Volume 1 — CHAPTER X. (continued 2)

The Ægæan dominion of the citizens of Genoa was longer lived than the Euxine dominion of Genoa herself. ♦Lesbos. 1354-1462.♦ The family of Gattilusio received Lesbos as an Imperial fief in the fourteenth century, and kept it till after the fall of Constantinople. But the most remarkable Genoese settlement in the Ægæan was that of Chios. ♦The Zaccaria at Chios. 1304-1346. The Maona. 1346-1566.♦ First held by princes of the Genoese house of Zaccaria, the island, with some of its neighbours, passed into the hands of a Genoese commercial company or Maona, a body somewhat like our own East India Company. ♦1566.♦ Samos, Kôs, and Phôkaia on the mainland, came at different times under their power, and Chios did not fall under the Ottoman yoke till the same year as the duchy of Naxos.

One more insular dominion remains, chiefly famous as the possession, not indeed of a commonwealth, but of an order. ♦Revolutions of Rhodes.♦ In a few years of the thirteenth century the island of Rhodes passed through all possible revolutions. ♦1233.♦ In the first moment of the Latin conquest, it became an independent Greek principality, like Epeiros and Trebizond. ♦1246.♦ Then it admitted the overlordship of the Nicene Emperors. ♦1249.♦ Seized by Genoa, it was presently won back to the Empire, till seventy years later it was again seized by the Knights of Saint John. ♦Establishment of the Knights, 1310. 1315.♦ From Rhodes as a centre, the order established its dominion over Kôs and some other islands, and on some points of the Asiatic coast, especially their famous fortress of Halikarnassos. ♦1480. 1522.♦ They beat back Mahomet the Conqueror, but they yielded to Suleiman the Lawgiver forty years later. ♦Their removal to Malta, 1530.♦ Banished from Rhodes, the order received Malta from Charles the Fifth as a fief of his Sicilian kingdom. We are thus brought back to the island which had been lost to the Eastern Empire for seven hundred years. ♦1566.♦ The knights in their new home beat back their former conqueror Suleiman, and kept their island till the times of confusion. ♦Revolutions of Malta. 1814.♦ Held by France, held by England, held, nominally at least, by its own Sicilian overlord, this fragment of the Empire of Leo and of the kingdom of Roger finally passed at the peace under the acknowledged rule of England.

§ 5. The Principalities of the Greek Mainland.

The Greek possessions of Venice, of Genoa, and of the Knights of Saint John, consisted mainly of islands and detached points of coast. The Venetian conquest of Peloponnêsos was the only exception on a great scale. In this they are distinguished from the several powers, Greek and Frank, which arose on the Greek mainland. We have already heard, and we shall hear again, of the Greek despotat of Epeiros, which for a moment grew into an Empire of Thessalonikê. Among the Latin powers two rose to European importance. ♦Duchy of Athens. Principality of Achaia.♦ These are the duchy of Athens in central Greece—in Hellas, according to the Byzantine nomenclature—and the principality of Achaia or Môraia in Peloponnêsos. ♦Use of the name Môraia.♦ This last name, of uncertain origin,[35] has come, in its Italian shape, to be a modern name of the peninsula itself. But the name of Môraia seems strictly to belong to the domain lands of the principality, and never to go beyond the bounds of the principality, which at no time took in the whole of Peloponnêsos.

Both these powers were founded in the first days of the Latin conquest, and the Turk did not finally annex the territories of either till after the fall of Constantinople. But while the Athenian duchy lived on to become itself the prize of Mahomet the Conqueror, the lands of the Achaian principality had already gone back into Greek hands. ♦Lordship of Athens. 1204-1205.♦ The lordship of Athens, founded by Otho de la Roche, was first a fief of the kingdom of Thessalonikê, then of the Empire of Romania. ♦The Duchy.♦ But it was by the grant of Saint Lewis of France that the title of Great Lord[36] was exchanged for that of Duke. ♦1260. The Catalan Conquest, 1311.♦ The duchy fell into the hands of the Catalan Great Company, who in central Greece grew from mere ravagers into territorial occupiers. ♦The Sicilian Dukes.♦ They brought with them the Thessalian land of Neopatra, and transferred the nominal title of Duke of Athens and Neopatra to princes of the Sicilian branch of the House of Aragon. Thus the two claimants of the Sicilian crown were brought face to face on old Greek ground. ♦Dukes of the house of Acciauoli.♦ The duchy next passed to the Florentine house of Acciauoli, which already held Corinth, Megara, Sikyôn, and the greater part of Argolis. But their Peloponnesian dominion passed to the Byzantine lords of the peninsula, and Neopatra fell into the hands of the Turk. ♦1390.♦ The Athenian duchy itself, taking in Attica and Boiôtia, lived on, the vassal in turn of the Angevin king at Naples, of the Greek despot of Peloponnêsos, and of the Ottoman Sultan. ♦Ottoman conquest. 1456-1460. 1466. 1687.♦ Annexed at last to the Ottoman dominions, Athens remained in bondage till our own day, save only two momentary occupations by Venice, one soon after the first conquest, the other in the great war of Morosini.

♦Salôna and Bodonitza. The Principality of Achaia.♦

The smaller principalities of Salôna and Bodonitza play their part in the history of the Athenian duchy; but we turn to the chief Latin power of Peloponnêsos, the principality of Achaia. The shiftings of its dynasties and feudal relations are endless; its geographical history is simpler. The peninsula was, at the time of the Latin conquest, already beginning to fall away from the Empire. ♦1205.♦ King Boniface of Thessalonikê had to win the land from its Greek lord Leôn Sgouros. The princes of the house of Champlitte and Villehardouin were his vassals. They had to struggle with the Venetian settlement in Messênia, and with the Greek despot of Epeiros, who, oddly enough, held Corinth, Argos, and Nauplia. ♦1210-1212.♦ These last towns were won by the Latins, and became an Achaian fief in the hands of Otho of Athens. ♦Its greatest extent. 1248.♦ Before the end of half a century, the conquest of the whole peninsula, save the Venetian possessions, was completed by the taking of Monembasia. Things looked as if, now that the Latin power was waning at Constantinople, a stronger Latin power had arisen in Peloponnêsos. A crowd of Greek lands, Zakynthos, Naxos, Euboia, Athens, even Epeiros and Thessalonikê, acknowledged at one time or another the supremacy of Achaia. But Latin Achaia, like Latin Constantinople, had to yield to revived Greek energy. ♦Recovery of lands in Peloponnêsos by the Empire 1262.♦ The Empire won back the three Lacedæmonian fortresses,[37] and presently made Kalabryta in northern Arkadia a Greek outpost. ♦1263.♦ Here the Greek advance stopped for a while.

♦Angevin overlordship. 1278.♦

Before the end of the century the Frank principality lost its independence. It passed into vassalage to the Angevin crown, and was held, sometimes by the Neapolitan kings themselves, sometimes by princes of their house—some of them nominal Emperors of Romania—sometimes by princes of Savoy, who carried the Achaian name into Northern Italy.[38] ♦Dismemberment of the principality. 1337.♦ In the course of the fourteenth century the principality crumbled away. ♦1356.♦ Patras became an ecclesiastical principality under the overlordship of the Pope of the Old Rome. Argos and its port became a separate lordship. ♦1358.♦ Both of these passed for a longer or a shorter time under the power of Venice. Corinth and the north-east corner of the peninsula passed to the Acciauoli. ♦Byzantine advance. 1348-1383.♦ Meantime the Byzantine province grew. For some while, under despots of the house of Kantakouzênos, it might almost pass for an independent Greek state. ♦1381. 1387. 1442.♦ Notwithstanding the inroads of the Navarrese, the second Spanish invaders of Greece, and the first appearance of the Ottoman, the Greek power advanced, till it took in all Peloponnêsos save the Venetian towns. ♦Conquests of Constantine Palaiologos.♦ The last Constantine even appeared as a conqueror at Athens and in central Greece. ♦1458-1460.♦ Then came more Ottoman inroads, dismemberment, Albanian colonization, final annexation by the Turk. ♦Successive Turkish conquests of Peloponnêsos.♦ But the last conqueror has been twice driven to conquer Peloponnêsos afresh. The first revolt under Venetian support was crushed a few years after the first conquest. ♦1463-1540. 1670. 1685.♦ Then the Turk gradually gathered in the Venetian ports, and the whole peninsula was his, save so far as Maina kept on a kind of wild independence almost down to the last Venetian conquest. The complete and unbroken possession of all Peloponnêsos by the Ottoman has never filled up the whole of any one century.

♦Despotat of Epeiros.♦

We have seen how the despotat of Epeiros parted away from the momentary Empire of Thessalonikê. The despots, like their neighbours, often found it convenient to acknowledge the overlordship of some other power, Venice, Nikaia, Sicily, or Achaia. The boundaries of their dominions were greatly cut short by the advance of the restored Empire and by the cessions to Manfred of Sicily. ♦Dismemberment of the despotat.♦ A state was left which took in old Epeiros, Akarnania, and Aitôlia, save the points on the coast which were held by other powers. Arta, the old Ambrakia, was, as in the days of Pyrrhos, its head. ♦1271-1318. 1309.♦ Another branch reigned in Great Blachia or Thessaly, with its capital at Neopatra, a capital presently lost to the Catalan invaders. ♦1318. 1339. Servian conquest. 1331-1355.♦ Next the greater part of Thessaly, and then Epeiros itself, were recovered by the Empire, and then all gradually passed under the Servian power. On the break-up of that power came a time of utter confusion and endless shiftings, which has however one marked feature. ♦Advance of the Albanians.♦ The Albanian race now comes fully to the front. Albanian settlers press into all the southern lands, and Albanian principalities stand forth on a level with those held by Greek and Latin lords.

♦Kings of Albania of the house of Thopia, 1358-1392.♦

The chief Albanian power which arose within the bounds of the despotat was the house of Thopia in northern Epeiros. ♦1366.♦ They called themselves Kings of Albania; they won Durazzo from the Angevins, and their power lasted till that duchy passed to Venice. ♦Servian dynasty in Epeiros. 1359.♦ To the south of them, in southern Epeiros, Akarnania, and Aitolia, reigned a Servian dynasty, whose prince Stephen Urosh added Thessaly to his dominions, and called himself Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks.[39] ♦1363.♦ His western dominion passed from him. A Servian despot ruled at Jôannina, and an Albanian despot at Arta. ♦Kingdom of Thessaly. Turkish conquest. 1393.♦ But Thessaly went on as a kingdom, taking in the greater part of the land anciently so called,[40] a kingdom which was the first Hellenic land to pass under the power of the Turk. ♦1396.♦ Neopatra and Salôna followed, and the Ottoman power stretched to the Corinthian gulf, and parted asunder the still independent states of Western Greece from Attica and Peloponnêsos.

In Epeiros the Servian and Albanian despots had both to yield to Italian houses. ♦Buondelmonti in Northern Epeiros.♦ Northern Epeiros passed to the Florentine house of Buondelmonte. ♦The house of Tocco.♦ To the south arose a dynasty of greater interest, the Beneventan house of Tocco, the last independent princes in Western Greece. ♦1357.♦ They first, as counts palatine, held Kephallênia and Zakynthos as a fief of the Latin Empire. ♦1362.♦ Then they won Leukadia with the ducal title. ♦1394.♦ They next began a continental dominion, first for a moment in Peloponnêsos, then more lastingly in the lands near their island duchy. ♦1405-1418.♦ Duke Charles of Leukadia gradually won all Epeiros save the Venetian posts; and he, his wife, and his heirs were called Despot of Romania, King of Epeiros, and even Empress of the Romans.[41] ♦Its effects.♦ This dynasty, though not long-lived on the mainland, is of real and abiding importance in the history of the Greek nation. The advance of the Albanians was checked; their settlements were thrust further north and further south, while the Beneventan dominions became and remained purely Greek. ♦Venetian and Turkish occupation. 1430.♦ Soon after the death of Duke Charles, the Turk won Jôannina and the greater part of Epeiros; but his son kept Arta and its neighbourhood for nineteen years as a vassal of Venice. ♦1449.♦ Then the dominions of Duke Charles became the Turkish province of Karlili. ♦1449-1479. 1481-1483.♦ The house of Tocco kept its island possessions for thirty years longer. Then they too passed to the Turk, to be recovered for a moment by their own Duke, and then to be struggled for between Turk and Venetian.

♦Northern Albania.♦

Meanwhile the strictly Albanian lands, from the Akrokeraunian point northwards, were subdued by the Turk, were freed, and subdued again. ♦1414. Turkish conquest. 1431.♦ Early in the fifteenth century the Turk won all Albania, except the Venetian posts. ♦Revolt. 1448.♦ Seventeen years later came a revolt and a successful defence of the country, whose later stages are ennobled by the name of George Kastriota of Croja, the famous Scanderbeg. ♦Death of Scanderbeg. 1467.♦ His death gave his land back to the Ottoman, while Croja itself was for a while held by Venice. The whole Greek and Albanian mainland was now divided between Turk and Venetian.

♦The Empire of Trebizond.♦

Lastly, we must not forget that Greek state which outlived all the rest. Far away, on the furthest bounds of the elder Empire, the Empire of Trebizond had the honour of being the last remaining fragment of the Eastern Roman power. The rule of the Grand Komnênos survived the fall of Constantinople; it survived the conquest of Athens and Peloponnêsos.

♦Origin of the Empire. 1204.♦

We have seen the origin and early history of this power. After its western dominions passed to the Nicene Emperors and Sinôpê to the Turk, the Trapezuntine Empire was confined to the eastern part of the south coast of the Euxine, stretching over part of Iberia, and keeping the Imperial possessions in the Tauric Chersonêsos. Sometimes independent, sometimes tributary to Turks or Mongols, the power of Trebizond lived on for nearly eighty years as a distinct and rival Roman Empire. ♦Agreement between Constantinople and Trebizond, 1281.♦ Then, when Constantinople was again in Greek hands, John Komnênos of Trebizond was content to acknowledge Michael Palaiologos as Emperor of the Romans, and to content himself with the style of ‘Emperor of all the East, of Iberia, and of Perateia.’ This last name means the province beyond the sea, in the Tauric Chersonêsos or Crim. We thus see that the style of ‘Emperor of the East,’ which it is sometimes convenient to give to him of Constantinople, strictly belongs to him of Trebizond. The new Empire of the East suffered many fluctuations of territory, chiefly at the hands of the neighbouring Turkomans. Chalybia, the land of iron, was lost; the coast-line was split asunder; the Empire bowed to Timour. ♦Turkish conquest of Trebizond; 1461.♦ But the capital and a large part of the coast bore up to the last, and did not pass under the Ottoman yoke till eight years after the fall of Constantinople. ♦of Perateia. 1472.♦ The outlying dependency of Perateia or Gothia was not conquered till eleven years later still. As the Tauric Chersonêsos had sheltered the last Greek commonwealth, it sheltered also the last Greek principality.

§ 6. The Slavonic States.

The Greek and Frank states of which we have just been speaking arose, for the most part they directly arose, out of the Latin partition of the Empire. ♦Effects of the partition of the Empire on the Slavonic states.♦ On the Slavonic powers the effect of that partition was only indirect. Servia and Bulgaria had begun their second career of independence before the partition. The partition touched them only so far as the splitting up of the Empire into a number of small states took away all fear of their being again brought under its obedience. In Croatia and Dalmatia all trace of the Imperial power passed away. The Magyar held the inland parts; the question was whether the Magyar or the Venetian should hold the coast.

♦Servia and Bulgaria.♦

The chief independent Slavonic powers were those of Servia and Bulgaria. Of these, Servia represents the unmixed Slave, as unmixed, that is, as any nation can be; Bulgaria represents the Slave brought under some measure of Turanian influence and mixture. The history of the purer race is the longer and the more brilliant. The Servian people made a longer resistance to the Turk than the Bulgarian people; they were the first to throw off his yoke; one part of them never submitted to his yoke at all. ♦Extent of Servia.♦ The oldest Servia, as we have seen, stretched far beyond the bounds of the present principality, and had a considerable Hadriatic sea-board, though interrupted by the Roman cities. Among the Zupans or princes of the many Servian tribes, the chief were the northern Grand-Zupans of Desnica on the Drina, and the southern Grand-Zupans of Dioklea or Rascia, so called from their capital Rassa, the modern Novi-Bazar. This last principality was the germ of the historical kingdom of Servia. ♦Relations to the Empire.♦ But till the fall of the old Empire, the Imperial claims over Servia were always asserted and were often enforced. ♦1018.♦ Indeed common enmity to the Bulgarian, the momentary conqueror of Servia,[42] formed a tie between Servia and the Empire down to the complete incorporation of Servia by Basil the Second. ♦1040. Conquest by Manuel Komnênos; 1148.♦ The successful revolt of Servia made room for more than one claimant of Servian dominion and kingship; but the Imperial claims remained, to be enforced again in their fulness by Manuel Komnênos. At last the Latin conquest relieved Servia from all danger on the part of Constantinople; Servia stood forth as an independent power under the kings of the house of Nemanja.

♦Relations towards Hungary.♦

They had to struggle against more dangerous enemies to the north in the Kings of Hungary. ♦Loss of Bosnia.♦ Even before the last Imperial conquest, the Magyars had cut away the western part of Servia, the land beyond the Drina, known as Bosnia or Rama. Under the last name it gave the Hungarian princes one of their royal titles. ♦1286.♦ This land was more than once won back by Servia; but its tendency was to separation and to growth at the cost of Servia. ♦1326.♦ In the first half of the fourteenth century, Bosnia was enlarged by the Servian lands bordering on the Dalmatian coast, the lands of Zachloumia and Terbounia, which were never permanently won back. So the lands on the Save, between the Drina and the Morava, taking in the modern capital of Belgrade, passed, in the endless shiftings of the frontier, at one time to Bulgaria and at another to Hungary. ♦Servian advance eastward and southward.♦ Servia, thus cut short to the north and west, was driven to advance southward and eastward, at the expense of Bulgaria and of the powers which had taken the place of the Empire on the lower Hadriatic coast. From the latter part of the thirteenth century onwards, Servia grew to be the greatest power in the south-eastern peninsula. ♦Her seaboard. 1296.♦ Shorn of her old Hadriatic seaboard, she gained a new and longer one, stretching from the mouths of Cattaro to Durazzo. ♦1319-1322.♦ Durazzo itself twice fell into Servian hands; but at the time of the highest power of Servia that city remained an Angevin outpost on the Servian mainland. ♦Reign of Stephen Dushan, 1331-1355.♦ That highest power was reached in the reign of Stephen Dushan, who spread his dominions far indeed at the cost of Greeks and Franks, at the cost of his old Slavonic neighbours and of the rising powers of Albania. In the new Servian capital of Skopia, Skoupi, or Skopje, the Tzar Stephen took an Imperial crown as Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks. ♦1346. The Servian Empire.♦ The new Empire stretched uninterruptedly from the Danube to the Corinthian gulf. At one end Bosnia was won back; at the other end the Servian rule was spread over Aitôlia and Thessaly, over Macedonia and Thrace as far as Christopolis. It only remained to give a head to this great body, and to make New Rome the seat of the Servian power.

♦Break up of the Servian power, 1355.♦

But the Servian tzardom broke in pieces at the death of the great Servian Tzar; and before he died, the Ottoman was already in Europe. In fact the historical result of the great advance of Servia was to split up the whole of the Greek and Slavonic lands, and to leave no power of either race able to keep out the barbarian. We have seen how the titles of Stephen’s Empire lived for a generation in the Greek part of his dominions.[43] In Macedonia and Thrace several small principalities sprang up, and a power arose at Skodra of which we shall have to speak again. To the north Bosnia fell away, and carried Zachloumia with it. ♦Later Kingdom of Servia.♦ Servia itself comes out of the chaos as a separate kingdom, a kingdom wholly cut off from the sea, but stretching southward as far as Prisrend, and again holding the lands between the Drina and the Morava. ♦Conquests and deliverances of Servia. 1375.♦ The Turk first took Nish, and brought the kingdom under tribute. ♦1389.♦ The overthrow at Kossovo made Servia wholly dependent. ♦1403.♦ With the fall of Bajazet it again became free for a generation. ♦1438.♦ Then the Turk won the whole land except Belgrade. ♦1442. 1444.♦ Then the campaign of Huniades restored Servia as a free kingdom; the event of Varna again brought her under tribute. ♦1459.♦ At last Mahomet the Conqueror incorporated all Servia, except Belgrade, with his dominions.

♦The Kingdom of Bosnia.♦

The history of Bosnia, as a really separate power, holding its own place in Europe, begins with the break-up of the momentary Servian Empire. ♦Its origin, 1376.♦ The Ban Stephen Tvartko became the first king of the last Bosnian dynasty, under the nominal superiority of the Hungarian crown. Thus, at the very moment of the coming of the Turk, a kingdom of Latin creed and associations became the first power among the south-eastern Slaves. For a while it seemed as if Bosnia was going to take the place which had been held by Servia. ♦Greatest extent of Bosnia, 1382.♦ The Bosnian kingdom at its greatest extent took in all the present Bosnia and Herzegovina, with, it would seem, all Dalmatia except Zara, and the north-west corner of Servia stretching beyond the Drina. But the Bosnian power was broken at Kossovo as well as that of Servia. ♦Loss of Jayce, 1391.♦ In the time of confusion which followed, Jayce in the north-west corner became a power connected with both Hungary and Bosnia, while the Turk established himself in the extreme south. The Turk was driven out for a while, but the kingdom was dismembered to form a new Latin power. ♦Duchy of Saint Saba or Herzegovina. 1440.♦ The Lord of the old Zachloumia, a Bosnian vassal, transferred his homage to the Austrian king of the Romans, and, became sovereign Duke of Saint Sava, perhaps rather of Primorie. Thus arose the state of Herzegovina, that is the Duchy, commemorating in its half-German name the relation of its prince to the Western Empire. But neither kingdom nor duchy was long-lived. ♦1449.♦ Within ten years after the separation of Herzegovina the Turk held western Bosnia. ♦Turkish conquest of Bosnia, 1463;♦ Fourteen years later he subdued the whole kingdom. ♦of Herzegovina, 1483.♦ The next year the duchy became tributary, and twenty years after the conquest of Bosnia it was incorporated with the now Turkish province of Bosnia. But in the long struggle between Venice and the Turk various parts of its territory, especially the coast, came under the power of the Republic.

Meanwhile one small Slavonic land, one surviving fragment of the great Servian dominion, maintained its independence through all changes.

In the break-up of the Servian Empire, a small state, with Skodra for its capital, formed itself in the district of Zeta, reaching northwards as far as Cattaro. ♦Dominion of the house of Balsa at Skodra. Loss of Skodra, 1394.♦ For a moment its princes of the house of Balsa spread their power over all Northern Albania; but the new state was cut short on all sides by Bosnia, Venice, and the Turk, and Skodra itself was sold to Venice. In the middle of the fifteenth century, the state took a more definite shape, though with a smaller territory, under a new dynasty, that of Tzernojevich. ♦Beginning of Montenegro, 1456.♦ This independent remnant answered to the modern Tzernagora or Montenegro, with a greater extent to the east and with a small seaboard taking in Antivari. ♦Establishment of Tzetinje, 1488.♦ Its capital Zabljak was more than once lost and won from the Turk; at the end of the century it was found hopeless to defend the lower districts, and prince and people withdrew to the natural fortress of the Black Mountain with its newly founded capital of Tzetinje. ♦The Vladikas, 1499. Lay princes, 1851.♦ The last prince of the dynasty resigned his power to the metropolitan bishop, and Montenegro remained an independent state under its Vladikas or hereditary prelates, till their dominion was in our own time again exchanged for that of temporal princes. During all this time the territory of Montenegro was simply so much of the mountain region as could maintain its independence against the ceaseless attacks of the Turk. Yet Montenegro, as the ally of England and Russia, bore her part in the great European struggle, and won for herself a haven and a capital at Cattaro. ♦1813. 1858.♦ Her allies stood by while Cattaro was filched by the Austrian; and, more than forty years later, when a definite frontier was first traced, Western diplomacy so traced it as to give the Turk an inlet on both sides to the unconquered Christian land. ♦Montenegrin conquests, 1876-1877.♦ In the latest times the Montenegrin arms set free a large part of the kindred land of Herzegovina, and won back a considerable part of the lost territory to the east, including part of the old seaboard as far as Dulcigno. ♦1878.♦ Then Western diplomacy drew another frontier, which forbade any large incorporation of the kindred Slavonic districts, while a small extension was allowed in that part of the lost ancient territory which had become Albanian. Of three havens won by Montenegro in the war, Dulcigno has been given back to the Turk. ♦Spizza.♦ Austria has been allowed to filch Spizza, as she had before filched Ragusa and Cattaro. The third haven, that of Antivari, was left to those who had won it under such restrictions as armed wrong knows how to impose on the weaker power of right.

The continued independence of Montenegro enables the Servian branch of the Slavonic race to say that their nation has never been wholly enslaved. ♦The third Bulgarian kingdom.♦ The case has been different with Bulgaria. We have seen the origin of the third Bulgarian, or rather Vlacho-Bulgarian, kingdom which won its independence of the Empire in the last years of the twelfth century. From that time to the Turkish conquest, one or more Bulgarian states always existed. And throughout the thirteenth century, the Bulgarian kingdom, though its boundaries were ever shifting, was one of the chief powers of the south-eastern peninsula.

The oldest Bulgaria between Danube and Hæmus was the first to throw off the Byzantine dominion, and the last to come under the power of the Turk. ♦Bulgarian advance. 1197-1207.♦ But the new Bulgarian power grew fast, and for a while called back the days of Simeon and Samuel. Under Joannice the frontier stretched far to the north-west, over lands which gradually passed to Servia, taking in Skupi, Nish, and even Belgrade. ♦Dominion of John Asan. 1218-1241.♦ Under the Tzar John Asan the new Bulgaria, the kingdom of Tirnovo, reached its greatest extent. The greater part of Thrace, Philippopolis and the whole land of Rhodopê or Achridos, Hadrianople itself, Macedonia too stretching away to Samuel’s Ochrida and to Albanon or Elbassan, were all under his rule. If his realm did not touch the Hadriatic or the Ægæan, it came very near to both; but Thessalonikê at least always remained to its Frank and Greek lords.[44] But this great power, like so many other powers of its kind, did not survive its founder. ♦Decline of Bulgaria. 1246-1257.♦ The revived Greek states, the Nicene Empire and the Epeirot despotat, cut the Bulgarian realm short. The disputes of an older and of a later time went on.[45] ♦Shiftings of the frontier.♦ There was undisputed Bulgaria north of Hæmus, an ever-shifting frontier south of it. The inland Philippopolis, and the coast towns of Anchialos and Mesêmbria, passed backwards and forwards between Greek and Bulgarian. ♦Philippopolis finally Bulgarian. 1344-1366.♦ The last state of things, immediately before the common overthrow, gave Philippopolis to Bulgaria and the coast towns to the Empire.

♦Wars with Hungary. 1260.♦

An attempt at extension of the north by an attack on the Hungarian Banat of Severin, the western part of modern Wallachia, led only to a Hungarian invasion, to a temporary loss of Widdin, and the assumption of a Bulgarian title by the Magyar king. ♦Cuman dynasty in Bulgaria. 1280.♦ Presently a new Turanian dynasty, this time of Cuman descent, reigned in Bulgaria, and soon after, the kingdom passed for the moment under a mightier overlord in the person of Nogai Khan. ♦Break-up of the kingdom. 1357.♦ In the fourteenth century the kingdom broke up. ♦Principality of Dobrutcha.♦ The despot Dobroditius—his name has many spellings—formed a separate dominion on the seaboard, stretching from the Danube to the Imperial frontier, cutting off the King of Tirnovo from the sea. Part of his land preserves his memory in its modern name Dobrutcha. Presently we hear of three Bulgarias, the central state at Tirnovo, the sea-land of Dobroditius, and a north-western state at Widdin. ♦1362. 1365-1369.♦ By this time the Ottoman inroads had begun; Philippopolis was lost, and Bulgarian princes were blind enough to employ Turkish help in a second attack on Severin, which led only to a second temporary loss of Widdin. ♦1382. 1388.♦ The Turk now pressed on; Sofia was taken; the whole land became a Turkish dependency. ♦Conquest by Bajazet, 1393.♦ After Kossovo the land was wholly conquered, save only that the northern part of the land of Dobroditius passed to Wallachia. Bulgaria passed away from the list of European states both sooner and more utterly than Servia. Servia still had its alternations of freedom and bondage for sixty years. In after times large parts of it passed to a rule which, if foreign, was at least European. In later days Servia was the first of the subject nations to win its freedom. But the bondage of Bulgaria was never disturbed from the days of Bajazet to our own time.

§ 7. The Kingdom of Hungary.

The origin of the Hungarian kingdom and the reasons for dealing with along with the states which arose out of the break-up of the Eastern Empire have already been spoken of.[46] ♦Character of the Hungarian kingdom.♦ The Finnish conquerors of the Slave, admitted within the pale of Western Christendom, founding a new Hungary on the Danube and the Theiss while they left behind them an older Hungary on the Kama, have points of contact at once with Asia and with both Eastern and Western Europe. ♦Its position in south-eastern Europe.♦ But, as closely connected in their history with the nations of the south-eastern peninsula, as sharers in the bondage and in the deliverance of Servia, Greece, and Bulgaria, in our geographical survey they claim a place where they may be looked at strictly as part of the south-eastern world.

♦Effects of the Magyar invasion.♦

It has been already noticed[47] that the main geographical work of the Magyar was to cut off that south-eastern world, the world where the Greek and the Slave, struggling for its supremacy, were both swallowed up by the Ottoman, from the Slavonic region between the Carpathians and the Baltic. ♦Great Moravia. 884-894.♦ At the moment of the Magyar inroad, the foundation of the Great-Moravian kingdom, the kingdom of Sviatopluk, made it more likely than it has ever been since that the Slaves of the two regions might be united into a single power. That kingdom, stretching to Sirmium, marched on the north-western dependencies of the Eastern Empire, while on the north it took in the Chrobatian land which was afterwards Little Poland. Such a power might have been dangerous to both Empires at once; but the invaders whom the two Emperors called in proved far more dangerous than Great Moravia could ever have been. The Magyars, Ogres, or Hungarians, the Turks of the Imperial geographer,[48] were called in by his father Leo to check the Bulgarians, as they were called in by Arnulf in the West to check the new power of Moravia. They passed, from the north rather than from the east, into the land which was disputed between Moravian and Bulgarian. ♦906. Relations between Hungary and Germany.♦ The Moravian power was overthrown, and the Magyars, stepping into its place, became constant invaders of both Empires and their dependent lands. But to the west, the victories of the Saxon kings put a check to their inroads, and, save some shiftings on the Austrian march, the frontier of Germany and Hungary has been singularly abiding.

♦The two Chrobatias separated by the Magyars.♦

While the Magyar settlement placed a barrier between the two chief regions of the Slavonic race as a whole, it specially placed a barrier between the two divisions of the Croatian or Chrobatian people, those on the Vistula and those on the Drave and Save. ♦1025.♦ The northern Chrobatia still reached south of the Carpathians, and it was not until the eleventh century that the Magyar kingdom, by the acquisition of its southern part, gained a natural frontier which, with some shiftings, served to part it off from the Slavonic powers to the north of it. To the south-east an uncultivated and wooded tract separated the Magyar territory from the lands between the Carpathians and the lower Danube which were still held by the Patzinaks. ♦Geographical position of the Magyars.♦ The oldest Magyar settlement thus occupied the central part of the modern kingdom, on the Theiss and the middle Danube. There the Turanian invaders formed a ruling and central race, within a Slavonic fringe at each end. There were northern and southern Croats, Slovaks to the north, and Ruthenians to the north-west, towards the kindred land of Halicz or Red Russia.

♦Hungary a kingdom: its growth.♦

Hungary, ranking from the beginning of the eleventh century as a kingdom of Latin Christendom, presently grew in all directions. We have just seen its advance at the expense of the northern Chrobatian land. Its advance at the expense of the southern branch of that race, and of the other Slavonic lands which owed more or less of allegiance to the Eastern Empire, was still more marked. ♦Hungary and Croatia.♦ All these lands at one time or another gave royal titles to the King of Hungary, King also of Croatia, of Dalmatia, of Rama, even of Bulgaria. But in most of these lands the Hungarian kingship was temporary or nominal; in Croatia alone, though the frontier has often shifted, Hungarian rule has been abiding. Croatia has never formed an independent state since the first Hungarian conquest; it has never been fully wrested from Hungary since the days of Manuel Komnênos. In those days it was indeed a question whether Hungary itself had not an overlord in the Eastern Emperor. After the great Bulgarian revolt that question could never be raised again. But the Hungarian frontier was ever shifting towards the former lands of the Empire, Venetian, Servian, and Bulgarian. ♦Kingdom of Slavonia. 1492.♦ One part of the old Croatian kingdom, the land between Save and Drave, was cut off to form, first an appanage, then an annexed kingdom, by the special name of Slavonia, a name shared by it with lands on the Baltic, perhaps on the Ægæan.

But, from the first days of its conversion, the Hungarian realm began to advance in other directions, in lands which had formed no part of the Empire since the days of Aurelian. ♦Transsilvania or Siebenbürgen. 1004.♦ Before their Chrobatian conquest, the Magyars passed the boundary which divided them from the Patzinaks, and won the land which from its position took the name of Transsilvania.[49] Colonists were invited to settle in the thinly inhabited land. One chief settlement was of the Low-Dutch speech from Saxony and Flanders. ♦Various colonies.♦ Another element was formed by the Turanian Szeklers, whose Latin form of Siculi might easily mislead. Another migration brought back the name and speech of the Old Rome to the first land from which she had withdrawn her power.

♦Origin of the Roumans.♦

The legendary belief in the unbroken life of the Roman name and speech in the lands north of the Danube is merely a legendary belief.[50] There can be no reasonable doubt that the present principality of Roumania and the Rouman lands beyond its borders derived their present population and language from a settlement of the Rouman people further south. South of the Danube, the Rouman or Vlach population, scattered among Greeks, Slaves, and Albanians, at many points from Pindos northwards, has kept its distinct nationality, but it has never formed a political whole. ♦Their Northern migration.♦ But a migration beyond the Danube enabled the Roumans in course of time to found two distinct principalities, and to form a chief element in the population of a third. There is no sign of any Rouman population north of the Danube before the thirteenth century. The events of that century opened a way for a reversal of the ordinary course of migration, for the settlement of lands beyond the Empire by former subjects of the Empire.

♦Rouman element in the third Bulgarian kingdom.♦

We have seen that the third Bulgarian kingdom, that which arose at the end of the twelfth century, was in its origin as much Rouman as Bulgarian. ♦Cumans in Dacia.♦ By this time the rule of the Patzinaks beyond the lower Danube had given way to that of the kindred Cumans. ♦Mongolian invasion.♦ Then the storm of Mongolian invasion, which crushed Hungary itself for a moment, crushed the Cuman power for ever. But the remnant of the Cuman nation lived on within the Magyar realm, and gave its king yet another title, that of King of Cumania. ♦Rouman settlement in the Cuman land.♦ The former Cuman land now lay open to new settlers, and the Rouman part of the inhabitants of the new Bulgaria began to cross the Danube into that land and the neighbouring districts. In the course of the thirteenth century they occupied the present Wallachia, and already formed an element in the mixed population of Transsilvania. A Rouman state thus began to be formed, which took the name by which the Roumans were known to their neighbours. The new Vlachia, Wallachia, stretched on both sides of the Aluta. ♦Little Wallachia.♦ To the west of that river, Little Wallachia formed, as the banat of Severin, an integral part of the Hungarian kingdom. ♦Great Wallachia.♦ Great Wallachia to the east formed a separate principality, dependent or independent on Hungary, according to its strength from time to time. ♦Dobrutcha.♦ And, towards the end of the fourteenth century, the land south of the Danube, called Dobrutcha, passed from Bulgaria to Wallachia. ♦Moldavia. c. 1341.♦ Another Rouman migration, passing from the land of Marmaros north of Transsilvania, founded the principality of Moldavia between the Carpathians and the Dniester. This too stood to the Hungarian crown in the same shifting relation as Great Wallachia, and sometimes transferred its vassalage to Lithuania and Poland.

♦Lewis the Great, 1342-1382;♦

The greatest extension of the Hungarian dominion was in the fourteenth century, under the Angevin King Lewis the Great. Before his time the Magyar frontier had advanced and fallen back. ♦First possession of Halicz, 1185-1220,♦ Hungary, having a Russian population within its borders, had for a while enlarged its Russian dominion by the annexation of the Red Russian land of Halicz or Galicia. ♦of Widdin, 1260-1264.♦ It had also, for a shorter time, occupied the Bulgarian town of Widdin. ♦Conquests of Lewis, Halicz and Vladimir, 1342; Widdin, 1365-1369.♦ Lewis renewed both these conquests, and made others. Halicz was not only won again, but was enlarged by the neighbouring principality of Vladimir. The great day of Hungary was contemporary with the great day of Servia, but it was a longer day, and Hungary profited greatly by the fall of Servia. ♦1356.♦ While Lewis annexed Dalmatia, he also at various times established his supremacy over Bosnia and the Rouman principalities. That Lewis was king of Poland by a personal union did not affect Hungarian geography. ♦Red Russia restored to Poland, 1390.♦ But the separation of the crowns at his death led presently to the restoration of the Red Russian provinces to Poland. ♦Pledging of Zips, 1412.♦ Somewhat later, under Sigismund, a territory within the Hungarian border, part of the county of Zips or Czepusz, was pledged to Poland, and continued to be held by that power.

Meanwhile the Ottoman was on his march to overthrow Hungary as well as its neighbours, though the position of the Magyar kingdom made it the last to be devoured and the first to be delivered. The Turkish inroads as yet barely grazed the strictly Hungarian frontier. ♦First Turkish invasion. 1391.♦ The first Turkish invasion of Hungary, the first Turkish exaction of tribute from Wallachia, came in the same year in which Sigismund established his supremacy over Bosnia. ♦Battle of Nikopolis. 1396. Campaign of Huniades 1443. Battle of Varna. 1444.♦ The defeat of Nikopolis confirmed the Turkish supremacy in Wallachia, a supremacy which was again won for Hungary in the great campaign of Huniades, and was again lost at Varna. ♦Disputes for Dalmatia.♦ Meanwhile the full possession of Dalmatia did not outlive the reign of Lewis. Henceforth Hungary is merely one competitor among others in the ceaseless shiftings of the Dalmatian frontier.

♦Hungary under Matthias Corvinus. 1458-1490.♦

Later in the fifteenth century came another day of Hungarian greatness under the son of Huniades, Matthias Corvinus. ♦1477. 1485.♦ Its most distinguishing feature was the extension of the Magyar power to the west, over Bohemia and its dependencies, and even over the Austrian archduchy. ♦1467.♦ In the south-eastern lands Wallachia and Moldavia again became Hungarian dependencies. ♦1463.♦ Jayce was won back from the Turk, now lord of Bosnia, and, Belgrade being now Hungarian, the frontier towards the Ottoman was fixed till the time of his great advance northwards.

♦Loss of Belgrade. 1521.♦

The first stage of Ottoman conquest in Hungary, as distinguished from mere ravage, was the taking of Belgrade. ♦Battle of Mohacz. 1526.♦ With the battle of Mohacz, five years later, the separate history of Hungary ends. ♦Turkish occupation of the greater part of Hungary. 1552-1687.♦ That victory, followed by the disputes for the Hungarian crown between an Austrian archduke and a Transsilvanian palatine, enabled Suleiman to make himself master of the greater part of the kingdom, especially of the part which was most thoroughly Magyar. From the middle of the sixteenth century till the latter years of the seventeenth, the Austrian Kings of Hungary kept only a fragment of Croatia, including Zagrab or Agram, and a strip of north-western Hungary, including Pressburg. The whole central part of the kingdom passed under the immediate dominion of the Turk, and a Pasha ruled at Buda. Besides this great incorporation of Hungarian soil, the Turk held three vassal principalities within the dominions of Lewis the Great. ♦Tributary principalities: Transsilvania, Wallachia, Moldavia. 1497.♦ One was Transsilvania, increased by a large part of north-eastern Hungary; the second was Wallachia; the third was Moldavia, which began to be tributary late in the fifteenth century. The Rouman lands became more and more closely dependent on the Turk, who took on him to name their princes. ♦1606.♦ Indeed, one might for a while add the Austrian kingdom of Hungary itself as a fourth vassal state, as it paid tribute to the Turk into the seventeenth century. ♦The Rouman lands disputed between Poland and the Turk.♦ For the superiority of the Rouman principalities an endless struggle went on between Poland and the Turk. At last the same Slavonic power stepped in to deliver Hungary and Austria also. ♦Battle of Vienna. 1683.♦ With the overthrow of the Turk before Vienna began the reaction of Christendom against Islam which has gone on to our own day.

♦Recovery of Hungary from the Turk.♦

The wars which follow answer to the wars of independence in Servia and Greece in so far as the Turk was driven out of a Christian land. They differ in this, that the Turk was driven out of Greece and Servia to the profit of Greece and Servia themselves, while he was driven out of Hungary to the profit of the Austrian king. ♦Peace of Carlowitz. 1699.♦ The first stage of the work, the war which was ended by the Peace of Carlowitz, won back nearly all Croatia and Slavonia, and all Hungary proper, except the land of Temeswar between Danube, Theiss, and Maros. ♦Incorporation of Transsilvania. 1713.♦ Transsilvania became a dependency of the Hungarian kingdom, with which it was presently incorporated. Wallachia and Moldavia remained under Turkish supremacy. ♦Peace of Passarowitz. 1718.♦ The next war, ended by the Peace of Passarowitz, fully restored the Hungarian kingdom as part of Christendom. The Turk kept only a small part of Croatia. All Slavonia and the banat of Temeswar were won back; the frontier was even carried south of the Save, so as to take in a small strip of Bosnia and a great part of Servia, as also the Lesser Wallachia, the old banat of Severin. Thus, while the first stage delivered Buda, the second delivered Belgrade. But the next war, ended by the Peace of Belgrade, largely undid the work. ♦Losses by the Peace of Belgrade. 1739.♦ The frontier fell back to the point at which it stayed till our own day. From the mouth of the Unna to Orsovo, the Save and the Danube became the frontier. Belgrade, and all the land south of those rivers, passed again to the Turk, and Little Wallachia became again part of a Turkish dependency. ♦Final loss of Belgrade. 1789-1791.♦ At a later stage of the century Belgrade was again delivered and again lost.

♦Acquisitions from Poland.♦

The later acquisitions of the House of Austria were made in the character of Hungarian kings, but they did not lead to any enlargement of the Hungarian kingdom. Thus the claim to the Austrian acquisitions made at the first and third partitions of Poland, rested solely on the two Hungarian occupations of Red Russia. ♦Galicia and Lodomeria.♦ Under the softened forms of Galicia and Lodomeria, the Red Russian lands of Halicz and Vladimir, together with part of Poland itself, became a new kingdom of the House of Habsburg, as the greater part of the territory thus won still remains. ♦Acquisition of Bukovina. 1776-1786.♦ Between the two partitions the new kingdom was increased by the addition of Bukovina, the north-western corner of Moldavia, which was claimed as an ancient part of the Transsilvanian principality. It was again only in its Hungarian character that the House of Habsburg could make any claim to Dalmatia. ♦Dalmatia.♦ Certainly no Austrian duke had ever reigned over Dalmatia, Red Russia, or the Rouman principalities. Yet in the present dual arrangement of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy the so-called triple kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia, is divided between the rule of Pest and the rule of Vienna. Galicia also counts to the Austrian, and not to the Hungarian, division of the monarchy. All this is perhaps in harmony with the generally anomalous character of the power of which they form part. ♦Spizza. 1878.♦ The port of Spizza has been added to the Dalmatian kingdom. ♦Bosnia and Herzegovina.♦ It is hard to say in which of his many characters the Hungarian King and Austrian Archduke holds the lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which the Treaty of Berlin confers on him, not the sovereignty, but the administration. They might have been claimed by the Hungarian king in his ancient character of King of Rama. But the formal aspect of the transaction would seem rather to be that he has, like his predecessors in the sixteenth century, become the man of the Turk.

♦Later history of Roumania.♦

After the restoration of the Lesser Wallachia to the Turk and the addition of Bukovina to Galicia, the geographical history of the Rouman principalities parts off wholly from that of Hungary, and will be more fittingly treated in another section.

§ 8. The Ottoman Power.

♦The Ottoman Turks.♦

Last among the powers which among them supplanted the Eastern Empire, comes the greatest and most terrible of all, that which overthrew the Empire itself and most of the states which arose out of its ruins, and which stands distinguished from all the rest by its abiding possession of the Imperial city. This is the power of the Ottoman Turks. ♦Their special character as Mahometans.♦ They stand distinguished from all the other invaders of the European mainland of the Empire by being Mahometan invaders. The examples of Bulgaria and Hungary show that Turanian invaders, as such, are not incapable of being received into European fellowship. This could not be in the case of a Mahometan power, bound by its religion to keep its Christian subjects in the condition of bondmen. The Ottomans could not, like the Bulgarians, be lost in the greater mass of those whom they conquered. ♦Preservation of the subject nations.♦ But this very necessity helped in some measure to preserve the national being of the subject nations. Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians, have under Ottoman rule remained Greeks, Servians, and Bulgarians, ready to begin their national career afresh whenever the time for independence should come. ♦Comparison with the Saracen power in Spain.♦ The dominion of the Turk in Eastern Europe answers, as a Mahometan dominion, to the dominion of the Saracen in Western Europe. But in everything, save the mere reckoning of years, it has been far more abiding. The Mahometan dominion in southern Spain did indeed last two hundred years longer than Mahometan dominion has yet lasted in any part of Eastern Europe. But the Saracen power in the West began to fall back as soon as it was established, and its last two hundred years were a mere survival. The Ottomans underwent no considerable loss of territory till more than four centuries and a half after their first appearance in Asia, till more than three centuries after their passage into Europe. Constantinople has been Ottoman sixty years longer than Toledo was Saracen.

♦Extent of the Ottoman dominion compared with the Eastern Empire.♦

The Ottoman, possessor of the Eastern Rome, does in a rough way represent the Eastern Roman in the extent of his dominion. The dominions and dependencies of the Sultans at the height of their power took in, in Eastern Europe, in Asia, and in Africa, nearly all that had formed part of the Empire of Justinian, with a large territory, both in Europe and Asia, which Justinian had not held. Justinian held nothing north of the Danube; Suleiman held, as sovereign or as overlord, a vast dominion from Buda to Azof. On the other hand, no part of the dominions of Justinian in Western Europe, save one city for one moment, ever came under Ottoman rule. The Eastern Empire in the year 800 was smaller than even the present reduced dominion of the Turk. The Eastern Empire, at its height in the eleventh century, held in Europe a dominion far smaller than the dominion of the Turk in the sixteenth century, far larger than his dominion now. But in the essential feature of Byzantine geography, the possession of Constantinople and of the lands on each side of the Bosporos and Hellespont, the Ottoman Sultan took the place of the Eastern Emperor, and as yet he keeps it.

♦Effects of the Mongolian advance.♦

The history of the Eastern Empire, and that of the Ottomans in connexion with it, was largely affected by the movements of the Mongols in the further East. Mongolian pressure weakened the Seljuk Turks, and so allowed the growth of the Nicene Empire. Mongolian invasions also led indirectly to the growth of the Ottoman power, and at a later time they gave it its greatest check. ♦Origin of the Ottomans.♦ The Ottomans grew out of a Turkish band who served the Seljuk Sultan against the Mongols. As his vassals, they began to be a power in Asia and to harry the coasts of Europe. They passed into Europe, and won a great European dominion far more quickly than they had won their Asiatic dominion. This is the special characteristic of the Ottoman power. Asiatic in everything else, it is geographically European; most of its Asiatic and all its African dominion was won from an European centre. ♦Break-up and reunion of the Ottoman power.♦ Already a power in Europe, but not yet in possession of the Imperial city, the new Ottoman power was for a moment utterly broken in pieces by the second flood of Mongol invasion. That the shattered dominion came together again is an event without a parallel in Eastern history. The restored Ottoman power then won Constantinople, and from Constantinople, as representing the fallen Empire, it won back the lost dominion of the Empire. ♦Its permanence.♦ The permanence of the Ottoman power, when Constantinople was once won, is in no way wonderful. Even the unreclaimed Asiatic, when he was once seated on the throne of the New Rome, inherited his share of Rome’s eternity.

♦First settlements of the Ottomans.♦

The first settlements of the Ottoman Turks were on the banks of the Sangarios, which gave them from the beginning a threatening position towards Europe. ♦1299.♦ By the end of the thirteenth century they were firmly established in that region. In the first half of the fourteenth they became the leading power in Western Asia. ♦Conquest of Brusa. 1326-1330.♦ Brusa, the Asiatic capital, won in the last days of the Emir Othman, has a manifest eye towards Europe. ♦Of Nikaia and Nikomêdeia. 1330-1338.♦ Nikaia and Nikomêdeia followed, and the Ottoman stepped geographically into the same position towards the revived Greek Empire which the Nicene princes had held towards the Latin Empire. ♦Entry into Europe. 1354. Conquest of Hadrianople. 1361.♦ In the last days of the Emir Othman came their passage into Europe, and a few more years saw Amurath in his European capital of Hadrianople, completely hemming Constantinople in. ♦Ottoman advance.♦ The second half of the fourteenth century was a time of the most speedy Ottoman advance, and the amount of real advance is by no means represented by the change on the map. We have seen in the case of Servia, of Greece, and of Hungary, that the course of Turkish invasion commonly went through three stages. There was first the time of mere plunder. Then came the tributary stage, and lastly, the day of complete bondage. ♦Bajazet first Sultan, 1389-1402.♦ Under Bajazet, the first Ottoman prince who bore the title of Sultan, the immediate Ottoman dominion in Europe stretched from the Ægæan to the Danube. It took in all Bulgaria, all Macedonia, Thessaly, and Thrace, save only Chalkidikê and the district just round Constantinople. Servia and Wallachia were dependent states, as indeed was the Empire itself. Central and southern Greece, Bosnia, Hungary, even Styria, were lands open to plunder.

♦Battle of Angora. 1402.♦

This great dominion was broken in pieces by the victory of Timour at Angora. It seemed that the empire of the Ottoman had passed away like the empire of the Servian. ♦Break up of the Ottoman power.♦ The dominion of Bajazet was divided among his sons and the princes of the dispossessed Turkish dynasties. The Christian states had a breathing-time, and the sons of Bajazet were glad to give back to the Empire some important parts of its lost territories. ♦Reunited under Mahomet. 1413.♦ The Ottoman power came together again under Mahomet the First; but for nearly half a century its advance was slower than in the half-century before. The conquests of Mahomet and of Amurath the Second lay mainly in the Greek and Albanian lands. ♦Conquest of Thessalonikê. 1430.♦ The Turk now reached the Hadriatic, and the conquest of Thessalonikê gave him a firmer hold on the Ægæan. Towards Servia and Hungary he lost and he won again; he hardly conquered. ♦Mahomet the Conqueror. 1451-1481.♦ It was the thirty years of Mahomet the Conqueror which finally gave the Ottoman dominion its European position. ♦Conquest of Constantinople. 1453.♦ From his first and greatest conquest of the New Rome, he gathered in what remained, Greek, Frank, and Slave. The conquest of the Greek mainland, of Albania and Bosnia, the final conquest of Servia, made him master of the whole south-eastern peninsula, save only the points held by Venice and the unconquered height of the Black Mountain. He began to gather in the Western islands, and he struck the first great blow to the Venetian power by the conquest of Euboia. Around the Euxine he won the Empire of Trebizond and the points held by Genoa. The great mass of the islands and the few Venetian points on the coast still escaped. ♦Extent of his dominion.♦ Otherwise Mahomet the Conqueror held the whole European dominions of Basil the Second, with a greater dominion in Asia than that of Manuel Komnênos. From the Danube to the Tanais and beyond it, he held a vast overlordship, over lands which had obeyed no Emperor since Aurelian, over lands which had never obeyed any Emperor at all. At last the Mussulman lord of Constantinople seemed about to win back the Italian dominion of its Christian lords. ♦Taking of Otranto, 1480.♦ In his last days, by the possession of Otranto, Mahomet ruled west of the Hadriatic.

It might have been deemed that the little cloud which now lighted on Otranto would grow as fast as the little cloud which a hundred and thirty years before had lighted on Kallipolis. But Bajazet the Second made no conquests save the points which were won from Venice. ♦Conquest of Syria and Egypt. 1516-17.♦ Selim the First, the greatest conqueror of his line against fellow Mahometans, had no leisure, while winning Syria and Egypt, to make any advance on Christian ground. ♦Conquests of Suleiman. 1520-1566.♦ But under Suleiman the Lawgiver, not only the overlordship but the immediate rule of Constantinople under its Turkish Sultans was spread over wide European lands which had never obeyed its Christian Emperors. ♦His African overlordship.♦ Then too its Mussulman lords won back at least the nominal overlordship of that African seaboard which the first Mussulmans had rent away from the allegiance of Constantinople. The greatest conquest of Suleiman was made in Hungary; but he also made the Ægæan an Ottoman sea. The early years of his reign saw the driving of the Knights from Rhodes, and the winning of their fortress of Halikarnassos, the last European possession on Asiatic ground. His last days saw the annexation of the Naxian duchy; at an intermediate stage Venice lost her Peloponnesian strongholds. ♦Algiers. 1519.♦ In Africa the Turk received the commendation of Algiers and of Tunis. ♦Tunis conquered by Charles the Fifth. 1531. 1535.♦ But Tunis, won for Christendom by the Imperial King of the Two Sicilies, was lost and won again, till it was finally won for Islam by the second Selim. Tripolis, granted to the Knights, also passed to Suleiman. ♦1574.♦ Under Selim Cyprus was added; the fight of Lepanto could neither save nor recover it; but the advance of the Turk was stopped. ♦Decline of the Ottoman power.♦ The conquests of the seventeenth century were small compared with those of earlier days, and, before that century was out, the Ottoman Terminus had begun to go back.

♦Greatest extent of the Ottoman power.♦

Yet it was in the last half of the seventeenth century that the Ottoman Empire reached its greatest geographical extent. ♦Conquest of Crete. 1641-1669. of Podolia. 1672-1676.♦ Crete was now won; a few years later Kamienetz and all Podolia were ceded to the Turk by Poland. This was not absolutely his last European acquisition, but it was his last acquisition of a great province. The Ottoman dominion now covered a wider space on the map than it had done at any earlier moment. Suleiman in all his glory had not reigned over Cyprus, Crete, and Podolia. The tide now turned for ever. ♦The Ottoman frontier falls back.♦ From that time the Ottoman has, like his Byzantine predecessor, had his periods of revival and recovery, but on the whole his frontier has steadily gone back.

♦Ottoman loss of Hungary. 1683-1699.♦

The first great blow to the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire was dealt in the war which was ended by the Peace of Carlowitz. We have seen how Hungary and Peloponnêsos were won back for Christendom; so was Podolia. We have seen too how at the next stage the Turk gained at one end and lost at the other, winning back Peloponnêsos, winning Mykonos and Tênos, but losing on the Save and the Danube. The next stage shows the Ottoman frontier again in advance; in our own day we have seen it again fall back. And the change which has given Bosnia and Herzegovina to the master of Dalmatia, Ragusa, and Cattaro has, besides throwing back the frontier of the Turk, redressed a very old geographical wrong. ♦Union of inland and maritime Illyricum.♦ Ever since the first Slavonic settlements, the inland region of northern Illyricum has been more or less thoroughly cut off from the coast cities which form its natural outlets. Whatever may be the fate of those lands, the body is again joined to the mouth, and the mouth to the body, and we can hardly fancy them again severed.

The same arrangements which transferred the ‘administration’ of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the King of Hungary and Dalmatia, have transferred another part of the Ottoman dominion to a more distant European power on terms which are still less easy to understand. ♦Cyprus. 1878.♦ The Greek island of Cyprus has passed to English rule; but it is after a fashion which may imply that the conquest of Richard of Poitou is held—not, it is to be hoped, by the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, but possibly by the Empress of India—as a tributary of the Ottoman Sultan.

During the former half of the eighteenth century the shiftings of the Ottoman territory to the north were all on the side of Austria or Hungary. ♦Relations of the Turk towards Russia.♦ But a new enemy of the Turk appeared towards the end of the seventeenth century, one who was, before the end of the eighteenth, to stand forth as his chief enemy. ♦Loss and recovery of Azof. 1696-1711.♦ Under Peter the Great Azof was won by Russia and lost again. Sixty years later great geographical changes took place in the same region. ♦Treaty of Kainardji. 1774. Independence of Crim.♦ By the Treaty of Kainardji, the dependent khanate of Crim—the old Tauric Chersonêsos and the neighbouring lands—was released from the superiority of the Sultan. ♦Russian annexation of Crim. 1783.♦ This was a natural step towards its annexation by Russia, which thus again made her way to the Euxine. ♦Of Jedisan. 1791.♦ The Bug was now the frontier; presently, by the Russian annexation of Oczakow and the land of Jedisan, it fell back to the Dniester. By the treaty of Bucharest the frontier alike of the dominion and of the overlordship of the Turk fell back to the Pruth and the lower Danube. ♦Of Bessarabia. 1812. Shiftings of the Moldavian frontier.♦ Russia thus gained Bessarabia and the eastern part of Moldavia. ♦Treaty of Hadrianople. 1829.♦ By the Treaty of Hadrianople she further won the islands at the mouth of the Danube. ♦Treaty of Paris, 1856;♦ The Treaty of Paris restored to Moldavia a small part of the lands ceded at Bucharest, so as to keep the Russian frontier away from the Danube. ♦of Berlin, 1878.♦ This last cession, with the exception of the islands, was recovered by Russia at the Treaty of Berlin. But changes of frontier in those regions no longer affect the dominion of the Turk.

§ 9. The Liberated States.

♦Lands liberated from the Ottoman.♦

The losses which the Ottoman power has undergone at the hands of its independent neighbours, Russia, Montenegro, and Austria or Hungary, must be distinguished from the liberation of certain lands from Turkish rule to form new or revived European states. We have seen that the kingdom of Hungary and its dependent lands might fairly come under this head, and we have seen in what the circumstances of their liberation differ from the liberation of Greece or Servia or Bulgaria. But it is important to bear in mind that the Turk had to be driven from Hungary, no less than from Greece, Servia, and Bulgaria. If the Turk has ruled at Belgrade, at Athens, and at Tirnovo, he has ruled at Buda no less. All stand in the same opposition to Tzetinje, where he has never ruled.

As the Servian people was the only one among the south-eastern nations of which any part maintained its abiding independence, so the enslaved part of the Servian people was the first among the subject nations to throw off the yoke. ♦The Ionian Islands.♦ But the first attempt to form anything like a free state in south-eastern Europe was made among a branch of the Greek nation, in the so-called Ionian Islands. But the form which the attempt took was no lessening of the Turkish dominion, but its increase. ♦Ceded to France. 1797.♦ By the peace of Campoformio, the islands, with the few Venetian points on the mainland, were to pass to France. ♦Septinsular Republic under Ottoman overlordship. 1798.♦ By the treaty of the next year between Russia and the Turk, the points on the mainland were to be handed over to the Turk, while the islands were to form a commonwealth, tributary to the Turk, but under the protection of Russia. ♦The Venetian outposts given to the Turk.♦ Thus, besides an advance of the Turk’s immediate dominion on the mainland, his overlordship was to be extended over the islands, including Corfu, the one island which had never come under his power. ♦Surrender of Parga. 1819.♦ The other points on the mainland passed, not so much to the Sultan as to his rebellious vassal Ali of Jôannina; but Parga kept its freedom till five years after the general peace. ♦All Albania and continental Greece under the Turk.♦ Thus the Turk made his last encroachment on Christendom, and held for a moment the whole of the Greek and Albanian mainland. ♦The Ionian Islands under English protection. 1815.♦ The islands meanwhile, tossed to and fro during the war between France and England, were at the peace again made into a nominal commonwealth, but under a form of British protection which it is not easy to distinguish from British sovereignty. Still a nominally free Greek state was again set up, and the possibility of Greek freedom on a larger scale was practically acknowledged.

♦The Greek War of Independence. 1821.♦

It was only for a very short time that the Turk held complete possession of all Albania and continental Greece. Two years after the betrayal of Parga began the Greek War of Independence. ♦Extent of the Greek nation.♦ The geographical disposition of the Greek nation has changed very little since the Latin conquest of Constantinople; it has changed very little since the later days of old Hellas. At all these stages some other people has held the solid mainland of south-eastern Europe and of western Asia, while the Greek has been the prevailing race on the coasts, the islands, the peninsular lands, of both continents, from Durazzo to Trebizond. ♦General Greek revolt.♦ Within this range the Greeks revolted at every point where they were strong enough to revolt at all. ♦Extent of the liberated territory.♦ But it was only in the old Hellenic mainland, and in Crete and others of the Ægæan islands, that the Greeks were able to hold their ground. ♦1829-1833.♦ Of these lands some parts were allowed by Western diplomacy to keep their freedom. ♦Kingdom of Greece.♦ A Kingdom of Greece was formed, taking in Peloponnêsos, Euboia, the Kyklades, and a small part of central Greece, south of a line drawn from the gulf of Arta to the gulf of Volo. But the Turk was allowed to hold, not only the more distant Greek lands and islands, but Epeiros, Thessaly, and Crete. ♦Ionian islands added to Greece. 1864.♦ The kingdom was afterwards enlarged by the addition of the Ionian islands, whose nominal Septinsular Republic was merged in the kingdom. ♦Treaty of Berlin. 1878.♦ By the Treaty of Berlin, Crete, which had twice risen, was thrust back into bondage, but parts of Thessaly and Epeiros were ordered to be set free and to be added to the kingdom. ♦Its promises unfulfilled.♦ But even this small instalment of Greek emancipation has not yet been carried out.

♦First revolt and deliverance of Servia. 1805-1812.♦

Between the first and the second establishment of the Ionian commonwealth, Servia had been delivered and had been conquered again. The first revolt made Servia a tributary principality. ♦Second revolt and deliverance. 1817-1829.♦ It was then won back by the Turk and again delivered. ♦1826-1829.♦ Its freedom, modified by the payment of tribute and by the presence of Turkish garrisons in certain towns, was decreed by the peace of Akerman, and was carried out by the treaty of Hadrianople. ♦Withdrawal of Turkish garrisons. 1867.♦ Fifty years after the second establishment of the principality, its practical freedom was made good by the withdrawal of the Turkish garrisons. ♦Servia independent with an enlarged territory. 1878.♦ The last changes have made Servia, under a native dynasty, an independent state, released from all tribute or vassalage. The same changes have given Servia a slight increase of territory. ♦Servian territory left to the Turk.♦ But the boundary is so drawn as to leave part of the old Servian land to the Turk, and carefully to keep the frontiers of the Servian and Montenegrin principalities apart. That is to say, the Servian nation is split into four parts—Montenegro, free Servia, Turkish Servia, and those Servian lands which are, some under the ‘administration,’ some under the acknowledged rule, of the King of Hungary and Dalmatia.

♦The Rouman principalities.♦

While Servia and Greece were under the immediate rule of the Turk, the Rouman lands of Wallachia and Moldavia always kept a certain measure of separate being. The Turk named and deposed their princes, but they never came under his direct rule. ♦Union of Wallachia and Moldavia. 1861.♦ After the Treaty of Paris, the two principalities, being again allowed to choose for themselves, took the first step towards union by choosing the same prince. Then followed their complete union as the Principality of Roumania, paying tribute to the Turk, but otherwise free. ♦Independence of Roumania. 1878.♦ The last changes have made Roumania, as well as Servia, an independent state. Its frontier towards Russia, enlarged at Paris, was cut short at Berlin. ♦Change of its frontier.♦ But this last treaty restored to it the land of Dobrutcha south of the Danube, thus giving the new state a certain Euxine sea-board. Thus the Roumans, the Romance-speaking people of Eastern Europe, still a scattered remnant in their older seats, have, in their great colony on the Danube, won for themselves a place among the nations of Europe.

Lastly, while Servia and Roumania have been wholly freed from the yoke, a part of Bulgaria has been raised to that position of practical independence which they formerly held. ♦The Bulgaria of San Stefano. 1878.♦ The Russian treaty of San Stefano decreed a tributary principality of Bulgaria, whose boundaries came most nearly to those of the third Bulgarian kingdom at its greatest extent. But it was to have, what no Bulgarian state had had before, a considerable Ægæan sea-board. This would have had the effect of splitting the immediate dominion of the Turk in two. It would also have had the real fault of adding to Bulgaria some districts which ought rather to be added to free Greece. ♦Treaty of Berlin. Division of Bulgaria.♦ By the Treaty of Berlin the Turk was to keep the whole north coast of the Ægæan, while the Bulgarian nation was split into three parts, in three different political conditions. ♦Free.♦ The oldest and latest Bulgarian land, the land between Danube and Balkan, forms, with the exception of the corner ceded to Roumania, the tributary Principality of Bulgaria. ♦Half-free.♦ The land immediately south of the Danube, the southern Bulgaria of history—northern Roumelia, according to the compass—receives the diplomatic name of Eastern Roumelia, a name which would more naturally take in Constantinople. Its political condition is described as ‘administrative autonomy,’ a half-way house, it would seem, between bondage and freedom. ♦Enslaved.♦ Meanwhile in the old Macedonian land, the land for which Basil and Samuel strove so stoutly, the question between Greek and Bulgarian is held to be solved by handing over Greek and Bulgarian alike to the uncovenanted mercies of the Turk.

♦General Survey.♦

We may end our survey of the south-eastern lands by taking a general view of their geographical position at some of the most important points in their history. ♦800.♦ At the end of the eighth century we see the Eastern Empire still stretching from Tauros to Sardinia; but everywhere, save in its solid Asiatic peninsula, it has shrunk up into a dominion of coasts and islands. It still holds Sicily, Sardinia, and Crete, the heel and the toe of Italy, the outlying duchies of Campania, the outlying duchy at the head of the Hadriatic. In its great European peninsula it holds the whole of the Ægæan coast, a great part of the coasts of the Euxine and the Hadriatic. But the lord of the sea rules nowhere far from the sea; the inland regions are held, partly by the great Bulgarian power, partly by smaller Slavonic tribes fluctuating between independence and formal submission. ♦900.♦ At the end of the next century the general character of the East-Roman dominion remains the same, but many points of detail have changed. Sardinia and Crete are lost; a corner is all that is left in Sicily; but the Imperial power is acknowledged along the whole eastern Hadriatic coast; the heel and the toe have grown into the dominion of all southern Italy; all Greece has been won back to the Empire. But the Empire has now new neighbours. The Turanian Magyar is seated on the Danube, and other kindred nations are pressing in his wake. Russians, Slaves that is under Scandinavian leadership, threaten the Empire by sea. ♦1000.♦ The last year of the tenth century shows Sicily wholly lost, but Crete and Cyprus won back; Kilikia and Northern Syria are won again; Bulgaria is won and lost again; Russian establishment on the Danube is put off for eight hundred years; the great struggle is going on to decide whether the Slave or the Eastern Roman is to rule in the south-eastern peninsula. ♦c. 1040.♦ At one moment in the eleventh century we see the dominion of the New Rome at its full height. Europe south of the Danube and its great tributaries, Asia to Caucasus and almost to the Caspian, form a compact body of dominion, stretching from the Venetian isles to the old Phœnician cities. The Italian and insular dominion is untouched; it is enlarged for a moment by Sicilian conquest. ♦c. 1090.♦ Another glance, half-a-century later, shows the time when the Empire was most frightfully cut short by old enemies and new. The Servian wins back his own land; the Saracen wins back Sicily. The Norman in Italy cuts down the Imperial dominion to the nominal superiority of Naples, the last of Greek cities in the West, as Kymê was the first. For a moment he even plants himself east of Hadria, and rends away Corfu and Durazzo from the Eastern world, as Rome rent them away thirteen centuries before. The Turk swallows up the inland provinces of Asia; he plants his throne at Nikaia, and leaves to the Empire no Asiatic dominion beyond a strip of Euxine and Ægæan coast. ♦c. 1180.♦ Towards the end of the twelfth century, the Empire is restored to its full extent in Europe; Servia and Dalmatia are won back, Hungary itself looks like a vassal. In Asia the inland realm of the Turk is hemmed in by the strong Imperial grasp of the whole coast-line, Euxine, Ægæan, and Mediterranean. ♦c. 1200.♦ At the next moment comes the beginning of the final overthrow; before the century is out, the distant possessions of the Empire have either fallen away of themselves, or have been rent away by other powers. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Trebizond, Corfu, even Epeiros and Hellas, have parted away, or are in the act of parting away. ♦1204.♦ Venice, its long nominal homage cast aside, joins with faithless crusaders to split the Empire in pieces. The Flemish Emperor reigns at Constantinople; the Lombard King reigns at Thessalonikê; Achaia, Athens, Naxos, give their names to more abiding dynasties; Venice plants herself firmly in Crete and Peloponnêsos. Still the Empire is not dead. The Frank, victorious in Europe, hardly wins a footing in Asia. Nikaia and Trebizond keep on the Imperial succession, and a third Greek power, for a moment Imperial also, holds it in Western Greece and the islands. ♦1250.♦ Fifty years later, the Empire of Nikaia has become an European power; it has already outlived the Latin dominion at Thessalonikê; it has checked the revived power of Bulgaria; it has cut short the Latin Empire to the immediate neighbourhood of the Imperial city. To the north Servia is strengthening herself; Bosnia is coming into being; the Dalmatian cities are tossed to and fro among their neighbours. ♦1300.♦ Another glance at the end of the thirteenth century shows us the revived East-Roman Empire in its old Imperial seat, still in Europe an advancing and conquering power, ruling on the three seas of its own peninsula, established once more in Peloponnêsos, a compact and seemingly powerful state, as compared with the Epeirot, Achaian, and Athenian principalities, or with the scattered possessions of Venice in the Greek lands. But the power which seems so firmly established in Europe has all but passed away in Asia. There the Turk has taken the place of the Greek, and the Greek the place of the Frank, as they stood a hundred years earlier. And behind the immediate Turkish enemies stands that younger and mightier Turkish power which is to swallow up all its neighbours, Mussulman and Christian. ♦c. 1354.♦ In the central years of the fourteenth century we see the Empire hemmed in between two enemies, European and Asiatic, which have risen to unexpected power at the same time. Part of Thrace, Chalkidikê, part of Thessaly, a few scattered points in Asia, are left to the Empire; in Peloponnêsos alone is it an advancing power; everywhere else its frontiers have fallen back. The Servian Tzar rules from the Danube to the Gulf of Corinth. The Ottoman Emir has left but a few fragments to the Empire in Asia, and has already fixed his grasp on Europe. ♦1400.♦ Before the century is ended, neither Constantinople, nor Servia, nor any other Christian power, is dominant in the south-eastern peninsula. The Ottoman rules in their stead. The Empire is cut short to a corner of Thrace, with Thessalonikê, Chalkidikê, and the Peloponnesian province which now forms its greatest possession. Instead of the great power of Servia, we see a crowd of small principalities, Greek, Slavonic, and Albanian, falling for the most part under either Ottoman or Venetian supremacy. The Servian name is still borne by one of them; but its prince is a Turkish vassal; the true representative of Servian independence has already begun to show itself among the mountains which look down on the mouths of Cattaro and the lake of Skodra. Bulgaria has fallen lower still; the Turk’s immediate power reaches to the Danube. Bosnia at one end, the Frank principalities at the other end, the Venetian islands in either sea, still hold out; but the Turk has begun, if not to rule over them, at least to harry them. Within the memory of men who could remember when the Empire of Servia was not yet, who could remember when the eagles of Constantinople still went forth to victory, the Ottoman had become the true master of the South-Eastern lands; whatever has as yet escaped his grasp remained simply as remnants ready for the gleaning.

♦1500.♦

We will take our next glance in the later years of the fifteenth century, a few years after the death of the great conqueror. The momentary break-up of the power of the Ottoman has been followed by the greatest of his conquests. All now is over. The New Rome is the seat of barbarian power. Trebizond, Peloponnêsos, Athens, Euboia, the remnant of independent Epeiros, Servia, Bosnia, Albania, all are gathered in. The islands are still mostly untouched; but the whole mainland is conquered, save where Venice still holds her outposts, and where the warrior prelates of the Black Mountain, the one independent Christian power from the Save to Cape Matapan, have entered on their career of undying glory. With these small exceptions, the whole dominion of the Macedonian Emperors has passed into Ottoman hands, together with a vast tributary dominion beyond the Danube, much of which had never bowed to either Rome. ♦1600.♦ At the end of another century, we see all Hungary, save a tributary remnant, a subject land of the Turk. We see Venice shorn of Cyprus and all her Peloponnesian possessions. The Dukes have gone from Naxos and the Knights from Rhodes, and the Mussulman lord of so many Christian lands has spread his power over his fellow Mussulmans in Syria, Egypt, and Africa. ♦1700.♦ Another century passes, and the tide is turned. The Turk can still conquer; he has won Crete abidingly and Podolia for a moment. But the crescent has passed away for ever from Buda and from the Western isles; it has passed away for a moment from Corinth and all Peloponnêsos. ♦1800.♦ At the end of another century we see the Turk’s immediate possession bounded by the Save and the Danube, and his overlordship bounded by the Dniester. His old rivals Poland and Venice are no more; but Austria hems in his Slavonic provinces; France struggles for the islands off his western shore; Russia watches him from the peninsula so long held by the free Goth and the free Greek. ♦1878.♦ Seventy-eight years more, and his shadow of overlordship ends at the Danube, his shadow of immediate dominion ends at the Balkan. Free Greece, free Servia, free Roumania—Montenegro again reaching to her own sea—Bulgaria parted into three, but longing for reunion—Bosnia, Herzegovina, Cyprus, held in a mysterious way by neighbouring or distant European powers—all join to form, not so much a picture as a dissolving view. We see in them a transitional state of things, which diplomacy fondly believes to be an eternal settlement of an eternal question, but of which reason and history can say only that we know not what a day may bring forth.

[Long after this chapter was written, after the whole of it was printed, after a great part of it was revised for the press, there appeared the first volume of the great collection of C. N. Sathas, Μνημεῖα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἱσορίας, Documents Inédits relatifs à l’Histoire de la Grèce au Moyen Âge (Paris, 1880). In his preface M. Sathas insists on two points. One is the Greek character of the Eastern Empire throughout its whole being; that it had a Greek side no one ever thought of denying. He brings together a good many occasional instances, largely from unprinted manuscripts, of the use of Ἕλλην and Ἑλλάς through the whole period of the Empire. That the name came into rhetorical use by a kind of Renaissance about the thirteenth century is undoubted. I brought together some few instances in my Historical Essays, iii. 246, and the whole history of Laonikos Chalkokondylas is one long instance. M. Sathas brings several others from much earlier times. But they seem to me to be mainly cases of the rhetorical use of an antiquated name, such as is common among all nations. They do not seem to affect the proposition that the regular national name of the Empire and its people was always Roman. M. Sathas’ other point is somewhat startling. It is that the Slavonic occupation of a large part of Greece, as to the extent of which there has been much disputing, but which I never before saw altogether denied, is all a mistake. According to him the settlers were not Slaves, but Albanians, called Slaves by that lax use of national names of which there certainly are plenty of instances. I cannot undertake either to accept or to refute M. Sathas’ doctrine during the process of revising a proof-sheet. I can only put the fact on record that one who has gone very deeply into the matter has come to this, to me at least, altogether new conclusion.]