, 521, 532, 545

Morlachs, the, 403

Morlay, Guillaume de, 72

Morocco, 286

Morokampos, 52

Morosini, Andrea, 266 Francesco, 36, 48, 195, 196, 203, 217, 222, 223 n., 225, 228, 383, 384, 386, 395, 403 ff., 408, 409, 411 ff., 416, 420, 423, 424, 438 Ruggiero, 286

“Moses,” “Valley of,” 530

“Mosque of the Conqueror,” 152

Mostar, 464, 485, 495

Mota, Bertranet, 159

Mottoni, count di San Felice, 407, 411

Mouchli, 104

Mouchtar Pasha, 440

Mouseion hill, the, 407

Mousouros, Markos, scholar, 198, 241, 373

Muazzo, Venetian governor, 317 Zuan Zorzo, 266

Muhashinovichi, 471

Muktar, 224

Mummius, 2, 3, 16, 413

Muntaner, Ramon, 75, 81, 82, 95, 96, 114, 116, 122, 123, 236, 288, 501

Murad, Turkish governor of Ænos, 339 I, sultan, 307, 316, 319, 333, 454, 455 II, sultan, 100, 101, 149, 280, 281, 325, 332, 456, 484, 512 III, sultan, 174, 398

“Murmures,” the, 238

Musa, sultan, 255, 256

Musachi, Comita, see Balsha, Dame C.

Museo Correr, Venice, 79

Mustapha Pasha, Kara, 224

Mycenæ, 16, 59

Mykonos, 164, 255, 265 ff., 373, 399

Myrtis, 533

Mytilene, 40, 287, 294, 318, 323, 324, 326, 327, 332, 335, 336, 341, 346, 347, 349, 350, 352, also see Lesbos

Nâbulus (Shechem), 520, 527, 533

Nahr Ibrahîm, 516

Naples, 57, 80, 84, 94, 95, 106, 108, 109, 116, 124, 138, 143, 149, 154, 169, 184, 200 ff., 210, 240, 252, 262, 264, 373, 376, 482, 501, 506, 513

Naples, Castel dell’ Uovo of, 80, 96, 482

Napoleon I (Bonaparte) of France, 230, 231, 385, 450, 453 III of France, 271

Narenta, river, 461, 464, 474, 476, 549

Narni, castle of, 500

Narona, 461, 465

Nasi, the, 174 Joseph (João Miquez), 174

Nasica, Scipio, 461

Natale, Bernardo, 350

Naupaktos, 33, 48, 53, 83, 98, 431, also see Lepanto

Nauplia, 50, 55, 62, 67, 76, 87, 88, 98, 106, 111, 114, 121, 124, 125, 136, 150, 156, 221, 232, 241 ff., 284, 356, 368, 371, 373, 377, 382, 383, 397, 398, 405, 406, 413 ff., 418, 419, 421 ff.

Nausikaa, 206

Navailles, duc de, 195

Navarino (Zonklon), 35, 97, 105 ff., 194, 235, 373, 376, 377, 380, 382, 404, 408, 419, 424

Navarre, and the Navarrese, 57, 97, 128, 131, 136, 159, 201 Philip of, 531

Navarrese Company, the, 97, 107, 109, 127, 136, 169, 235, 254

Naves, Sor de, 503, 505

Navigajosi, 297

Naxos, 37, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 127, 161 ff., 165 ff., 180, 184, 188, 232, 339, 351, 356, 373, 398, 400, 401, 417, 498

Nazareth, 517, 521

Neale, J. M., Theodora Phranza, 534

Negro, Lucchino, 304

Negroponte, 69, 75, 81, 82, 115, 121, 123, 126, 133, 134, 140, 142, 143, 151, 203 n., 234, 251, 252, 254, 265, 266, 280, 300, 306, 307, 316, 356, 372, 386, 393, 406, 409, 412, 414, 425, 532

Neilos, heretic, 541, 542

Nemanja, family of, 443, 458, 549 Miroslav, 447, 468 ff. St Sava, 447, 448, 454, 477 Stephen I, 447, 469 II, 447, 448

Neopatras, 115 ff., 124, 126, 143, 149, 158, 159, 251, 254 archbishop of, 127

Neophytos, bishop of Maina, 382

Nepos, Julius, 463

Neptune, temple of, 331

Neri, donkey-driver, 154

Nero, 10 ff., 16, 224, 381

Neroutsos, historian, 154, 161

Neuilly, Jean de, 72, 89

Nevers, comte de, 320, 321 duc de, 381, 382

“New France,” 75, 82, 85, 246

Nice (Nicæa), 58, 114, 163, 164, 180, 199, 277, 278, 294, 324, 326, 431, 448, 506, 541, 542 archbishop of, 514 council of, 22, 218 Greek emperor of, 79, 92, 232, 249

Nicholas V, pope, 311, 349, 497 archbishop of Thebes, 116 bishop of Methone, 53 canon of Athens, 156 of Ilok, 491, 492, 511 the patriarch, 34, 273

Nicomedia, 20

“Nicopolis Actiaca,” 380

Nicosia, 519 archbishop of, 505

Niger, Pescennius, 17

Nika sedition, the, 33

Nike Apteros, temple of, 65, 145, 407

Nikephoros I, emperor, 40, 41, 444 II Phokas, emperor, 44, 45, 47, 178, 191, 534 I, despot of Epeiros, 262, 432, 433 II, despot of Epeiros, 318, 434 Chalouphes, 52

Niketas of Chonæ, historian, 59, 60, 62, 75, 86, 269, 275, 537, 538, 549

Nikli, 72, 79, 92, 114

Nikon, monk and saint, 45, 46, 53

Nikopolis, 6 ff., 10, 15, 20, 23, 25, 29, 33, 37, 46, 48, 55 battle of, 81, 144, 320, 321

Nikouses, Panagiotes, 195, 365

Ninoslav, Matthew, 471 ff.

Nio, lady of, 176

Niobe, 539

Nish, 20, 149, 446, 447, 454

Nitardus, bishop of Thermopylæ, 253

Nivelet, Guy de, 72

Nizam-djedid, the, 366, 367

Nointel, marquis de, 387, 388, 396

Normans, the, 34, 49 ff., 54, 67, 232, 261, 275, 276, 441, 525, 534, 536, 542, 549

Norwegians, 48

Noukios, secretary, 220

Novakovich, M., 453

Novara, Giovanni of, 331

Novelles, family of de, 122, 157 Ermengol de, 157

Novello, Jacopo di, 219

Novi, 461

Novibazar, 442, 445, 448, 449, 460 n., 462, 464, 477, 480, 549

Novo Brdo, 452, 457

Nymphæum, treaty of, 283, 284, 314

Obilich, 455 n.

Ochrida, 50, 273, 429 Bulgarian patriarchate of, 361 n.

Octavian, emperor, 6, 15

Octavian, see Augustus

Oddo, bishop of Verdun, 233

Odeion of Herodes Atticus (Serpentzes), 15, 54, 153, 396 of Perikles, 3, 153

Odescalchi, prince, 511

Odoacer, 463

Œcumenical Patriarch, the, 147, 154, 174, 209, 241, 324, 359, 361, 372, 384, 392, 405, 415, 420, 424, 448

Œneus, fortress, 429

Œnoussai, the, 290, 300

Œta, Mount, 115

Oliverio, Giovanni, 303 Pietro, 304

Olympia, 3, 10, 11, 15, 25, 26, 30, 71

Olympiads, the, 25

Olympian Zeus, temple of (Palace of Hadrian), 7, 141, 147, 396, 410

Olympic games, 24

Olympos, 117

Omar, son of Turakhan, 102, 104, 151, 152 Beg of Aïdin, 293 Pasha, 494

Opilio, senator, 430

Opuntian Lokris, 76, 111

Orbini, historian, 458, 473

Orchan (Orkhan), sultan, 315, 362

Orchomenos, 3

Orient, prefecture of the, 21

Origen, 84, 148

Orlando, statue of, 498

Oropos, 144, 161

Orsini, family of, 84 John I, 262, 263 II, 83, 434 Matthew (Maio, Majo, Matteo), 69, 202, 232, 262, 263 Nicholas, 263 Richard, 262

Orthodox Church, the, 63, 77, 152, 197, 209, 231, 359 ff., 417, 452

Ossa (Kissavos), 545, 549

Ostia, 503

Ostoja, Stephen, of Bosnia, 482 ff.

Ostojich, Radivoj, of Bosnia, 484, 487, 490 Stephen, of Bosnia, 484 Stephen Thomas, of Bosnia, 484 ff., 508

Ostrogoths, the, 29, 33, 463

Ostrvitza, 497

Otranto, 219, 430, 438, 535

Oupravda, 534

Ovid, 429 Metamorphoses, 414

Oxford, Balliol College, 540 Lincoln College, 372, 392

Pachymeres, historian, 448

Pachys, St, 165

Padua, 211, 213, 311, 507

Palaiokastrizza, monastery, 199

Palaiokastro, 329, 340, 343, 344, 350, 353

Palaiologina, Anna, 434 gate of, 282 Eudokia, 279

Palaiologos, family of, 102 ff., 115, 149, 237, 240, 329, 334, 351, 352, 381, 390, 411 Andrew, 106, 240, 500, 513, 514 Andronikos II, 94, 108, 117 ff., 235, 278, 279, 286, 287, 381, 433, 449 III, 236, 278, 291 ff., 320 n., 434 IV, 280, 307, 317 Asan, 433 Constantine XI, 100 ff., 146, 149, 159, 307, 329, 334, 498 Constantine, son of Andronikos II, 433 Demetrios, 102, 104 ff., 238, 239, 297, 298, 343, 344, 350, 353, 416, 498 George, 544 Graitzas, 105, 368 Helen, 502 John V, emperor, 269, 278, 299, 306, 313 ff., 450 VI, emperor, 100, 160, 306, 329, 332 John, despot of Selymbria, 321 ff. Manuel II, emperor, 98, 99, 237, 278, 280, 321 ff. Manuel, governor of Monemvasia, 239 son of Thomas, 106, 500 Maria, 314 Michael VIII, 79, 92, 93, 115, 233 ff., 283 ff., 314, 432, 448 Mohammed, 106 Simonis, 449 Theodore I, 98, 136, 139, 236, 237 II, 100, 107, 238, 502 Thomas, 100, 102 ff., 218, 238 ff., 368, 498 ff., 505, 513, 514 Zoe (Sophia), 368, 500, 505, 508, 513, 514

Palaiopolis, 220

Palamas, Gregorios, theologian, 269

Palamedi, 424, 425

Palazzo del Santo Piede, Naples, 513

Paleochora, 265

Palermo, 52, 57, 110, 126, 155, 265, 434

Palestine, 67, 171, 377, 516 ff.

Pallantion, 14

Pallavicini, family of, 251, 257, 312 Alberto, 119, 249, 250, 257 Guglielma, 250 ff. Guido, marquess, 59, 62, 245, 247, 248 Isabella, 249 Mabilia, 249 Manfredo, 252 Marulla, 252 Rubino, 247, 249 Tommaso, 249 Ubertino, 248, 249

Palmann, 452

Panaia (Canaia), 161, 246

Pannonia, 461, 462

Pantheon, 13, 333

Papadopouloi, family of the, 188, 189

Papageorgiou, 269 n.

Papamichalopoulos, K., 231

Papaplis, D. Lorenzo, 411

Paparregopoulos, K., historian, 73, 77, 88, 107, 550

Paphlagonia, 536

Parga, 194, 204, 205, 217, 219, 222, 373, 403, 417

Paris, 31, 114, 230, 369, 381 n., 455 Matthew, 66 Robert of, count, 540

Parma, 59, 245, 249

Parnassos, 53, 63, 119, 137, 246

Paros, 84, 148, 162, 170, 172 ff., 194, 365, 398, 399

Parthenon (Our Lady of Athens), 3, 4, 25, 30, 31, 46, 54, 61, 63, 65, 66, 112, 113, 137 ff., 148, 152, 156, 158, 273, 378, 387, 394 ff., 407 ff., 411 ff., 415

Parthian war, the, 12

Paruta, historian, 241, 266, 374, 377

Pashalik of Thessaly, 104

Passarovitz, peace and treaty of, 69, 196, 204, 225 ff., 268, 426, 442, 497

Passau, 72

Passavâ, 72, 89, 380, 404

Patarenes, see Bogomiles

Pateroi, family of the, 188, 189

Pateropouloi, family of the, 186

Patesia, 142

Patras, 2, 6, 13, 15, 17, 26, 33, 34, 40 ff., 45, 53 ff., 71, 72, 89, 94, 100 ff., 106, 124, 156, 194, 200, 219, 227, 356, 380, 397, 398, 405, 414, 415, 418 ff., 499 archbishops of, 78, 84, 89, 249, 376

Patrikios, Petros, historian, 269

Patris, admiral, 441

Patti, 519

Patzinaks, the, 536

Pau, Don Pedro de, 130, 156, 157

Paul, metropolitan, 275 II, pope, 372, 502, 508, 509, 512, 514 III, pope, 209 IV, pope, 439 V, pope, 309, 382, 506 St, 9, 10, 16, 184, 270, 271, 392, 410, 500

Paula, 25

Paullus, Æmilius, 429

Pausanias, 13, 15, 16, 30, 141, 147

Pavia, 311

Paxo, 69, 202, 209, 214, 215, 220, 227

Paynim, the, 289

Pedemontano, Francesco, 330

Pedro IV of Aragon, 127 ff., 141, 152, 158, 253, 254 the Cruel of Castile, 158

Pegalotti, 79, 422

Peisistratos, 13, 64, 111

Pelagonia, 249, 430

Pellestello (Cape Sunium), 83

Peloponnese, the, 1, 6, 7, 13, 15, 26, 34 ff., 39 ff., 43 ff., 52, 53, 59, 60, 67, 68, 86, 87, 91, 97 ff., 112, 115, 116, 147, 204, 231, 232, 234 ff., 275, 290, 368, 375, 382 ff., 423, 513, 524, see Morea, the

Peña y Farel, 131

Peneios (Salamvrias), 545

Pentele, monastery of, 378

Pera, 294, 296, 307, 314, 319, 328, 333

Perikles, 23, 33, 54, 66, 113, 410 the Odeion of, 3, 153

Peroules, family of, 414 Spyridon, 407

Perseus, 381 n., 429

Persia, and the Persians, 32, 33, 145, 162, 193, 413, 443

Peruzzi, the, 79

Pesaro, Antonio da, 176 Benedetto, 438

Pescatore, Enrico, 178, 283

Pescennius Niger, 17

Petalas, 264

Petch, 451, see Ipek

Peter, envoy of Justinian, 429 of Aragon, 235 of Bulgaria, see Bodin, Constantine of Courtenay, emperor, 90 II of Sicily, 158 St, 10, 17 chair of, 78 Thomas, St, bishop, 317

Peterborough, Benedict of, 61, 262

Petrarch, 184

Petrovich, Vasilj, 458

Petty, William, 381

Phaidros, archon, 18

Phaleron, 387, 397, 409, 425

Phanar, the, 360

Phanari, 420

Phaneromene, monastery of, 397

Pharsala (-os), 5, 33, 62, 254

Pharygæ, 245

Pheræ, the ancient, 62

Phidias, 30, 395, 543

Philadelphia, 299

Philaras, Leonardos, 382

Philip IV of France, 286 VI of France, 293

Philip of Macedon, 63, 96, 119 of Navarre, 531 of Savoy, 81, 94, 95, 250 II of Spain, 374 I of Taranto, 95, 97, 201, 250, 290, 433 II of Taranto, 158, 200, 201

Philippi, 6

Philippicus, emperor, 37

Philippopolis, 336, 541, 548

Philopappos (Arch of Trajan), 407, 410 Antiochos, 13

Philopator, 3

Phiskardo, 50, 540

Phocæa, 285 ff., 294 ff., 299, 300, 313, 500 ff., see Foglia

Phokas, Nikephoros, emperor, 44, 45, 47, 178, 191, 534

Phokis, 16

Pholegandros, 174

Pholoe, Mt, 26

Phrantzes, George, historian, 35, 100, 104, 105, 146, 151 n., 160, 218, 231, 237, 239, 329, 359, 369, 505, 513

Phthiotis, 115

Phyle, 112, 114

Piacenza, 268

Pialì Pasha, 174, 308

Piedmont, 94, 95

Pieri, Mario, historian, 212

Pikermi, 390

Pinakotheke (arsenal of Lycurgus), the, 145, 410

Pindos, 25

Pinerolo, 95

Pines, 461

Piræus (Porto Leone or Porto Drako), 3, 5, 21, 24, 36, 48, 54, 64, 66, 76, 111, 124, 130, 139, 144, 151, 232, 396, 405, 406, 409 ff., 413

Pisa, and the Pisans, 50, 51, 144, 275, 380, 523

Pisani, admiral, 225, 226

Pisani, Carlo, 438

Piso, emperor, 4, 19, 270

Pitti, family of, 144 Laudamia, 160, 161 Nerozzo, 154, 161

Pius, Antoninus, 14, 141 II, pope, 239, 288, 311, 341, 343, 344, 349, 372, 487, 497, 500, 501, 503, 504, 510 V, pope, 374

Plaka, 394

Platæa, battle of, 12, 22

Plato, 14, 16, 31, 32, 99, 113, 192, 327, 442, 514, 537, 541, 542

Plethon, George Gemistos, 99

Plevlje, 462

Pliny, the elder, 429

Pliska, 548

Pliskova, 548

Pliva, river, 481

Plotinos, hagiographer, 269

Plutarch, 12, 53, 198, 524

Pnyx, the, 407

Podgoritza, 444, 447

Podochatoro, Lodovico, 507

Poitiers, battle of, 125

Poland, and the Poles, 106, 149, 403, 424, 443, 477

Polemon, 539, 542

Poli, 372

Polinos, 174

Poljitza, 457

Pollux, 45

Polybios, historian, 1, 2, 12, 537

Polydoros, tomb of, 331

Polygnotos, painter, 16, 30

Pompei, Count Tomaso, 409

Pompey, 4, 5, 50

Ponte dell’ Ammiraglio, 52

Ponte Molle, the, 106

Porcacchi, 267

Poros, 413, 414

Porphyrogenitus, Constantine VII, emperor, 32, 39, 44, 46, 430, 442, 443, 464

Porte, the, 150, 174, 192, 194, 195, 221, 308

Porto, bishop of, 510 delle Quaglie, 373 Drako, see Piræus Leone, see Piræus Raguseo, 430, 434

Portugal, and the Portuguese, 210, 275, 502

Poseidon, statue of, 413 temple of, 8

Potamo, 219, 224

Pou, Pedro de (Petrus de Puteo), 126, 157

Poulains, the, 523, 524, 525

Pouqueville, traveller, 154, 225 n., 378, 429, 430, 439

Pozzi, the, 307

Prætorians, the, 364

Prato, Jacopo da, 156 Ludovico da, 139, 156

Praxagoras, historian, 21

Praxina, lady, 511

Predelli, Signor, 155

Preliub, 451

Premarini, family of, 266

Prenk Bib Doda, Mirdite prince, 536

Prêslav, 444, 548

Prespa, lake of, 444

Prevesa, 205, 217, 223, 225, 228, 356, 380, 404, 417, 426

Prijesda I, 473 II, 473

Prilip, 454

Primorje, 511

Prinkipo, island, 40, 536

Prishtina, 449, 450, 456

Pristhlava, Great, 548

Priuli, Antonio, 195 n.

Prizren, 446, 449, 454

Prodromos, Theodore, 446

Proklos, 31, 32, 84

Prokopios, Secret History, 534

Propylæa, the, 7, 65, 76, 141, 145, 148, 396, 408, 409

Protimo, Nicolò, of Eubœa, 151

Protonotários, 37

Provence, 59, 472, 508

Prussia, 529

Psara (Santa Panagia), island, 300, 301, 358

Psaromelingos, Michael, 182

Psellos, Michael, philosopher, 43, 49, 357, 535, 537, 538

Pteleon, 256

Ptolemy, 108, 429

Pulati, 405

Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius, 30

Puteo, Petrus de, see Pou, Pedro de

Pylos, 97, 107 ff., 235, see Navarino

Pyrgos, the tower of, 435, 436

Pyrrha, 161

Pythagoras, 153

Quarnero, the, 480

Quartus, 9

Quietists (Hesychasts), 279

Quintilian, 514

Quintus Metellus, 4

Quirini, the, 175 archbishop, 210, 211, 213 Nicolò, 166

Radak, prince, 489

Radakovitza, cliff of, 489

Radich, Abraham, 509

Radivoj Ostojich of Bosnia, 484, 487, 490

Raffaele of Quarto, 317

Ragusa, 433, 434, 436, 452, 456, 457, 466, 468 ff., 472, 474, 478 ff., 488, 498, 508, 511

Ralles, Demetrios, 369 Michael, 368

Rama, 467

Rampano, castle of, 240

Randazzo, Frederick of, 126 John of, 126, 158

Randolph, traveller, 196, 268, 387, 391, 395, 397, 399

Rapallo, 308

Rashka, river, 442, 445

Rassia, or Rascia (also see Serbia), 445, 450, 549

Raugraf von der Pfalz, Col., 407

Raunach, baron, 497

Ravenna, exarchate of, 271

Ravenika, parliament of, 113, 247, 248

Raymond of Toulouse, count, 516 II of Tripolis, count, 522

Recanelli, Pietro, 304, 306

Rechid Pasha, 440

Red Sea, 516, 517, 523

Regina, duke of, 265, 513

Renaud, baron of Sagette, 531

Rendi, Demetrios, notary, 127, 128 Maria, 139

Renier, Sebastiano, 243

Rethymno, 184, 186 ff., 192, 194, 356

Rhanghaves, K., The Duchess of Athens, 116, 146 n., 257

Rheims, cathedral of, 407

Rhiza, the, 186

Rhodes, 167, 176, 184, 289, 298, 301, 335, 344, 356, 400, 503, 505

Rhoïdes, Venizelos, 414

Rhoka, 44

Rhyndakenos, Joannes Laskaris, 297, 331, 339, 344, 353

Richard I “Cœur-de-Lion” of England, 71, 498, 517, 526, 528

Richard, count of Acerra, 276

Richelieu, 382

Richeriane, Pandette, 295

Rideford, Girard de, 522

Risal, M., 269 n.

Rive d’Ostre (Livadostro), 76, 111, 144

Robert of Geneva, 158 king of Naples, 80, 433 count of Paris, 540 III of Scotland, 502 of Taranto, prince of Achaia, 109, 169, 201, 202, 263

Rocaforte, 133

Roger, king of Sicily, 51, 52, 430

Rogus, castle of, 510

Roman church, the, 91 civil wars, 17 conquest, 18 senate, 20

Romania, empire of, 58, 77, 82, 116, 117, 163, 180, 321, 450

Romania, Assizes of, 122 Book of the Customs of the Empire of, 71, 73, 112, 250

Romano, Casimiro, historian, 510

Romanos II, emperor, 47, 534 III, emperor, 445

Romans, empress of the, 136

Romans, Epistle to the, 10

Rome, 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 50, 74, 94, 106, 116, 139, 198, 240, 270, 272, 299, 309, 317, 332, 355, 357, 361, 368, 369, 374, 375, 429, 443, 447, 454, 460 ff., 472, 480, 487, 497 ff., 531 the Borgo, 497, 514 Botteghe Oscure, 512 Chapel of S. Eugenia in the SS. Apostoli, 515 Lateran gate, 512 Palazzo Spinola, 506 Piazza Scossa Cavalli, 506 Ponte Milvio, 500 the Quirinal, 515 S. Agata in Subura, 515 Santo Spirito hospital, 500, 507, 511, 512, 514 Via Appia, 515 Via Ardeatina, 515 Via Pellicciaria, 512 Via S. Marco, 513 Vicolo Scanderbeg, 512 also see Churches

Roquebrune, village, 298

Rosso, Castel, see Karystos

Roumania, and the Roumanians, 20, 60, 361, 370

Roumelia, Eastern, 443

Roupel, fort, 273

Roussillon, 119, 122

Roustavéli, Chota, poet, 66

Rozières, Gautier de, 72

Rubió y Lluch, Don Antonio, 127, 155 ff.

Rumeli, castle of, 417

Rumili, beglerbeg of, 355, 356

Russia, and the Russians, 106, 227, 228, 230, 272, 367, 368, 377, 424, 427, 514

Ruthenians, duke of the, 514

Rycaut, Sir Paul, 364, 407

Sacred Way, the, 141

Saewulf, Icelandic pilgrim, 47

Sagette, 521, 531

Sagredo, historian, 374, 424

Saguntino, Nicholas, 514

Said Achmet Pasha, 336

St Abraham, see Hebron

St Achilleios, 47

St Andrew, 17, 41, 106

S. Angelo, duca di, 513

St Bartholomew, chapel of, 129

St Basil, lake, 273

St Dionysios, 31

St George, 31 bank of, 305, 309, 341 ff., 498, 501 banner of, 308, 313 church of, 117 harbour of, 346 order of, 129 seal of, 122

St Gilles, comte de, 548

St Jerome, 25, 33

St John the Evangelist, 288, 331, 501 the Merciful, 528 the Hunter, monastery of, 114 knights of, 73, 84, 89, 128, 167, 171, 296, 318, 373, 401, 518, 528

St Luke, 10, 141, 510; the younger, 45

St Mark, the lion-banner of, 68, 183, 201, 202, 221, 229, 230, 240, 243, 266, 335, 399, 401, 409, 456

St Martin of Tours, church of, 79

St Mary of Bethlehem, knights of, 343

St Nicholas of Bari, 93

St Nikon, 45, 46, 53 monastery of, 45

St Omer, castle of, 84, 125 family of, 75, 77, 80, 112, 113, 521 Jacques de, 58, 63 Nicholas I de, 58, 63, 81, 94 Nicholas II de, 76, 108, 117 Othon de, 117 tower at Thebes, 94

St Paul, see Paul, St

St Peter, 10, 17 Thomas, bishop, 317

Saint-Sauveur, M., consul, 226, 227

St Sava, duke of, 485, 492, 499, 509, 510 of Serbia, 447, 448, 454, 477

St Spiridion, 209, 210, 218, 225

St Theodora, 218, 271, 281

St Theodore, 52, 62

St Thomas of Canterbury, 518, 529

St Willibald, bishop of Eichstätt, 35

SS. Apostoli, monastery of the, 515

SS. Theodores, castle of the, 348 ff.

Saïtan Oglou, see Cantacuzene, Michael

Sala (De La Salle), 425

Saladin, 517, 519, 523, 526, 528, 531

Salamis (Culuris), 36, 66, 117, 236, 390, 397, 413, 414, 416

Salamvrias (Peneios), 545

Salic law, the, 93, 127

Sallust, 69, 173

Salmenikon, castle of, 106

Salona (La Sole), 63, 80, 83, 85, 111, 119, 121, 123, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 137, 254, 257, 375, 376, 395, 397, 461 ff. Thomas of, 117

Salonika, 18, 37, 44, 53, 54, 58, 59, 63, 110, 113, 199, 268 ff., 318, 322, 323, 356, 360, 443, 447, 449, 450, 514 archbishop of, 31 king of, 67, 87, 110, 245, 248 “The Triangle,” 281 the Vardar gate, 270, 271 the “White Tower” or “the Tower of Blood,” 281

Samareia tower, the, 281

Samaria, bishop of, 281 n.

Samarkand, 323

Samos, 290, 296, 300, 301, 366

Samothrace (Sanctus Mandrachi), 83, 297, 306, 326, 327, 331, 338 ff., 344, 350, 351, 353

Samuel, tsar of Bulgaria, 47, 50, 272, 273, 430, 444, 466, 480

San Ciriaco, 503, 504

San Felice, count di, 407, 411

San Gallo, 148, 413

San Gerolamo degli Schiavoni, hospital of, 509

San Giorgio, Banca di, 298, 505

San Michele di Murano, 176

San Nicolo, fortress of, 424

San Pietro, Montorio, 514

San Rocco, 220

San Salvatore, 224, 226

Sancho IV of Castile, 286

Sangallo, 65

Sant’ Andrea della Valle, 500

Sant’ Angelo, castle of, 199, 202, 205, 218, 219, 372

Sant’ Ippolito, family of, 202

Sta Maria degli Angeli, 503

Sta Maria del Popolo, 507 di Castello, district of, 284

Santa Maura (Levkas), 69, 81, 106, 202 ff., 216, 217, 222, 223, 225, 226, 230, 263, 356, 375, 403, 417, 426

Santa Panagia, see Psara

Santameri, castle of, 105 mountains, 77, 94 tower at Thebes, 117, 163

Santo Stefano, knights of, 380

Santorin, 38, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 176, 267, 400

Sanudo, family of (dukes of Naxos), 68, 69, 164, 170 Angelo, 164, 232 Dandolo, 68, 162 Fiorenza, 81, 168, 169 Giovanni I, 167, 168, 170 Guglielmo, 165, 167 Marco I, 68, 162, 163, 166, 180 II, 90, 164 ff., 170 Maria, 170 Marino, historian, 75, 78, 83, 90, 92, 177, 246, 289 Nicolò I, 167, 169, 289, 291, 294 II “Spezzabanda” 169, 184

Sanuto, Diarii, 175, 176

Sapienza, island of, 90, 426

Sappho, 343, 533, 537, 539

Saraceno, Pietro, 130

Saracens, the, 40, 43 ff., 218, 273, 274, 286, 325, 432, 522, 524 ff., 530, 532

Sarajevo, 455, 462, 484, 485, 490, 492, 494 ff.

Sarantaporon, battle of, 270

Saronic gulf, 5, 9, 114, 236, 405

Sarpi, Fra Paolo, 192

Saru-Khan, 294

Saseno, island, 429, 430, 435, 436, 438, 440, 441

Sathas, historian, 98, 371

Satines (Sethines, Setines, Sithines, Sythines), 83, 109, 135, 143, 150, also see Athens

Satti, 437

Sauger, historian, 266

Save, river, 446, 451, 461 ff., 473, 474, 481, 488, 493, 496, 497

Savona, 314

Savoy, 82, 94, 323, 498, 502 ff.

Saxony, 443

Scandinavians, 525

Scarampi, Lodovico, cardinal, 340, 344, 501

Scaramuccia, 307

Schabachtana, 517

Schlumberger, M., 257, 521, 535, 550

Schmitt, Dr, 70, 86, 93, 108

Scholarios, Georgios, 359

Schulenburg, Count John Matthias von der, 223 ff., 228, 413, 426

Scio, 391

Scotland, and the Scots, 368, 502, 503, 525

Scott, Sir Walter, 539, 540, 547 Count Robert of Paris, 534 The Talisman, 526

Scutari, 299, 435, 437, 444, 445, 451, 454, 456, 498, 549

Scythian wars, the, 19

Scythians (Cumans), 536, 541, 546

Sebastiani, 268

Secundus, 270

Selenitza, 429

Selim II, sultan, 174, 366, 373

Selino, 181, 186

Seljuks, the, 446

Selymbria, 100, 321, 322

Semendria, 442, 456, 457, 487

Sempovich, Helena, 509, 511

Seneca, 9

Sepolia, 142

Septimius Severus, 17

Serbia (Rassia), and the Serbs, 41, 59, 100, 137, 253, 272, 276, 279, 281, 299, 316, 345, 361, 370, 427, 434, 441 ff., 460, 461, 463 ff., 472 ff., 483 ff., 493, 494, 497 ff., 508, 511, 512, 549

Sergeant, family of, 214

Sergius, 341

Seriphos, 8

Serpentzes (Odeion of Herodes Atticus), 15, 54, 153, 396

Serres, 450

Sestri Ponente, 314, 324, 351

Sethines, see Satines

Sette Pozzi, 284

Severus, Alexander, 17 Septimius, 17

Sforza, Francesco, 153, 159, 328 Galeazzo Maria, 303, 509

Sgouros, clan of, 55 Leon, 62, 63, 65, 67, 87, 88, 90, 156, 245

Shakespeare, 69, 114, 541 A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 64

Sharon, 520

Shechem, see Nâbulus

Shishman, John, 316

Shubich, family of, 473, 474 Mladen, 474 Paul, 474

Sibylla, princess, 519

Sicily, 2, 4, 36, 51, 54, 68, 93, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 130, 158, 200, 232, 253, 261, 262, 275, 373, 374, 430, 431, 441, 527

Side, 235

Sidon, 517, 518, 521

Siena, 145

Sigismund, emperor, 309 king of Hungary, 481 ff. son of Stephen Thomas of Bosnia, 508, 509

Sikinos, 174

Sikyon, 4, 5, 101, 139

Silas, 9, 270

Silius Italicus, 429

Silvester II, pope, 540

Simeon, Zeno, 198 n.

Simokatta, Theophylact, historian, 35, 36

Simon, archbishop of Thebes, 158

Simonides, 167

Simplikios, philosopher, 32

Sinan Beg, 495 Pasha (the Arnaut), admiral, 438, 440

Sinj, 461

Siphnos, 167, 174, 384

Sirmium, 20

Sis, court of, 526

Siscar, Raymond de, 341

Sistova, 497

Sixtus II, pope, 17 IV, pope, 502, 506, 507, 509, 511, 512, 514, 515

Sjenitza, 488

Skanderbeg, 103, 104, 149, 399, 437, 480, 498, 499, 512

Skaramangka, Mount, 390

Skaramangkou torrent, the, 310

Skarpanto, 250

Skiathos, 173, 246

Skironian cliffs, the, 13, 397

Skleros, poet, 198

Skopelos, 164, 173, 246

Skopje (Skoplje), 299, 442, 449 ff.

Skordiloi, the, 188

Skorta, 72, 89, 95

Skouphos, Rhetoric, 198

Skylitzes, John, historian, 275, 538, 549

Skyros, 19, 335, 395

Slavesians, 46

Slavochorio, 59

Slavonia, 481, 491, 493, 496, 497

Slavs, the, 33 ff., 39 ff., 47, 59, 68, 72, 91, 224, 271, 272, 274, 275, 278, 365, 443, 446, 454, 463, 464, 494

Smyrna, 283, 285, 286, 293, 296, 298, 300, 313, 317, 351, 409, 425

Sobieski, 403

Sobiewolsky, Hessian lieutenant, 408

Sofia, 355

Sokolli, Mohammed, 375

Sokolovich, family of, 495

Sokrates, gymnasium of, school of, see Tower of the Winds

Soli (Tuzla), 473, 483

Solomon, king, 516 the Song of, 529

Solon, 71, 112, 153

Sommaripa, family of, 170, 172, 174, 267 Crusino, 148 Euphrosyne, 254 Giovanfrancesco, 266

Sonetti, Bartolomeo dalli, 310

Sophianos, 233

Sophocles, 237, 537

Sosipater, bishop of Ikonium, 10

Soter, Arsinöe, 332 Ptolemy, 332

Spain, and the Spaniards, 43, 106, 130, 135, 154, 193, 210, 275, 286, 361, 372, 374, 376, 381 ff., 439

Spalato, 461, 463, 466, 469, 470, 472, 479, 481, 482

Spandugino (Spandounis), Theodore, 263, 369

Spantounes, tomb of, 281

Sparre, Charles, general, 439

Sparta, 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 19, 26, 31, 45 ff., 53, 102, 114, 116, 149, 228, 397, 533

Spata, 146

Spercheios, river, 47

Spetsai, island, 358

Spetsopoulo (Sette Pozzi), 284

Sphakia, and the Sphakiotes, 44, 186, 188, 189, 194

Spinalonga, 178, 191, 196, 403, 417, 422, 426

Spinarza, hills and district of, 431, 433

Spinola, 307

Spinula, Percivalis, 295

Spiridion, St, 209, 210, 218, 225

Spon, Dr, traveller, 24 n., 214, 267, 380, 386 ff., 391, 393, 394, 398, 410, 411, 413

Sporades, 246, 373

Spretcha, river, 483

Srebrenik, 478, 491, 492

Srebrenitza, 483, 484

Stadion, the, 15, 141

Stagno, 466

Stambûl, 109, 496

Stamford Bridge, battle of, 48, 64

Stampalia, 175

Standia, 195

Statius, 9, 462

Staurakios, 39, 40

Steel, Mr D., 132

Stephanas, 9

Stephanopouloi, the, 384, 385

Stephen, ban of Bosnia, 471 captain of the “Helladikoi,” 38 doctor, 36 Ostoja of Bosnia, 482 ff. Ostojich of Bosnia, 484 Thomas Ostojich of Bosnia, 484 ff., 508 Tomashevich of Bosnia, 457, 486 ff., 508

Stilicho, general, 25, 26

Stiris, 46

Stoa Poikile, the, 16, 30

Strabo, geographer, 6, 15, 39

Stradioti, the, 368, 369

Strategós, 37

Stratia, 221

Stromoncourts, the, 137

Stromoncourt, Thomas de, 59, 63, 119

Struma, river, 273, 276

Stuart, 378, 388 n.

Studenitza, monastery of, 447

Studita, Theodore, 269

Stylida, 246

Stylites, 45

Stymphalos, lake, 13

Suda, 191, 192, 196, 403, 417, 422, 426 bay, 43, 187, 188, 191 ff.

Suetonius, 461

Suidas, 371

Suli, rock of, 204

Suleyman, son of Bayezid I, sultan, 254, 255, 280 the Magnificent, 106, 172, 219, 365, 438

Sulla, 3, 5, 13, 15, 18, 119

Sulpicia, 534

Sunium, Cape (Pellestello or Cape Colonna), 83

Superan, Pedro Bordo de, 97, 100, 128

Sutjeska, 478, 490

Svernetsi, 431

Sweden, Charles XII of, 223

Sykaminon, barony and castle of, 144, 146, 154, 161

Sylvius, Æneas, 504

Symeon, tsar of Bulgaria, 272, 430, 444, 466, 480 liturgical writer, 269

Synesios, philosopher, 27, 31

Syra, 162, 165, 166, 312, 400

Syracuse, count of, 180

Syria, and the Syrians, 68, 170, 177, 295, 303, 325, 519 ff., 525 ff., 532

Syriane, see Kaisariane

Tabarie, see Tiberias

Tabor, Mt, 528, 531

Tacitus, 544 emperor, 20

Tafel, 269 n.

Tafrali, 269 n.

Tafur, Pero, traveller, 329

Tagliacozzo, 73

Talmud, the, 53

Tancred of Antioch, 521, 524, 528, 531

Taphians, the pirate, 223, 403

Tara, river, 446, 460

Taranto, house of, 97 Bohemond of, 516 Charles of, 133 Manfred of, 431 Philip I of, 95, 97, 201, 250 II of, 158, 200, 201 Robert of, 109, 169, 201, 202, 263

Taronites, 414

Tarsus, 10, 275, 516

Tartarin of the Zaccaria, the, 286

Tartaro, Arrigo, 294

Tartars, the, 300, 318, 456, 472

Tasso, 368

Tatoi, 389 n.

Taygetos, Mt, 35, 42, 59, 68

Tchajnitza, 495

Tchaslav, prince of Serbia, 444, 465 ff.

Tegea, 6, 72, 92, 114

Temenos, fortress, 44, 163, 179

Tempe, the vale of, 13, 59, 62, 119

Templars, Knights, 73, 89, 248, 518, 528, 529

Temple of Nike Apteros, 65, 145, 153, 396, 407

Tenedos, 185, 290, 301, 307, 313, 314, 317, 325, 534

Tenos, island of, 8, 69, 83, 148, 152, 164, 175, 194, 255, 265 ff., 357, 373, 398 ff., 403, 417, 424, 426

Teodoro, Nicolò di S., 304 Pietro di S., 304

Terciers, the, 69

Termes, Raimond de, 433

Tertius, 9

Teutonic Knights, 68, 73, 89, 529

Thamar, daughter of Nikephoros I, 433

Thasos, island, 288, 297, 306, 330 ff., 335, 336, 340, 341, 344, 350, 351, 353

Theagenes, 31, 32

Thebes (Estives), and the Thebans, 4, 10, 15, 25, 33, 37, 38, 45, 48, 50 ff., 60, 63, 75 ff., 82 ff., 94, 95, 100 ff., 108, 112 ff., 116 ff., 121, 123, 125, 127 ff., 131, 133, 134, 139, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 151, 153, 157 ff., 163, 247, 249, 253, 356, 398, 406 ff., 521, 533 archbishop of, 293 congress of, 317

Themes, military districts, 37, 44

Themistokles, the haven of, 111 the palace of, 153

Theodatus, 429

Theodora, consort of Justinian, 534 daughter of Constantine VIII, 535 St, 218, 271 relics of, 281

Theodore, St, the Warrior, 62 relics of, 52

Theodoric, 29, 463

Theodoricus, actor, 352

Theodosian Code, the, 27

Theodosios, deacon, 45

Theodosius I, emperor, 24, 25, 271 II, emperor, 26, 30, 31

Theophano, empress, 40, 47

Theophilos, emperor, 218

Theophrastos, 3

Theotokes, Nikephoros, 213

Theotokopoulos, Domenicos (“El Greco”), 198

Therasia, 167

Thermia, 174, 266

Thermisi, 106, 422

Thermopylæ, 15, 18, 25, 29, 33, 34, 47, 62, 87, 101, 119, 200 n., 245 ff., 253, 255

Theseus, 13, 31, 64, 114, 413

Thespiæ, 8

Thessalonians, Epistles to the, 9

Thessalonike, wife of Kassander, 270

Thessaly, 5, 6, 12, 19 ff., 25, 29, 34, 37, 39, 50, 55, 59, 61, 62, 100, 115 ff., 130, 133, 151, 224, 245, 246, 248, 253, 277, 356, 358, 371, 451, 453, 546, 549 the Pashalik of, 104

Thévenot, 267

Thomais, wife of Symeon Urosh, 434

Thomas, despot of Epeiros, 433 of Salona, 117 St, of Canterbury, 518, 529

Thorn, Prussian fortress of, 529

Thou, de, 308

Thourion, the, 120

Thrace, 106, 318, 331, 336, 338, 344, 357, 498

Thracian sea, the, 313

Thrasyllos, monument of, 141

Thucydides, 19, 33, 44, 64, 99, 153, 162, 311, 537, 549

Thule (Britain), 549

Tiber, river, 20, 503

Tiberias (Tabarie), 517, 520, 530, 533

Tiberius, emperor, 7, 8, 12, 461

Tiepolo, duke of Crete, 178, 180

Tigris, river, 535

Timarion, 275

Timotheos, archbishop of Eubœa, 378

Timotheus, 9

Timour the Tartar, 99, 322, 323, 483

Timourtash, Turkish commander, 140

Tirana, 441

Tiryns, 16

Tithe, count of the, 223

Titus, 10, 183

Tocco, family of, 84, 148, 153, 203, 263, 325, 498, 499, 512, 513 Antonio, 203, 512 Carlo I, 136, 139, 146, 263, 265 II, 148, 263, 264, 356 III, 512, 513 Ferdinando, 513 Francesco, 265 Giovanni, 512 Leonardo I, 202, 216, 263 II, 265 III, 264, 438, 512 ff. IV (Giovanni), 513 Lucrezia, 513 Raymunda, 513

“Tokmak Hissari,” 104

Toledo, 203 n.

Tolfa, 502, 507

Toma, 491

Tomashevich, Stephen, of Bosnia, 457, 486 ff., 508

Tomislav, king of the Croats, 465, 466

Topia, Carlo, 435, 454

Toptani, Essad Pasha, 454

Toron, 521, 529

Torrigio, 507

Tortosa, 518, 529, 531

Totila, king of the Ostrogoths, 33

Tournai, siege of, 223

Tournay, Othon de, 72

Tournefort, 268, 424

Tours, church of St Martin at, 79

Tower of the Winds (School or Gymnasium of Sokrates), 7, 153, 410

Tozer, 107

Trachinian plain, the, 62

Trajan, emperor, 12, 13 arch of, see Philopappos

Trani, 432

Transylvania, 511

Traù, 479

Traversari, Ambrogio, 311

Travnik, 494

Trebizond, 58, 154, 163, 328, 329, 345, 349, 351, 360, 372, 499, 514

“Triangle, the,” 281

Triboles, Jacobo, 212

Trieste, 176

Trikkala, 356, 453

Tripoli, 275, 285, 380, 516 ff., 520, 522, 527 ff.

Tripolitsa, 116, 131, 406, 421

Triptolemos, temple of, 145, 388

Triumvirs, the, 6

Trnovo, 448, 451

Troad, the, 336

Troy, 141, 196, 345

Truhelka, Dr, 490

Tsaoush-Monastir, 281

Tübingen, 377

Tudela, Benjamin of, 52, 53, 60, 275, 527, 549

Tunis, and the Tunisians, 228, 285

Turakhan, Turkish commander, 99, 101 ff., 146, 151, 152

Turcoples, 527

Turin, 94, 95, 507 treaty of, 317

Turkey, and the Turks, 50, 51, 69, 73, 77, 80, 81, 88, 93, 98 ff., 135, 137 ff., 149 ff., 159, 160, 167, 170 ff., 182, 183, 186, 187, 192 ff., 202 ff., 207, 208, 213, 217 ff., 235, 240 ff., 245, 253 ff., 264 ff., 268 ff., 273, 274, 279 ff., 285 ff., 294, 300, 301, 305 ff., 313, 315 ff., 325, 329, 331, 333 ff., 355 ff., 403 ff., 412, 414 ff., 435 ff., 444, 446 ff., 451, 454 ff., 477, 479 ff., 483 ff., 499 ff., 504, 508, 511, 525, 527, 535, 536, 547

Tuscany, 96, 144, 385 grand duke of, 382

Tusculum, bishop of, 514

Tuzla, see Soli

Tvrtko I, Stephen, of Bosnia, 435, 454, 455, 473, 476 ff., 482, 483 II, Stephen, of Bosnia, 478, 483 ff.

Tyre, 284, 517 ff., 525 ff., 529, 530, 532, 541 William of, 446

Tzakones of Leonidi, the, 60, 72, 91, 98, 233

Tzakonia, 238

Tzympe, castle of, 451

Una, river, 496, 497

University of Athens, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 31, 32 of Bologna, 84 of Constantinople, 23, 31

Urban IV, pope, 181 V, pope, 317

Urfa, see Edessa

Uroglia (Gerovolia), 438

Urosh I, Stephen, of Serbia, 448 II (Stephen Milutin) of Serbia, 303, 448 ff., 452 III (Stephen “Detchanski”) of Serbia, 449 IV (Stephen Dushan) of Serbia, 253, 279, 299, 434, 441, 450 ff., 457, 475, 476, 480 V, Stephen, of Serbia, 451, 453, 454 Symeon, 434, 451, 453

Uscocs of Dalmatia, the, 380

Üsküb, the pasha of, 238 Isa of, 238

Usora, 473, 483

Usref, governor of Bosnia, 492, 493, 495

Uzes, the, 49

Valaincourt de Mons, Matthieu de, 72

Valaresso, Marino, 430

Val di Compare, 61, 261 ff., see Ithake

Vale of Tempe, the, 13

Valencia, 129

Valénia (Bâniyâs), 516

Valens, emperor, 19, 24, 25

Valentinian I, emperor, 22, 24

Valerian, emperor, 17, 18, 98, 148

Valéry, Erard de, 73

Valideh, sultan, 405

Valla, 514

Valle, Pietro della, 222

Valois, Catherine of, 97, 201, 252, 290

Valona, 193, 219, 429 ff.

Vandals, the, 29

Vaqueiras, Rambaud de, 59, 83

Vardar (Axios), river, 274, 278, 545 gate, the, 270, 271

Varna, battle of, 100, 149, 332

Vatatzes, emperor, 180, 283

Vathi, harbour, 265

Vatican, the, 65, 148, 156 ff., 272, 514 Sala di Costantino, 511

Vatika, 233, 238, 240

Velbujd, see Köstendil

Velestino, 37, 40, 62

Veligosti, 72

Venice, and the Venetians, 47 ff., 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 68 ff., 74, 76, 79 ff., 84, 89 ff., 98 ff., 106, 109, 111, 121, 123 ff., 131, 136, 137, 142, 143, 151, 162, 163, 165 ff., 181 ff., 212 ff., 225 ff., 239 ff., 251 ff., 261 ff., 275, 277, 280, 281, 283, 284, 286, 291, 299, 305, 306, 314, 316, 317, 324 ff., 340, 341, 346, 349 ff., 361 ff., 371 ff., 375, 377, 379, 383, 385, 393, 396, 398, 399, 401, 403 ff., 433 ff., 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 474, 475, 478, 480, 481, 483, 484, 486 ff., 498 ff., 504 ff., 523, 525, 532, 542, 548

Venier, family of, 69, 181, 204, 234, 235, 242, 245 admiral, 406 Tito, lord of Cerigo, 183, 184

Venizelos, M., 269, 440

Venus, 69, 204, 234, 242

Verdun, bishop Oddo of, 233

Verneda, engineer, 411, 413

Vernon, traveller, 387, 399

Verona, 69, 250 Boniface of, 117, 120, 121, 123, 133, 236 Marulla of, 81 Ravano dalle Carceri of, 59

Verres, 4

Verus, 15

Vespasian, emperor, 11, 12

Vespers, the Sicilian, 200, 285, 432

Vetones (pirates), 549

Vetrano, pirate, 55, 199, 283

Via Egnatia, the, 271

Viaro, family of, 234, 245

Vicolo Scanderbeg, the, 512

Victory, statue of, 413

Vid, 461, 465

Viddo, god, 465

Vido, islet, 219

Vienna, 403, 496

Vienne, the dauphin of, 253, 300

Vignoso, Simone, 299 ff., 306

Villani, 121

Villehardouin arms on church at Athens, 233 chronicler, 199 family of (princes of Achaia), 95 ff., 237, 238 Geoffroy I de, 67, 71, 72, 74, 78, 83, 87, 89, 90, 111, 202, 232 II de, 75, 78, 90, 91, 164, 232, 247, 248, 262 Guillaume (William) de, 73, 79, 80, 83, 91 ff., 95, 98, 105, 114, 115, 164, 166, 232, 233, 284, 432 Isabelle de, 80, 94, 95 Marguérite de, 80 Matilda of Hainault, 80, 95 ff.

Violarium, see Ionia

Visconti, Filippo Maria, 303

Vishevich, Michael, 465

Vitalis, Ordericus, 446

Viterbo, 93 treaty of, 116, 200, 263, 290, 431, 433

Vitry, Jacques de, bishop of Acre, 524 ff., 532

Vitturi, 142

Vitylos, port of, 237, 404

Vlachoi, dialect, 546

Vladimir, John, of Serbia, 444

Vladislav, king of Serbia, 448

Vlastos, John, 437

Vojislav, Michael, 445, 446 Stephen, 445

Vojussa (Aoos), river, 431, 435, 438, 545

Volaterranus, diarist, 513

Volo, 194, 383 gulf of, 246, 256

Voltaire, 77, 537

Voltri, 308

von der Pfalz, Col. Raugraf, 407

Vonitza, 205, 217, 225, 426

von Katzenellenbogen, Berthold, 58, 62 Koenigsmark, Countess, 408, 410 Otto William, 404, 407, 408, 409, 412, 414 Ranke, 408 Suchem, Ludolf, 140 n.

Vostitza (Aigion), 72

Voyslava, wife of Kulin of Bosnia, 471

Vranduk, 496

Vrbas, river, 462, 481, 490, 491, 493

Vrdnik, monastery of, 455

Vrhbosna, 483, 484, 494

Vuk, Stephen, 477

Vukan, 549

Vukashin of Serbia, 435, 454

Vuktchich, Hrvoje, 481 ff. Stephen, duke of St Sava, 485, 486, 488, 489, 491, 499, 508, 510 (Ahmed Pasha Herzegovich), son of Duke Stephen, 491, 492 Vladislav, 489, 491 Vlatko, 491, 492

Wadding, 512

Wâdi-Mehika, 516

Wallachia, and the Wallachs, 55, 59, 60, 115, 133, 149, 246, 345, 365, 382, 389, 393, 456, 499, 511, 549

Welsh, the, 525

Wheler, Sir George, 267, 386, 392, 410

Widman, Venetian governor of Corfù, 230

William, canon of Athens, 156 II of Sicily, 275 of Meerbeke, 84 of Montferrat, marquess, 248 of Tyre, archbishop, 446, 519, 520, 522, 524, 528, 530, 531 of Wied, prince, 440, 549 son of Frederick II of Sicily, 123 the Apulian, 544 the Conqueror, 49, 534

Willibald, St, bishop of Eichstätt, 35

Wilpert, Monsignor, 272

Winchelsea, Lord, 387

Winchester, bishop of, 171

Wine-trade at Monemvasia (also see Malmsey wine), 244

Wyse, Sir T., 233

Xanthopoulos, Nikephoros Kallistos, historian, 269

Xeromeros, 404

Xystos (Pope Sixtus II), 17

Yemen, the, 523

Yenidjé-Vardar, 281

York, archbishop of, 345 duke of, 399

Zabarella, biographer, 69

Zaccaria, family of, 283 ff., 300, 313, 326, 330, 337 Bartolommeo, 250, 251, 290 Benedetto I, 284 ff., 295, 296, 314 II, 289 ff., 296 Caterina, 218 Centurione, 100, 102, 103, 283, 293, 325 II, 500, 501 Clarisia, 295 cross of the, 288 Fulcho, 284 Giovanni Asan, 501, 502 Leonardo, 295 Manfred, 295 Manuele, 284, 285, 295, 296 Martino, 289 ff., 296 Nicolino, 287 ff., 295, 296 Odoardo, 295 Paleologo, 287, 288, 295, 296 Tedisio (Ticino), 287, 288, 295 ff., 501

Zachias, sultan, 382

Zacosta, Pierre-Raymond, 504

Zagan Pasha, 106, 153

Zahumlje, see Herzegovina

Zajablje, 459

“Zakonik,” the, 451

Zante (Zakynthos), 29, 53, 55, 69, 131, 162, 202, 203, 214 ff., 216 n., 221 ff., 226, 227, 229, 230, 242, 261 ff., 325, 413, 417, 501

Zara, 470, 474, 475, 479, 480, 482

Zarnata, 404, 420, 424

Zealots, the, 279

Zehn, German officer, 387

Zeitounion, see Lamia

Zemenos, bishopric of, 236

Zeno, doge, 181 governor of the Morea, 416 Carlo, 534 Pietro, 142, 170, 171

Zesiou, K., 269 n.

Zeta, see Montenegro

Zeus, 11 statue of, 25, 413 Olympios, temple of, 3, 13, 30, 31 Panhellenios, temple of, 14

Zia, island of, 176, 266

Zichna, district of, 339

Zlatica, village, 336

Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII, 535, 536

Zonaras, 545

Zonklon, see Navarino

Zorzi (Giorgio), family of, 63, 84, 151, 203, 255 ff. Chiara, 80, 150 Francesco, 252 ff. Giacomo, 254, 255 Nicolò I, 251 ff. II, 254, 255 son of Giacomo, 255

Zubravich, George, 509

Zvetchan, castle of, 450

Zvornik, 461, 484, 496

Zygavenos, monk, 542

Zygomalas, Theodosios, 36, 377 Political History of Constantinople from 1391 to 1578, 371

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us