The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks

by Edwin Pears

APPENDIX IV

THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION ON GREEKS AND MOSLEMS RESPECTIVELY

In reading the contemporary authors of the period between the Latin and the Moslem conquests the following questions suggest themselves: What was the influence of the Orthodox Church upon the people of the capital and of the empire? What was its value as a national ethical force? and how did its influence as such a force compare with that of Islam?

Before attempting a reply to these questions certain facts must be noted. It must be remembered that the empire was composed of many races and languages. In the Balkan peninsula alone there were always at least half a dozen races with as many different forms of speech. In Asia Minor the component elements of the population were even still more numerous. The Church largely aided the State in the endeavour to keep these divergent elements under the rule of the empire. Her special task was to change the various races into Christians. But even when this task was completed to the extent of causing them all to profess Christianity they retained their racial characteristics and traditions. These characteristics, though widely various, may be classified in two categories. In other words, it may be said that among all the different populations of the empire there were two streams of tendency: the Hellenic and the Asiatic. The tendency and influence of each were markedly present in the church from the first days of the empire and continued until 1453. Greek influence left an indelible impress upon the Orthodox Church. But while it influenced the other races of the empire, the Greeks themselves fell to some extent under the Asiatic influence. Greek tendency was always to make of Christianity a philosophy rather than a religion. The opposite tendency, which I have called Asiatic and which corresponds fairly well to what Matthew Arnold called Hebraic, had less enduring results upon the population but was nevertheless constantly present. The two tendencies were constantly striving one against the other within the Church.

Greek influence (1) largely aided in the formation of a philosophical body of theology, (2) helped to perpetuate paganism and develop a paganistic tendency, and (3) deprived the Church of the religious enthusiasm which the Asiatic tendency might have provided and has often inspired. The service of the Greeks in reference to the formation of a body of theological philosophy is too completely recognised to require any notice. Greek influence helped to perpetuate paganism in various ways. It was naturally always most powerful in the Balkan peninsula, its chief centres being Athens and Salonica, but had great weight also in the western cities of Asia Minor. Greek polytheists in pre-Christian times were not opposed to the recognition of other gods than those worshipped by themselves. How this rational toleration, which was as utterly opposed to the exclusive spirit of Asiatic Christianity as to that of Islam itself, tended to perpetuate paganism will be best understood by recalling the early history of the later Roman empire. The population under the rule of New Rome had for the most part adopted the profession of Christianity because it was the religion of the State. Most people found little difficulty in conforming to the demands of the emperor and became Christians. Under such circumstances Christianity did not conquer paganism: it absorbed without destroying it. Just as in Central Asia many tribes who have come under the power of Russia have been ordered to elect whether they would declare themselves Christians or Moslems, so in the days of the early Christian emperors, and especially under the laws of Theodosius the choice was between a profession of the Court creed or remaining in some form of paganism where its professors would be subject to various disabilities and persecutions. The conformity which resulted was curious. The people became nominally Christians, but they brought with them into the Church most of their old superstitions. Their ancient deities were not discarded but were either secretly worshipped or came to be regarded as Christian saints: their festal days became the commemoration days of Christian events. I do not forget that something of the same kind went on in the Western Church and that the missionaries, finding themselves unable to persuade their converts to abandon their old observances, deftly adopted them into the Christian Church. But all that was done in this direction in the West was small in comparison with what went on in the East. St. George took the place of Apollo. St. Nicholas replaced Poseidon. The highest hill in every neighbourhood on the mainland and in every island of the Marmora and the Aegean had fittingly been crowned with a temple dedicated to the God of Day. The great dragon, Night, had been overcome by Helios. To this day it is almost universally true that all the peaks in question have an Orthodox church which has taken the place of the temple of Apollo and is dedicated to his successor, St. George.[606] In like manner the temples built in fishing villages to Poseidon have almost invariably been dedicated to St. Nicholas. The episcopal staff of a Greek bishop has the two serpents’ heads associated with Aesculapius. The distribution of holy bread at funerals, the processions to shrines, to sacred groves, to Hagiasmas or holy wells, and numerous other customs of the Orthodox Church, are survivals or rudimentary forms of paganism.[607]

Asiatic influence was more powerful in Constantinople than in Greece. The explanation of this fact is to be found in the remoteness of Athens from the capital; in the greater intellectual life of Constantinople; in the presence of many leaders of thought from the cities in Asia Minor under Asiatic influence, and in the traditional Roman sentiment derived from the influence of Latin rulers, literature, and tradition. The iconoclastic movement towards the end of the eighth century was a genuine attempt to get rid of pagan practices. It failed because of the base character of some of its imperial supporters, because of the opposition of the less cultured western church, and because the Empress Irene, a native of Athens and brought up among the traditions of paganism which still lived on in what was then a remote part of the empire, placed herself at the head of the Hellenic party and with her strong will was able to prevent any reformation being accomplished.

But paganism in Greece and Asia Minor lived on long after the time of Irene. The Hellenistic influence struggled hard against the Asiatic or what was not unfitly called the Roman party. When we come to the last century of the empire’s history, we find its influence triumphant, and this to such an extent that we see Plethon and his school, as the representatives of a phase of Greek thought, dreaming of the restoration of paganism. I conclude, therefore, that Greek influence helped to perpetuate paganism or at least a paganistic tendency.

Greek influence deprived the Church of the religious enthusiasm which the study of the Old Testament has often inspired. It must always be remembered that the Greeks had the New Testament in a language they could understand. Every one recognises that a large part of the intellectual movement in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was due to the translation of the sacred Scriptures into the vernacular. But there has been no period in the history of the Greek race since the compilation of the Christian record in which the Greeks have not had the advantage of a familiarity with the Gospels and the writings of St. Paul. They knew the New Testament well. Its Greek was colloquial. But they were less familiar with the Old Testament. Although frequent allusions are made to the stories in the older book by many writers during the later centuries of the Church’s history, the Septuagint was written in a language less understood by the people. Indications that the Old Testament influenced men’s conduct are lacking, and point either to a want of familiarity with it, or to some other cause which made its influence less than that which it has had on other peoples. The passionate zeal of our own Puritans, with their application of Jewish history to English politics; the political principles of the defenders of civil liberty in America; the fierce enthusiasm of the Scotch Covenanters, of the Dutch Protestants, and of the Boers, were all derived from the Old rather than from the New Testament. The influence of the more ancient book might have been great upon the Asiatic party if its writings had been as familiar as those of the New Testament. As it was, though its influence was undoubtedly felt, that derived from the New Testament became more powerful as the centuries went on, ultimately triumphed, and led to results which assist us to furnish an answer to the questions under examination.

What, then, was the general effect of the double stream of influence on the members of the Orthodox Church? The familiarity of the subjects of the empire with the text of the New Testament combined with the intellectual genius of the Greek race led them to take a delight in the study of the philosophical questions which the New Testament, and especially the writings of St. Paul, suggest. To take a keen interest in any metaphysical study is for any people a gain, and it is none the less so when the subject is theology. Now the interest of the population in theological questions was at all times absorbing.

When these questions were settled by the Church, the Asiatic influence made itself felt and produced a conservatism, a stubborn refusal to change or abandon any position, which the more fickle-minded or philosophical Greek could never have displayed. Each of the two tendencies exerted its influence upon the conduct of the Orthodox Church. Speaking generally, we may say that all its members were devotedly attached to their faith—or perhaps it would be more exact to say, to their creeds. Of political questions in the modern sense they knew little. In their ignorance of foreign nations, questions of external policy hardly interested them, but the intellectual life of the country—mostly confined to the great cities, to Nicaea, Salonica, Smyrna, and above all the capital—was fully awake to theological questions. While ready to discuss, they maintained every dogma and every article with a persistence which increased as the years rolled on. They took a keen interest in any question whenever any heretic appeared who attempted to throw doubt on what the Church had decided. They were ready to die for their faith.

The writers of the Greek Church show by abundant examples that they and the people believed in the existence of a God who lives and rules the world and the conduct of individuals. Their very superstitions afford sufficient evidence of such a belief. He was an avenging God. Black Death and Plague are described as the instruments of His vengeance. Omens and signs in a variety of forms were the means by which He, or some of the Hierarchy of Heaven, intimated to the faithful what was about to happen. The absence of omens was a sign of His displeasure or His abandonment of their cause.

The men who discussed the religious questions which arose during the later as well as the earlier centuries of the empire regarded them as tremendous realities. The discussions were not mere exchange of opinions or formulating of phrases: not mere academical disputations, among the learned of the time, of metaphysical abstractions, but were often careful attempts to solve the insoluble. The results were of supreme importance. If you believed aright, you would be saved. If you disbelieved or believed wrongfully, you would be damned in the next world and, as far as the believers could accomplish it, in this also. Unless the eagerness, the passion, the deadly Asiatic earnestness of the religious discussions or wranglings be realised, no true conception can be formed of fourteenth and fifteenth century life in Constantinople.

Contemporary writers supply abundant and indisputable evidence that, from the patriarch downwards, the members of the Greek Church attached overwhelming importance to the correctness of their orthodoxy. The utmost care about correct definitions was taken by the Church to check paganism. The miscreant was a worse offender than the man who disregarded the ordinary laws of morality. Souls were to be saved by right belief. As in the Western Church, whosoever would be saved, it was necessary before all things that he should accept the right formulas. But the Eastern gave greater prominence to the formulas than even the Western. While the Roman Church attached most importance to its Catholicity and to the necessity of propagating the faith, the Greek Church always prided itself rather on its Orthodoxy. If the question were whether the empire was Christian, and if the test of being a Christian nation were the jealous guardianship of every dogma in the precise manner that it had been formulated by the Councils of the Church, then the Orthodox Church, to which the inhabitants of the capital and empire belonged, would take a very high rank among Christian nations.

It is not possible to doubt that the keen interest taken in the discussion of religious questions quickened the intellectual development of the population, and in this respect the influence of the Church was purely beneficial. To suggest, as did the historians of the eighteenth century, that the Greeks were at once profoundly theological and profoundly vile is not only to ask that an indictment should be framed against a whole people, but is contrary to general experience and to fact. In spite of the occasional conjunction of theology and immorality in the same individual, the nation which takes a lively interest in the former is not likely to be addicted to the latter.

A strong and, I think, an unanswerable case might be made out to show that the religion of the Orthodox Church beneficially influenced the conduct of men and women in their individual capacity and in their relations one with another. All believed in the doctrine of eternal punishment and in the divine gifts granted to the Church by which punishment might be avoided. In their constant efforts to take advantage of the graces at the disposal of the Church, and in their endeavours to attain the ideal of Christian philosophy, men and women were led by their religion to be more moral, more honest, and more kindly one to another, than they would otherwise have been. The denunciations of those who had been guilty of unclean conduct, and the constant praise of almsgiving, lead to the conclusion that the Church had so far exercised influence for good. It had given the citizens of the empire a higher standard of family and social life. The very stubbornness which the Asiatic tendency supplied, and which led all to resist every attempt to change the formulas of the faith, came in itself to stand the population in good stead after 1453. Their wranglings on religious questions helped to form a public opinion which prevented any considerable number of Christians from abandoning their religion. We may safely conclude, therefore, that the Orthodox Church had aided in developing intellectual life, in raising and maintaining a high tone of morality, and in so attaching its members to their religion that when the time of trial came they remained faithful. It had done more. While accomplishing these objects it had raised a whole series of heterogeneous races to a higher level of civilisation and had largely contributed to make the empire the foremost and best educated state in Europe. It had checked the Greek tendency to attachment merely to the city or province and had made patriotism and brotherhood words of wider signification than they possessed in Greece.

It is when we pass from the influence of the Church on the conduct of the individual, to ask what was the value of its ethical teaching in regard to national life, whether it ever set before the nation a lofty national ideal, or whether it ever caused a wave of religious enthusiasm which influenced the nation as a whole, that we find the Orthodox Church during the later centuries of its history greatly lacking. Religion was to guide the conduct of the individual and to save him from eternal punishment. There was little or no conception of it as an aid to national righteousness. There was no inspiration for national action, such as a study of the Old Testament has often supplied. There was never any great religious fervour for the accomplishment of an object because it was believed to be the divine will. I am not thinking of such religious enthusiasm as led to the abolition of the slave trade or of slavery, to the temperance movement or to that for the diminution of crime and the reform of criminals or for the bettering the condition of the labouring classes and the like. These are social developments belonging to later years, which may be credited, in part at least, to the account of Christianity. It is in the contemporary religious movements of other portions of the Christian world that the measure of the national religious life of the empire must be taken. The series of Crusades enables a comparison of this kind to be fairly made, though other standards of comparison suggest themselves. The empire under the rule of Constantinople had a greater interest in checking the progress of the Moslems in Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor than had the Western nations. But in the whole course of Byzantine history, though the empire steadily resisted the Mahometan armies, there was no display of religious enthusiasm to lend its aid at any time comparable with that which was shown in the West. An Eastern Peter the Hermit could not have aroused the members of the Orthodox Church. No Godfrey de Bouillon could have found statesmen in the East to have espoused his cause. If leaders had been forthcoming, followers would have been wanting. Though the statesmen of the West were influenced by many motives to join in the Crusades, they, too, were largely under the sway of religious fervour. The nations of which they were the leaders did display such fervour for the accomplishment of objects which were believed to be in conformity with the divine will. As for the great mass of crusaders, it cannot be doubted that they took the cross mainly because they believed that they were doing the will of God. Absence of precaution, deficiency of organisation, unreasoning fanatical zeal, unreasonable and senseless haste to come into conflict with the infidel, the army of child crusaders, the sacrifices men made of their property, most of the incidents, indeed, which make up the narratives of the Crusades, show that the Soldiers of the Cross were steeped in religious fervour, and were in a condition of pious exaltation. They were, as they called themselves, an army of God. They were willing to face any danger, and to go to certain death for their Master’s cause.

The Greek was always ready to defend a dogma. He entertained a profound dislike and contempt for Christian heretics who were usually less well informed than he and were generally fanatically in earnest, but he was more tolerant of heresy than the men of the West, who in the Middle Ages bestowed on heretics a fanatical hatred and contempt greater even than that felt towards the infidel, and like that entertained in the present day towards anarchists as enemies of the human race.

No cause ever presented itself to the Greek as capable of arousing such fervour as the soldiers of the West displayed. Religion having become a New Testament philosophy, and the Old Testament inspiration in national life having been lost, there was little care for its propagation. The missionary age of the Orthodox Church in the empire, as soon as the Hellenic influence triumphed over the Asiatic, had passed away. Since the days of Cyril and Methodius, the great apostles of the ninth century, the Church could show few conversions and few serious attempts at conversion. That the Church should be orthodox was apparently enough. There was no attempt to enlarge its area. Christianity appeared to be regarded by one party as the best system of philosophy, and by the other, much as the Jew regarded his religion, as a sacred treasure to be kept for his own use and not to be offered to outside unbelievers. His religion in the later centuries never really moved the Greek to engage in missions. Except in regard to personal conduct, to almsgiving, kindness to his fellow-members of the Orthodox Church, and personal and commercial morality, he was incapable of religious sentiment. Something due to his race, something to his traditions, and something to his theological training, made Christianity, except as a philosophical system, sit lightly upon him and failed to make it a powerful national force. Then, as now, the Greek members of the Orthodox Church could not sympathise with or even comprehend the religious sentiment which has led the men of the West, whether acknowledging the jurisdiction of Rome or not, to undertake great movements, or even war, in defence of an object whose only recommendation was that it had right on its side.

In spite of the fact that in the empire and throughout Asia Minor nationality and religion were, as indeed they are to this day, always confounded or regarded as synonymous terms, Orthodox Christianity was unable to add a powerful religious sentiment to the defence of the empire. As a force inducing them to resist the encroachments of Islam, like that which influenced our fathers against Spain or the Ironsides against Charles, I doubt whether it was ever of much value. We have seen a patriarch writing apparently with great satisfaction that the Church was allowed to retain its liberty under Turkish rule. Throughout the long centuries of struggle against Islam, there were many Christians who transferred themselves to the jurisdiction of the sultans in order that they might live in peace. The individual aspect of Christianity was regarded, not the national.

It is when the influence of the Church upon the spirit of the population of the empire is compared with that of Mahometanism upon the Turkish hordes that its weakness as a dynamic force is most plainly seen. Mahometanism, like Christianity in Western lands and in Russia, is a missionary faith. Islam as a fighter’s religion, with its fatalism, its rewards of the most sensual pleasures that a barbarian is capable of conceiving, and its ennobling teaching that fighting the battles of the faith is fighting for God, has produced the most terrible armies that have ever come out from among any of the races among which its converts have been made. Islam in the twentieth century has spent much of its original force, because doubt as to its divine origin has entered into the hearts of its ablest members. Those among them who have seen or have otherwise learned the results of Christian civilisation instinctively and almost unconsciously judge the two religions by their fruits. Such men either become entirely neglectful of the ceremonious duties which their religion imposes, or, if they profess to have become more intent in their religious convictions than before, perform their ceremonies with a sub-consciousness that their religion is not better than that of the unbelievers. In whichever category they fall they lose their belief in the exclusively divine character of their creed. Nor do the studies in astronomy, medicine, geology, and other modern sciences fail to implant a similar and even a greater amount of scepticism in the Mahometan than they have done in the Christian mind. While visits to foreign countries and scientific studies are undertaken by few, their influence as a leaven is great.

In the centuries preceding the Moslem conquest of Constantinople scepticism was absent among both the Christian and Mahometan masses. The Ottoman Turks in the fifteenth century, more perhaps than at any other time, were full of the zeal of new converts. They were in a period of conquest which stimulated them. Many, perhaps most of them, believed in their divine mission. They were the chosen people, whose duty it was to give idolaters the choice of conversion to the one true faith or of death, to subdue all nations who accepted either the Old or the New Testament but refused to accept the prophethood of Mahomet, and to treat them as rayahs or cattle. Their spiritual pride caused them to think of those who professed any form of Christianity as being inferior and divinely predestined to occupy a hopelessly lower plane, as having only the privilege that their lives should be spared so long as they paid tribute and accepted subjection. Their central, overpowering belief was that they had a mission from God and the Prophet, and the result of such belief was fearlessness of danger. It was their duty to kill idolaters and subjugate Christians. Whatever happened to them in the fulfilment of this duty was not their business but God’s. He would bring about the predestined victory or the temporary defeat; but in either case it was well with them. If they lived, the plunder of their enemies was their reward; if they died, then heaven and the houris.

When this attitude of mind is compared with that which existed among the members of the Orthodox Church, we see at once great divergences between the two forms of faith as national ethical forces. On the one hand, the student of comparative religions must give that Church credit for having aided the growth of the population in the Christian virtues, for having given them an inspiration enabling them to suffer and to hope, for having preserved learning, developed national intelligence, cultivated exact thought, for having promoted philosophical studies and in various ways guarded the treasures of classic times until the rest of Europe was ready to receive them. On the other hand, such student, while recognising that Mahometanism prevents progress by assigning an inferior position to woman, by inculcating a spirit of fatalism which mischievously affects almost every act of the believer’s life and keeps the Turkish race in poverty, and by presenting a lower ideal of life, will have to admit that its influence as a religious force, with its ever-present sense of a Supreme Power, omnipotent to save or to destroy, was far greater than that of the Orthodox Church, and that the Church failed to supply the stimulus of a national inspiration comparable with that of the hostile creed, or with that furnished by Christianity to the men of the West.

---

[FOOTNOTES:]

[1] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited by J. B. Bury, M.A. Whenever Gibbon is quoted in the text of this volume it is from Professor Bury’s edition.

[2] Vol. vii. p. 163, Gibbon’s note.

[3] The principal of these works are:

1. ‘Belagerung und Eroberung Constantinopels im Jahre 1453.’ Von Dr. A. D. Mordtmann (Stuttgart, 1858).

2. ‘Die Eroberungen von Constantinopel im dreizehnten und fünfzehnten Jahrhundert.’ Von Dr. Johann Heinrich Krause (Halle, 1870).

3. ‘Les Derniers Jours de Constantinople.’ Par E. A. Vlasto (Paris, 1883).

4. Πολιορκία καὶ Ἁλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. By A. G. Paspates (Athens, 1890).

5. ‘Constantine, the last Emperor of the Greeks.’ By Chedomil Mijatovich, formerly Servian Minister at the Court of St. James (London, 1892).

6. Two valuable papers by Dr. A. Mordtmann (the son of Dr. A. D. Mordtmann) entitled Die letzten Tage von Byzanz, in the ‘Mitteilungen des deutschen Exkursions-Klubs in Konstantinopel,’ 1895.

[4] Giornale dell’ Assedio di Constantinopoli, di Nicolo Barbaro, P.V., corredato di note e documenti per Enrico Cornet (Vienna, 1856).

[5] Βίος τοῦ Μωαμὲθ βʹ.

[6] Herr Müller’s preface is dated 1869, but I am not aware that it was published before it appeared in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. v. The dedicatory epistle to Mahomet was published from another and a somewhat longer version by Tischendorf in 1870 in his Notitia Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici (Leipzig).

[7] ‘Informacion envoyée (en 1453) tant par Francisco de Franco au très révérend père en Dieu Monsgr le Cardinal d’Avignon que par Jehan Blanchin et Jacques Tetaldi marchand Florentin sur la prinse de Constantinoble à laquelle le dit Jacques estoit personellement.’ One version is published in Chroniques de Charles VII roi de France, par Jean Chartier, vol. iii., edited by Vallet de Virivalle (Paris, 1858). Another, published by Dethier with several important differences, is stated to be taken from Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum (Paris, 1717). Though his narrative was printed in France early in the eighteenth century, it appears to have been generally unknown and is not alluded to by Gibbon.

[8] Ubertini Pusculi Brixiensis Constantinopoleos: in Analekten der mittel- und neugriechischen Literatur, by J. A. Ellisen (Leipzig).

[9] Esquisse Topographique de Constantinople (Lille, 1892).

[10] Byzantine Constantinople: the Walls of the City and adjoining Historical Sites (published by John Murray, 1899).

[11] See authorities quoted in Sathas, Documents Inédits, i. p. xii.

[12] For example, Sir John Maundeville speaks of ‘Constantinople, where the Emperor of Greece usually dwells,’ Early Travels in Palestine, p. 130 (Bohn’s edition).

[13] See valuable remarks on the name of the empire in the Preface to Professor Bury’s Later Roman Empire, and in the Introduction to Documents Inédits relatifs à l’Histoire de la Grèce, by Sathas.

[14] Villehardouin, ch. lxxxvi.

[15] The soldiers are those who received the soldi or pay, as distinguished from the Crusaders, who were supposed to fight only for the cause of the Cross.

[16] La Sainte Chapelle in Paris was built to receive these treasures.

[17] Πύλη τῆς πηγῆς, so called because it led to the Holy Well, is better known as the Silivria Gate. See Professor Van Millingen’s Byzantine Constantinople, p. 75.

[18] P. 191. Pachymer, writing fifty years afterwards, adds that they placed ladders against the walls; and Nicephorus Gregoras, writing a century afterwards, speaks of a secret entry by an old subterranean passage for water, through which fifty men passed. Gibbon makes the mistake of saying that the entry was at the Golden Gate. Strategopulus had the Gate of the Fountain—that is, the Silivria Gate—opened for his troops. The Emperor Michael subsequently entered by the Golden Gate; possibly, as Dethier suggests (iii. 605), by the ancient gate of that name in the Constantine Walls, which was still used for ceremonial purposes.

[19] It is unlikely that at this time there were any foreigners among the fighting men other than Frenchmen. The pope’s demands for the defence of the empire do not appear to have been responded to outside France.

[20] Epist. Inn. viii. 133.

[21] Pachymer, iii. 10. Greg. iv. 4.

[22] Pach. iii. 19.

[23] Ibid. iv. 1.

[24] Pach. iv. 6. Pachymer took part in these proceedings, and was in fact one of the clerks of the court.

[25] The Holy Gates are in the middle of the Iconostasis or screen which separates the bema or chancel from the nave.

[26] Raynoldus and Vadingus.

[27] Ch. v. 9. It should be remembered that Pachymer had himself joined the Latin Church.

[28] Pach. v. 18.

[29] Pach. vi. 24 and 25.

[30] I have relied mostly for this account of the attempt at Union on Pachymer (I agree with Krumbacher’s high estimate of the value of this author’s history):

‘Pachymeres ragt durch seine Bildung und litterarische Thätigkeit über seine Zeitgenossen empor und kann als der grösste byzantinische Polyhistor des 13. Jahrhunderts bezeichnet werden. In ihm erblickt man deutlich die Licht- und Schattenseiten des Zeitalters der Paläologen. Es fehlt dem Pachymeres nicht an Gelehrsamkeit, Originalität und Witz.’ Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, p. 289. Pachymer was himself a Greek, born in Nicaea but a member of the Latin Church. He deals with the doings of the emperor and the Greek ecclesiastics in a fair spirit. His History is essentially that of his own times and covers the period from 1261 to 1308.

[31] Pach. part 2, ii. 18.

[32] The following table of descent will illustrate the text:

Baldwin II., emperor of Constantinople, fled the city 1261, died 1272.
│
Philip, married Beatrice, daughter of Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily,
│ died 1288.
│
Catherine, married in 1301 Charles of Valois, son of Philip III. of France;
│ Charles died 1308.
│
┌───────────────────┬─────────────┬────┐
John, died without issue.	Catherine married Philip of Tarentum, son of Charles of Sicily. Philip died 1322: Catherine in 1346.	Joanna	Elizabeth

[33] Pachymer indeed states that the Pope ordered Roger to be given up.

[34] Dr. Koëlle has in my opinion satisfactorily demonstrated that ‘Tatar’ is an incorrect spelling, due mainly to the fact that this form of the word comes to us from the Chinese, who cannot pronounce the letter r.

[35] The Mahommedans, by J. D. Rees, C.I.E., 1894.

[36] Pach. ii. 25.

[37] ‘Roum’ is still the Turkish form of ‘Rome,’ and exists in the names Erzeroum, Roumelia, &c.

[38] Pach. iv. 27.

[39] Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn’s edition, p. 241.

[40] Maundeville in Syria met Christians from Prester John’s country, p. 189. See Col. Yule’s Marco Polo, i. 275, a book which is a model of good editing.

[41] When, therefore, Mr. Billinski speaks of the Turks of to-day having ‘millions of confederates in the heart of Russia’ ready to obey the commands of the Mussulman pontiff, he is, I believe, entirely mistaken. The Mahometans under Russian rule are a comparatively insignificant part of her population, and there is no reason to believe that any but a very small portion of them would think it a religious duty to fight against the Czar at the bidding of the Sultan. It should also not be forgotten that the majority of them are Shiahs, who have never shown any disposition to aid the Sunnis, who acknowledge the caliphate of Constantinople. Nineteenth Century, Nov. 1891, p. 731.

[42] Maundeville in 1322, or a year or two later, discussed Mahometanism with many of its professors, and goes so far as to say, ‘Because they go so nigh our faith, they are easily converted to Christian law.’ Early Travels in Palestine, p. 196.

[43] See ante, p. [28].

[44] Pach. iv. 3.

[45] Ibid. iv. 6.

[46] That this aversion to agriculture, and contentment amid poverty, of the Turkish peasant are not merely the result of Mahometanism, is evidenced by the fact that the Pomaks—that is, the Bulgarians who have accepted Islam—and the Mahometans of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who have emigrated into Asia Minor since the Russo-Turkish War of 1878, are noticed everywhere to be distinguished by their comparative energy and by the success they are achieving in various forms of agricultural pursuits.

[47] Pach. vi. 21.

[48] iv. 21.

[49] Gregoras states that the Turkish ships employed by Andronicus plundered all the coasts and the islands (viii. 10). Chalcondylas claims that Othman with eight thousand Turks who occupied the Thracian Chersonesus was entirely defeated.

[50] It is usually impossible to arrive at the correct estimate of the numbers of the invaders, but it may be said once for all that, while they were undoubtedly very large, the figures given by the Greek authors are seldom trustworthy.

[51] Sir John Maundeville, who visited Constantinople in 1322, remarks on the diminution of the empire: ‘For he was emperor of Romania and of Greece, of all Asia the Less, and of the land of Syria, of the land of Persia and Arabia, but he hath lost all but Greece’ (Early Travels in Palestine, p. 130).

[52] Cant. ii. 9, 14, 15; Greg. ix. 10, xiii. 3; Ducas, vi.

[53] Ducas, i. 6.

[54] Cant. iv. 3.

[55] Vol. vii. p. 30, edition of Dr. J. B. Bury. The Tartars were still in the Balkan peninsula, and Orchan in 1347, probably just after the marriage of John, sent six thousand Turks to aid Matthew, son of Cantacuzenus, in fighting against the kral of Serbia.

[56] Greg. xxvii. 49.

[57] Cant. iv. 5 and 6.

[58] ἕνεκα ἀσφαλείας πράττειν, iv. 3.

[59] Even Gibbon (vii. 30) says, ‘It was in the last quarrel with his pupil that Cantacuzenus inflicted the deep and deadly wound which could never be healed by his successors and which is poorly expiated by his theological dialogue against the prophet Mahomet.’ But the Moslems, both from the north and south, had been fighting in Europe fifty years earlier, sometimes on the side of the Greeks, oftener, as with the Catalans, against them.

[60] Heyd’s History of Commerce in the Levant.

[61] The Black Death (πανούκλα) was the terrible disease which spread throughout Europe and depopulated most of its large cities between 1346 and 1370. Cantacuzenus, whose son Andronicus fell a victim, gives a vivid and terrible picture of its symptoms, and of its effect upon the population (iv. 8). Dr. Mordtmann, who is not merely distinguished as an archæologist well acquainted with the Byzantine writers, but as a physician of great experience, believes it to have been a black form of smallpox, and not what is usually known as plague, and a well-known specialist in plague, to whose attention I have submitted the account of Cantacuzenus, is disposed to accept the same view.

[62] The walls of Galata, both before and after this enlargement, which doubled the area of the city, may still be traced.

[63] The demand for slaves, and especially for girls for the harems, was always great. Slaves, indeed, usually formed the most valuable part of the booty in a raiding expedition.

[64] Cant. iv. 39.

[65] Ibid. iv. 37.

[66] Ibid. iv. 37.

[67] The statement that he visited Italy and Germany is made by Ducas (i. 11), but it is remarkable that Cantacuzenus makes no mention of it. Muralt (p. 640) suggests that he left Tenedos in the spring of 1352. But Cantacuzenus, writing of the events of 1254, represents John as having passed a whole year in Tenedos. Possibly this would be a year terminating in January 1355.

[68] Gregoras, xxix. 25.

[69] Rayn. iv. lxiii.

[70] iv. 9.

[71] The History of Nicephorus Gregoras, as written by an enemy, is a useful corrective. Krumbacher in his account of Byzantine literature speaks of Gregoras as ‘die Hauptperson des 14. Jahrhunderts’ (p. 19). His narrative is described by Cantacuzenus as stamped with ignorance, partiality, and falsehood. Its chief accusation against him is not merely false but improbable (iv. 24). In his own History Cantacuzenus declares that he has never departed from the truth either on account of hatred or the desire to say pleasant things (iv. concluding chapter). What he finds most fault with in Gregoras is the statement that, even during the lifetime of Andronicus, Cantacuzenus had become possessed of a burning desire to become emperor, and that he had consulted certain monks at Mount Athos who were supposed to have the power of divination, in order to learn whether he would accomplish his desire. The story, he declares, is absolutely false. It is brought up because he as emperor protected Palamas in his religious controversies where Gregoras took the opposite side.

[72] iv. 9.

[73] iv. 24.

[74] iv. 28.

[75] iv. 17.

[76] Greg. xi. 10.

[77] Ibid.

[78] The Bogomils still exist in Eastern Rumelia. One may be sceptical as to the doctrines in which, according to their enemies, they believed. Apparently they were quietists, searchers after the Inner Light, who would have nothing to do with the worship of Eikons, were possibly Unitarians, and had a tendency in many directions towards what may be called reformation principles. Their teaching was imbued with the Slavic mysticism which is characteristic to-day of Russian literature.

The Bogomils became first noticeable in Bulgaria in the days of King Peter (927–968). Even a few years earlier they are alluded to as certain ‘Pagan Slavs and Manichaeans.’ Later on the Bogomils are spoken of as Paulicians. In Bosnia they became so powerful that the whole country was described as Bogomil. The pope in 1407 promised help to Sigismund against the ‘Manichaeans and Arians’ in Bosnia, and they were beaten and the kingdom dismembered in 1410–11. The Council of Bâle received a deputation from the Bogomils in 1435 and dealt at the same time with them and with the Hussites. In 1443 they lent valuable aid to Hunyadi against the Turks. Persecuted by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, many of the magnates who had been forced to become Catholics in order to retain their lands turned Mahometans, and their example was largely followed by the smaller landholders. Among the Mahometans of Bosnia there still exist many customs of Christian origin. Mr. Evans, in Through Bosnia and Herzegovina, states that there are still many thousands of Bogomils in these countries. Herr Asboth, who has been over the country, declares the statement to be too general, and says that he was never able to find any, although he admits that they recently existed. Subject in Bulgaria to persecution from the Orthodox Church, many of them sought escape about a century ago by joining the Church of Rome. Bogomilism spread from Bosnia into Europe, where it gave rise to the Cathari or Albigenses, who acknowledged the Church of Dragovitza in Macedonia as their mother Church. The best account I know of the Bogomils in Bosnia is in J. de Asboth’s Official Tour through Bosnia and Herzegovina, London, 1900.

[79] Vol. vii. p. 87.

[80] Raynaldus, N. xxxii., professes to give the text of his submission. If his text is genuine it shows that John was under the same delusion as Michael had been: namely, that he could force the Orthodox Church to accept what he wanted.

[81] Ducas, xii. Chalcondylas makes a similar statement (i. 45); Canale says that a Genoese doctor restored sight to Andronicus.

[82] Sauli, Colonia dei Genovesi in Galata, ii. 260.

[83] Urban the Sixth died in 1389.

[84] Ducas, xiii.

[85] This was in 1097, when, on the invitation of Godfrey de Bouillon, Alexis had reached the city on its water side by taking his boats, in part at least, overland from the Gulf of Moudania to the lake. The object of Godfrey was to prevent the Crusaders being exposed to the demoralisation of plundering a hostile city.

[86] Greg. ix. 2 says the Turks had carried off three hundred thousand Christian captives. The Turks fought well, but were exterminated.

[87] Cant. iv. 16.

[88] Cant. iv. 39.

[89] I reserve my description of the Janissaries for a later chapter.

[90] Ch. xxiii.

[91] Chalc. i. 51, and Phrantzes, i. 11.

[92] Du Cange, Familiae Dalmaticae, 230, Venetian edition. The story of this battle is fully described in Die Serben und Türken im XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert of S. Novakovich (Semlin, 1897) and also in Ireček’s History of the Bulgarians (p. 430). Ireček states that as late as the seventeenth century the stone monument of the despot Uglisha’s tomb still existed. Uglisha was one of the three brothers.

[93] Chalc. i. 44 says that the sultan immediately beheaded his son; Ducas, that Countouz was blinded (xii.).

[94] Cossovo-pol, the Plain of Blackbirds, is between Pristina and Prisrend, to the north-east of Uskub. The town of Cossovo is due south of Prisrend, and about thirty miles distant.

[95] Novacovich, p. 335. ‘Gleichwie durch den Krieg an der Maritza das Schicksal Ost-Bulgariens und der serbischen Staaten in Macedonien, ebenso ist durch die Schlacht aus Kossovopolje, den 15. Juni 1389, das Schicksal der nördlichen serbischen Länder und des westlichen Bulgarien entschieden worden, namentlich der Länder des Fürsten Lazar und Buk Brancovic’s.’

[96] Sad-ud-din. See also Halil Ganem’s Les Sultans Ottomans, Paris, 1901. Upon the assassination of Murad the custom grew up, which continued till about 1820, of not allowing any Christian belonging to a foreign state to enter the presence of the sultan except with Janissaries holding each arm.

[97] Now called Anatolia-hissar. The word hissar means castle.

[98] The version of Ducas differs from those of Chalcondylas and Phrantzes, the first of whom knows nothing of the arrangement suggested, but states that Manuel left the city for Italy, while Phrantzes declares that John, having lost the favour of Bajazed, fled to his uncle, who entrusted the city to him during his absence (Phr. pp. 61–3.)

[99] Ducas, xx.; Chalc. iv. p. 183. Phrantzes, p. 89, praises Mahomet very highly.

[100] Ducas, xxiii.

[101] Mersaite declared he failed because of the presence of a noble lady, evidently the Holy Virgin, walking upon and guarding the walls.

[102] According to another version he withdrew on account of the famine and plague which prevailed in his army. It is, however, certain that the Turkish revolt in favour of Mustafa took place, and in the following year, 1423, Murad captured the leader, Elias Pasha, and bowstrung both him and the young Mustafa at Nicaea. Before the end of the year he returned to Thrace and took possession of Adrianople.

[103] See ante; and also Pachymer, iii. 10 to iv. 25.

[104] ‘The Greek Church has had a fossilised aversion to change; boasting that it follows the doctrines and practices of the Apostolic Church, it believes that it has no need of reform.’ Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church, by Rev. A. H. Hore, p. 553 (Jas. Parker & Co.: London, 1899).

The expression ‘fossilised aversion’ is perhaps too strong, though I should be prepared to admit that the Eastern non possumus was at least as obstinate as the Western. The Orthodox Church in countries where it is free, as in Greece and Russia, shows signs of growth, and therefore hardly deserves the adjective ‘fossilised.’ Since 1453 in Turkey it has been comatose.

[105] Milman, History of Latin Christianity, 3rd edition, vol. viii. p. 348.

[106] While the rival representatives were in Constantinople Murad suggested to John that his friendship under the circumstances would be of greater value than that of the pope. Chalc., Syropulus, and Phrantzes.

[107] Phrantzes, pp. 181–6.

[108] Vol. vii. p. 108.

[109] Second Council of Nicaea, in 787.

[110] The copies sent to London and Karlsruhe, as well as the diptych of Rome (the official record) consulted by Niches, signed by the emperor of Constantinople and by thirty-six Latin prelates, contain on this point only the following: ἔτι ὁρίζομεν τὴν ἁγίαν ἀποστολικὴν καθέδραν καὶ τὸν ῥομαϊκὸν διάδοχον εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίου Πέτρου. The pope and forty-two Latin prelates, on the other hand, signed the following: Item definimus S. Ap. sedem et romanum pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum et ipsum pontificem romanum successorem esse S. Petri.

[111] Many of the towers near the Golden Gate bear inscriptions showing that they were repaired during John’s reign. For the inscriptions see Paspates’ Βυζαντιναὶ Μελέται.

[112] Caramania was the Turkish state which remained longest outside Ottoman dominion. At one period it extended from the river Sangarius to Adana. Ordinarily its boundaries did not extend further north than Konia. See Stanley Lane-Poole’s Mohammedan Dynasties, p. 134.

[113] The island of Chios had for several years been held by a Commercial Company, mostly if not exclusively of Genoese, each of whose members was, apparently, known by the name of Justiniani.

[114] Gibbon suggests, on the authority of the Hist. Anonyme de St-Denys, that the French had murdered their Turkish prisoners on the eve of the engagement, and that the sultan was merely retaliating (Gibbon, vii. 37).

[115] Chalc. ii. 807.

[116] Chap. xv.

[117] The word timour is the same as the ordinary Turkish word for iron, demir.

[118] Leunclavius, 250.

[119] Leunclavius, pp. 250–1, Ven. edition, makes the conquest of Damascus in 1399; Chalcondylas and others, in 1402; the Turkish authors quoted by Von Hammer, in 1401. The statement of the hindrance due to locusts I take from Muralt, 772, who quotes as his authority ‘Bizar,’ a name unknown to me.

[120] The Crescent, which Gibbon and other writers assert to have only been employed by the Turks after the capture of Constantinople, had probably been used by them for many centuries previously. It is true that it had been made use of in Constantinople at an early period, and figures on several coins of Constantine, but I doubt whether it was used as the symbol of Constantinople in the later centuries of its history. The Crusades are not incorrectly described as wars between the Cross and the Crescent. The symbol is an ancient one and figures with the star on several coins belonging to about 200 B.C. The Abassid dynasty so used it. Professor Hilprecht considers it a remnant of moon-worship and connects it with the subsequent cult of Ashtaroth, Astarte, or Aphrodite.

[121] Though the Turks were a branch of the Tartar race, the Greek authors by this time had acquired the habit of calling the nation which Othman had formed Turks, and all others from Central Asia Tartars, and it is convenient to follow this nomenclature.

[122] Von Hammer has shown conclusively that the story of an iron cage is a mistake. It arises from the misinterpretation of the Turkish word Kafés, which has the two significations given above. Two contemporary authors made the blunder, Phrantzes and Arab Schah. A Bavarian, who was made prisoner at the battle of Nicopolis, named Schildberger, and who was present at the battle of Angora, has given a detailed account of the massacre of the Christians, but he does not mention the cage. (His travels between 1394 and 1427 have been translated and published by the Hakluyt Society, 1879.) Neither do Ducas, Chalcondylas, or Boucicaut, though they state that Bajazed died in irons, which he had to wear every night after his attempt at escape. Six Persian authors who wrote the history of Timour are silent about the cage. The oldest Turkish historian recounts, upon the evidence of an eye-witness, that Bajazed was carried about in a palanquin ‘like a Kafés,’ or in the usual kind of grilled palanquin in which ladies of the harem travelled. Sad-ud-din, one of the most exact of Turkish historians, states that the story of the iron cage given by many Turkish writers is a pure invention.

[123] I have relied for the account of the battle of Angora and the subsequent progress of Timour, mainly upon Von Hammer (vol. ii.), who is at his best in describing this period of Turkish history. The authorities are carefully given by him. Zinkeisen, in his History of the Turks, calls attention to the deterioration of the Ottoman armies during the reign of Bajazed, and attributes it to the profligacy of the sultan.

[124] Chalc. iv. p. 170. Ducas says he disappeared in Caramania; Phr. p. 86, that he was bowstrung. There was, according to Chalcondylas, another son of Bajazed, the youngest, also named Isa, who was baptised and died in Constantinople in 1417. This was probably the son given over as hostage to Manuel.

[125] Ducas, xix.

[126] Chalc. iv.; Phr. i. 29; Ducas, 19.

[127] Official Tour in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by J. de Asboth.

[128] i. 37.

[129] Ducas, xxiv.

[130] Phr. i. 38.

[131] In reference to this passage across the Dardanelles, Ducas (ch. xxvii.) gives an interesting piece of information as to the size of the Genoese vessels. There were seven large ships. Murad was in the largest, which contained 1,300 Turkish and Frank soldiers. These ships ‘covered the sea like floating cities or islands.’

[132] Ducas mentions expressly that in the same year three Mustafas died, first, the pretender, who claimed to be the son of Bajazed; second, his brother, and, third, the grandson of Atin (ch. xxviii.).

[133] De la Brocquière, whose narrative was finished in 1438, states that, when in Galata, the ambassador of the duke of Milan, the protector of the Genoese, told him that ‘to do mischief to the Venetians he had contributed to make them lose Salonica taken from them by the Turks;’ and he adds, ‘Certainly in this he acted so much the worse, for I have seen the inhabitants of that town deny Jesus Christ and embrace the Mahometan religion.’ Early Travels, pp. 335–6.

[134] Halil was the one Turkish leader in 1453 friendly to the Greeks. Even at this early date he showed a similar spirit. Chalc. 136, Venetian edition.

[135] Phr. ii. 13, p. 180.

[136] Possibly Hungary was not mentioned, with the object of leading the Turks to believe that the place of attack would not be nearer than Constantinople.

[137] Callimachus, who describes the battle, took part and was wounded in it.

[138] I have followed here the version of Ducas (xxxii.). It is doubtful, however, whether this expedition into Caramania ought not to be placed a year earlier. See the authorities quoted by Muralt, p. 856.

[139] Chal. vi.; Ducas, xxxii. The latter states that Hunyadi refused either to sign or to swear.

[140] The treaty was made in June. According to Muralt, it was broken in the same month. If so, the account of Ducas is incorrect. Murad was informed by George of Serbia of the renewal of war and again took the government into his own hands ‘at the beginning of summer, when the dog-days were commencing.’ Ducas, xxxii.

[141] Early Travels, pp. 346–347.

[142] Lonicerus, p. 18, speaking of the cardinal, does not go so far. He says, ‘qui Pontifici licere juramenta praesertim hostibus Christiani nominis praestata rescindere contendebat.’ Thurocz (quoted by Von Hammer, p. 307, vol. ii.) and Cambini, p. 13, make similar statements.

[143] Liber Jurium, xxii. 57, xxvi. 24, 26. Chalc. vi. Aeneas Silvius states that Eugenius, when he was informed of the treaty, wrote to Cardinal Julian that it was null as having been signed without the papal sanction; that he ordered Ladislaus to disregard it, and that he gave him absolution for so doing. At the same time, he directed the cardinal to do his best to renew the war, in order that the great preparations he had taken in hand might not be fruitless. The statement may be true, but it is difficult to believe that the report of the signature could have reached Rome and that his answer could have arrived to the cardinal before war was declared.

[144] The Turkish accounts agree that the crossing was at the Bosporus. Barletius, Book II. p. 38, with whom Leunclavius agrees, says: ‘Si vera est fama,’ merchant vessels transported the army over the Bosporus, receiving a gold coin per man. Bonfinius likewise gives this story of payment and says it was made to the Genoese. Lonicerus, p. 18, says the fleet crossed the Dardanelles. Ducas, whose account I have adopted, states that the fleet only crossed with great difficulty and against the will of the emperor. Chalcondylas makes the transit take place at Hieron, near the Dardanelles (Chalc. 135); one writer, at Asomaton. There is a church of the Asomatoi (the Bodiless, i.e. of Angels) at Arnaoutkeui still existing. See The Constantiade, where the Patriarch gives an account of it. Phrantzes identifies the position on the Bosporus (namely, opposite Anatolia-Hissar) by saying that it was near the narrow part of the Bosporus above the village of Asomaton or Arnaoutkeui: κατὰ τὸ στενὸν ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἀνωτέρου μέρους τῆς τῶν Ἀσωμάτων κώμης (Ph. ch. II. p. 223), which is conclusive as to the locality he wishes to indicate. Ducas also in several places gives the name of Hieron to the straits between Anatolia and Roumelia-Hissar. It is therefore clear that two places on the Bosporus were known as Hieron. The safest passage would be at the Hieron below the Giant’s Mountain.

[145] Callimachus.

[146] ‘Morbo detentus,’ Lonicerus, 18. Chalc. and others also mention his illness. He was suffering from an abscess in the thigh.

[147] On the opposite shore of the lagoon now runs the railway from Varna to Rustchuk.

[148] Early Travels, 361.

[149] Early Travels, 366.

[150] Chalc. p. 138. The account by Phrantzes, p. 198, of the interview between Hunyadi and the king is very well given.

[151] Bonfinius states that it was at this moment also that he unfurled the treaty of Szegedin.

[152] Leunclavius, 256.

[153] Eton’s Travels, p. 332.

[154] Gibbon adopts the statement of Chalcondylas (145) that Murad joined the dervishes after Varna, though on other matters regarding his life he relies upon Cantemir, who by implication discredits the story. Chalcondylas states that in the crisis of the battle of Varna, the sultan had vowed that if he were successful he would abdicate and join one of these religious orders. Von Hammer knows nothing of the story, and the whole course of Murad’s life is against the belief that ‘the lord of nations submitted to fast and pray and turn round in endless rotations with the fanatics who mistook the giddiness of the head for the illumination of the Spirit’ (Gibbon, VII. p. 140). Neither Phrantzes nor Ducas mentions his having become a dervish, as they probably would have done if the fact had been known to them. Indeed, the one point in favour of the story was unknown to Gibbon: namely, that some of the dervish sects are liberal or philosophical. They are all religious or pietistic, but many claim that their tenets are independent of Islam. Their explanation of the turning or dancing is that they first look towards Mecca and reflect, God is there; then they make a turn and reflect, He is there also; and so in the complete circle. It should be noted also that there are many dervishes who neither turn nor dance in their devotions. On the subject of the dervishes in Turkey, two useful books are The Dervishes, by J. P. Brown (London, 1868), and, better still, Les Confréries Musulmanes par le R. P. Louis Petit, supérieur des Augustins de l’Assomption à Kadikeuy (Constantinople, 1899).

[155] Kroya or Croia, now called Ak-Hissar or the White Castle, is a few miles to the north of Durazzo and a short distance from the Adriatic.

[156] Aeneas Sylvius gives the number at 200,000; Chalcondylas at 15,000, which Von Hammer reasonably suggests is an error for 150,000.

[157] Bonfinius makes Murad state in a letter to Corinth that eight thousand Hungarians were left dead on the plain: a much more likely number.

[158] Von Hammer gives the numbers I have adopted.

[159] For the siege of Belgrade see a paper in the English Historical Review, 1892, by Mr. R. N. Bain.

[160] ‘Novit majestas imperatoria, Turcorum, Assyriorum, Aegyptiorum gentem: imbelles, inermes, effaeminati sunt, neque animo neque consilio martiales; sumenda erunt spolia sine sudore et sanguine.’ Oratio Romae habita anno 1452 de passagio Cruce signatorum contra Mahometanos suscipiendo. Edita apud Reynaldum [by Dr. Dethier].

[161] La Brocquière, 366.

[162] Θρῆνος, line 720.

[163] According to Scholarius and Manuel the Rhetorician, John shortly before his death declared against the Union. In such a matter, however, both these witnesses are suspect.

[164] La Brocquière, p. 341.

[165] Ibid. p. 340.

[166] La Brocquière, p. 339.

[167] Perhaps it could be contended successfully that the relaxing climate of Constantinople had much to do with the enervation of its population, and that every race which has possessed the city has suffered from the same cause.

[168] Mr. D. G. Hogarth in The Nearer East (London, 1902), on pp. 280–1, speaks of the country as a ‘Debateable Land distracted internally by a ceaseless war of influences, and only too anxious to lean in one part or another on external aid.’... ‘Macedonia has been torn this way and that for half a century.’ The whole chapter on ‘World Relation’ is valuable and suggestive. The same diversity of interests and hostility arising from differences in race and religion is well brought out in the best recent book on Turkey in Europe, by Odysseus.

[169] The Turkish system of occupying conquered territories by military colonies and driving away the original inhabitants excited great opposition among the Serbians and led, says Von Ranke, to the struggle which ended in 1389 on the plains of Cossovo. (History of Serbia, Bohn’s edition, p. 16.)

[170] Cantacuzenus, iv. 8.

[171] The tradition of its destructiveness even in England, which it reached in 1348, and the panic-struck words of the Statutes which followed it, have, says J. R. Green, ‘been more than justified by modern researches. Of the three or four millions who then formed the population of England more than half were swept away by its repeated visitations’ (Green’s Short History of the English People), p. 241.

[172] According to one contemporary writer, Murad had to relinquish the siege of Constantinople in 1422 on account of the appearance of plague in his army (Historia Epirotica). Mahomet the Second, however, according to Critobulus, attributed the necessity of raising the siege to hostility within his own family, doubtless alluding to the rising already mentioned in Asia Minor. He says, in substance, ‘The city was almost in the hands of my father, and he would certainly have taken it by assault, if those of his own family in whom he had confidence had not worked secretly against him.’ Crit. xxv.

[173] Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, by Sir Charles Fellows. Professor Ramsay has also the same story to tell, though his own success in identifying lost cities has been exceptionally great.

[174] La Brocquière, 340–7.

[175] Ibid. 337.

[176] Compare this with Villehardouin’s statement that in 1204 Constantinople had ten times as many people as there were in Paris.

[177] Phrantzes, 241.

[178] Another version says from 30,000 to 36,000 men.

[179] P. 23. The ‘not more’ is from the edition of Dethier, p. 896. The version published in the Chronique de Charles VII gives 25,000 to 30,000 armed men. Dethier’s omits ‘armed.’

[180] The Superior of the Franciscans says that 3,000 were killed on May 29 (Dethier’s Documents relating to the Siege, p. 940).

[181] Bikelas, La Grèce Byzantine et Moderne, p. 153. His essays express this opinion in many other places.

[182] ‘Les schismes sont chez eux [the Greeks] la conséquence du même esprit de tous les temps; c’est la théologie soumise au contrôle de l’intelligence pure, le dogme éprouvé par le mécanisme de leur logique brillante et rapide. Ces discussions théologiques, appliquées uniquement à la recherche de l’essence divine, à l’explication du fait divin, du mystère, prennent chez eux un caractère exclusivement scientifique.’ Montreuil, Histoire du droit byzantin, i. 418.

[183] Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, p. 219, says: ‘Kein Volk, die Chinesen vielleicht ausgenommen, besitzt eine so reiche historische Litteratur wie die Griechen. In ununterbrochener Reihenfolge geht die Überlieferung von Herodot bis auf Laonikos Chalkondylas. Die Griechen und Byzantiner haben die Chronik des Ostens über zwei Jahrtausende mit gewissenhafter Treue fortgeführt.’

[184] Rambaud, L’empire de Grèce, p. 367. Bikelas and Finlay make the same comparison.

[185] Constantine is usually called the Eleventh. Gibbon, however, counts the son of Romanus the First as Constantine the Eighth, and thus makes the last Emperor Constantine the Twelfth. He is often spoken of as Constantine Dragases, because his mother, Irene, belonged to a family of that name. She was a South Serbian princess.

[186] Phrantzes, p. 205, represents Constantine as crowned. Apparently this ceremony was not regarded as a definite coronation, and hence Ducas calls John the last Emperor.

[187] Constantine’s wife, Catherine Catalusio, died in 1442, after being married about ten months.

[188] Ducas, xxxv.

[189] As they were opposed in philosophy, so also were they on the great question before these Councils. Pletho insisted that the Union should be effected by the submission of the Greek Church to the Latin formula, while Scholarius endeavoured to frame a form of words which could be accepted by both parties. Had his advice been acted upon, it is possible that he and his companions would on their return to the capital have been able to persuade their countrymen to accept the Union in sincerity. For the life and writings of George Scholarius, afterwards the Patriarch Gennadius, see Krumbacher’s Geschichte des Byzantinischen Litteratur, p. 119, and works there quoted.

[190] The MS. of Critobulus was found in the Seraglio Library about thirty-five years ago by Dr. Dethier. It was published by Karl Müller with excellent notes. Dr. Dethier also prepared an edition with notes and documents relating to the siege, which were printed by the Academy of Buda-Pest but never published. Through the courtesy of the Council and of Dr. Arminius Vambéry I have been presented with copies. They are especially valuable for their topographical criticisms.

[191] Lonicerus, p. 22.

[192] M. Léon Cahun, in his introduction to the History of the Turks and Mongols, says: ‘L’Islamisme est une règle qu’on respecte et qu’on défend, mais qu’on ne se permettrait pas de discuter. Les Turcs ont toujours été trop inaccessibles au sentiment religieux pour jamais devenir hérétiques; ils sont les derniers des hommes capables de comprendre Oportet haereses esse. Ils ne demandent pas mieux que de croire, mais ils ne tiennent pas du tout à comprendre.’

[193] Phrantzes, i. 30.

[194] Von Hammer, note iii. p. 429.

[195] Ducas, p. 129; Chalcondylas says, ‘Peremit, cum, aqua infusa, spiritum ejus interclusisset;’ Montaldo, ‘fratre obtruncato.’

[196] Von Hammer, iii. 68.

[197] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 986.

[198] Orchan was the Turkish member of the house of Othman who still remained in Constantinople and was either the son or grandson of Suliman, brother of Mahomet I.

[199] Chal. vii.; Ducas, xxxiv.

[200] Ducas, xxxiv.

[201] Crit. vii.

[202] Crit. viii. The account given by Ducas represents the reply of the sultan as much more brutal. He dismissed the ambassadors with the remark that he would not have the question reopened; he was within his rights, and if they returned he would have them flayed alive.

[203] Phrantzes, p. 233; Ducas, xxxiv.; Crit. ix.

[204] Critobulus gives the width at seven stadia. It is really half a nautical mile. Probably it is unwise to suppose that Critobulus had any means of measuring it with any degree of accuracy, or the distance given by him would be very valuable as indicating what contemporary writers meant by a stadium. It is important, however, in reference to other statements of distance given by Critobulus which will be noted later.

[205] Ducas, xxxiv.

[206] Phrantzes, 234, and Barbaro, p. 2. Barbaro was a Venetian ship’s doctor who was in the city before and during the siege and who kept a diary which is simply invaluable, though for the part written day by day, internal evidence shows that it was subsequently revised after the siege. It was published in 1856.

[207] The speech of Mahomet, of which I have given the substance, can of course only be taken as a reproduction of what Critobulus had heard or possibly of what an intelligent writer who knew the Turks well thought it probable Mahomet would say. As such it is valuable. It is of course formed by Critobulus, following the example of the Greek Byzantine historians generally, on the model of those given by Thucydides and other classical authors.

[208] Barb. p. 14.

[209] Barb. p. 11.

[210] Barb., and Crit. ch. xxv.

[211] La Brocquière says this foss, on his visit, was two hundred paces long.

[212] Barbaro says that the emperor employed an Italian to place the boom in position.

[213] The present Tower of Galata was called the Tower of Christ. See Paspates, Meletai, p. 180.

[214] Barb. p. 25. Tetaldi states that there were nine galleys and thirty other ships (p. 25). The fact that the Turks soon found that it was impossible to take possession of the chain or to drive away the defending fleet tends to show that the Greek fleet was respectable in number of ships. On the other hand, when it became of extreme importance to send ships outside the chain to aid ships from Genoa coming to the relief of the city, the fact that none were sent out is evidence to show that no ships could be spared from the defence of the chain or that no sufficient number of galleys, triremes, or other vessels independent of wind for propulsion were at hand to take the offensive. There were probably many smaller merchant ships and boats of which no account was taken.

[215] The elder Mordtmann makes the suggestion that the Bashi-Bazouks are in this estimate excluded, and I agree with him. The same remark applies also to Philelphus who gives 60,000 foot and 20,000 horse. Other writers include all those who were present with Mahomet and thus make the number of the besiegers very much higher. Ducas’s estimate is 250,000; Montaldo’s, 240,000 (of whom 30,000 were cavalry, ch. xxvii.). Phrantzes states that 258,000 were present; Leonard the archbishop, with whom Critobulus and Thysellius agree, gives 300,000 men, while Chalcondylas increases this to 400,000.

[216] Tetaldi’s Information de la prinse de Constantinoble, p. 21.

[217] Leonard and others say 15,000, but the smaller estimate is in accord with many Turkish statements that the number of Janissaries was, until the time of Suliman, limited to 12,000.

[218] The connection between the Dervish order of Bektashis and the Janissaries endured as long as the Janissaries themselves, and when the latter were massacred, in June 1826, with the cry of ‘Hadji Bektash’ on their lips, the order of Bektashis was also suppressed. Etat militaire Ottoman, par Djavid Bey (Constantinople, 1881), and Walsh’s Two Years in Constantinople (1828).

[219] Djevad, p. 55.

[220] Permission to marry was not granted to Janissaries till the time of Suliman, a century later.

[221] When, contemporaneously with the murder of the Janissaries in 1826, the Order of Bektashis was suppressed, Sultan Mahmoud assigned as a reason that jars of wine were found in the cellars of their convents stoppered with leaves of the Koran. The statement was probably false, but was intended to create the worst possible impression against the Bektashis.

[222] Early Travels in Palestine, p. 365. La Brocquière made a careful study of the Turkish methods of fighting and of how they might be defeated by a combination of European troops among which he would have placed from England a thousand men at arms and ten thousand archers. As his visit was in 1433, it is not improbable that Agincourt was in his mind.

[223] The Turks have rarely failed in obtaining able European soldiers. Moltke was in the Turkish service. The first Napoleon narrowly escaped taking a like service. (See Von Hammer.) More recently they have had in General Von der Golz one of the ablest German soldiers.

[224] Dethier suggests that the casting of the largest gun was done at Rhegium, the present Chemejie, about twelve miles from Constantinople, and that the transport spoken of by Ducas was either of smaller ones or of the brass required for the large one (p. 991; Dethier’s notes on Z. Dolfin).

[225] Phrantzes, p. 237, gives the arrival on April 2.

[226] Critobulus, xxix., gives the description of the construction of a cannon the barrel of which was forty spans or twenty-six feet eight inches long. The bronze of which it was cast was eight inches in thickness in the barrel. Throughout half the length its bore was of a diameter of thirty inches. Throughout the other half, which contained powder, the bore was only one third of that width. The σπιθαμὴ or palmus or span was in the Middle Ages, says Du Cange, eight inches long. Two stone balls still existing at Top-Hana (that is, the Cannon Khan) are forty-six inches in diameter. These would answer the description of Tetaldi, that the ball reached to his waist. A great Turkish cannon which is now in the Artillery Museum at Woolwich weighs about nineteen tons. It was cast fifteen years after the siege of Constantinople and is an excellent specimen of the great cannon of the period (Artillery; its Progress and Present Stage, by Commander Lloyd and A. G. Hadcock, R.E., p. 19).

[227] Crit. xxi.

[228] Barbaro.

[229] Barbaro gives the arrival on April 12. Dr. Dethier maintains that Diplokionion was at Cabatash and that subsequently to the Conquest the people and the name were transferred to Beshiktash. Barbaro says it was two Italian miles, equal to one and a third English mile, from the city, which is in accord with Dethier’s view, but in presence of Bondelmonti’s map, drawn in 1422 and given in Banduri, showing the Two Columns, and of other evidence, it is difficult to credit Dethier’s statement.

[230] Phrantzes, p. 241; Ducas gives the total number as 300, Leonard as 250, Critobulus as 350. The independent accounts of two men who had been at sea, like the French soldier Tetaldi and the Venetian Barbaro, are not far apart. The first says there were 16 to 18 galleys, the second 12. The estimate of the long boats is 60 to 80 by Tetaldi, as against 70 to 80 by Barbaro; while the transport barges or parandaria are described by one as from 16 to 20, by the other as from 20 to 25. Chalcondylas (p. 158) states that 30 triremes and 200 smaller vessels arrived from Gallipoli. Leonard says that there were 6 triremes and 10 biremes.

[231] The following illustration shows the arrangement of the boats.

A.A.A.A. represent four rowlock ports, through each of which three oars pass, in the case of a trireme, pulled by three men on the seat marked with circles. It will be noticed that the second man sits a little forward of the first, and the third of the second.

[232] Ancient Ships, by Mr. Cecil Torr.

[233] I have been indebted to Yule’s valuable notes on Marco Polo for his researches on the construction of ships. Unfortunately, Mr. Cecil Torr’s monograph on Ancient Ships (Cambridge, 1896) does not bring their history so late down as the fifteenth century. For the period of which it treats it is simply perfect.

[234] Crit. xxv.

[235] As may be seen from the note in the Appendix on the position of the St. Romanus Gate, I believe that when Top Capou, which beyond doubt had been known as the Gate of Saint Romanus, was closed, the Pempton was generally spoken of as the St. Romanus Gate. The Italians, who had the largest share in the defence in the Lycus valley, probably ignorant of any name for the Military Gate which led from the city into the peribolos, called it by the name of the nearest Civil Gate. Hence I propose to speak of the Pempton as the Romanus Gate and of the Civil Gate crowning the seventh hill by its present Turkish name of Top Capou—that is, Cannon Gate—a name which it probably acquired by a reversal of the process which had led the Italians to speak of the Pempton as St. Romanus.

[236] Crit. xxvi.

[237] Crit. xxvi.

[238] The Greek πέρα = trans, over or beyond.

[239] It is usually stated that Stamboul or Istamboul is a corruption of εἰς τὴν πόλιν, though Dr. Koelle disputes this derivation and considers that it is a mere shortening of the name Constantinople by the Turks, analogous to Skender or Iskender from Alexander. Koelle’s Tartar and Turk.

[240] In 1204 the Venetians and Crusaders under Dandolo and Monferrat entered the city by capturing the western portion of the walls on the side of the Horn.

[241] The position of the walls and gates is fully and admirably described in Professor Van Millingen’s Byzantine Constantinople, who, however, does not suggest that the Pempton was the Romanus Gate of the chroniclers of the siege.

[242] This was destroyed in the time of Suliman and replaced by a mosque which is called after his daughter Miramah, though the Greeks were allowed to build a church of St. George almost alongside it.

[243] Dr. Mordtmann is my authority for this statement. See note in the Appendix on the position of the Romanus Gate.

[244] Paspates claims that there was always water in the foss during a siege, though it was of no great depth. See p. 42 of his Παλιορκία τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. It is remarkable, however, that no mention is made of water by the contemporary writers on the last siege.

[245] Byzantine Constantinople, p. 86.

[246] Barbaro describes it as the place ‘dove che sun la più debel porta de tuta la tera,’ p. 21. The weakest gate he calls ‘San Romano.’

[247] Quite a considerable number of towers in the Outer Wall bear inscriptions showing that they were repaired after the Turkish siege of 1422.

[248] P. 159.

[249] ‘Antemurale solum urbis vallumque sat videbatur tutari posse,’ p. 93. ‘Operosa autem protegendi vallum et antemurale nostris fuit cura,’ p. 95.

[250] Dethier argues that it was not. The Italians who were present in the city complain that the Greeks showed a want of patriotism in not being ready to give all their wealth for the defence of the empire. But the complaint is supported by very slight evidence. The Superior of the Franciscans (Dethier’s Siege of Constantinople, p. 490) says that the city was lost through the avarice of the Greeks, because they would not consent to pay its defenders. He instances the case of a woman who had jewels and money of the value of 150,000 ducats, and of a man whose wealth in moveables amounted to 80,000 ducats. Jagarus and Neophytus, who are mentioned by Leonard, had been charged with the repairs of the walls, for which money had been given them, but, according to him, had misappropriated it. When the city was captured, 70,000 gold pieces were discovered by the Turks. But it is noteworthy that Phrantzes, who was in a better condition to know the truth in such a matter, has nothing but praise for Jagarus (p. 225). The statement of Leonard regarding them is examined by Dethier, who suggests that the sentence regarding the finding of the coin is due to the incorporation of a marginal note. Zorzo Dolfin, whose narrative is largely copied from Leonard, gives a somewhat different version.

As stated on the preceding page, the inscriptions on the Outer Wall still show that many towers had been repaired in the interval between Murad’s siege and that of Mahomet, and two inscriptions at least, which may perhaps be taken as intended to apply to all the towers so repaired, bear the name of Jagarus himself. (Professor Van Millingen, p. 108, and Dethier’s notes on Leonard, 593–5.)

[251] Riccherio (often quoted as Sansovino, who was the editor of Riccherio and has written a bright account of the conquest) says, ‘La speranza della difesa era tutta nel antimuro.’ (Dethier’s Siege, p. 955.)

[252] Chalcondylas, p. 95, Ven. edition.

[253] Ibid. p. 159.

[254] Crit. xxviii., and Barbaro.

[255] Ch. xxvii.

[256] See Note in Appendix claiming that during the siege the Pempton was usually called the Gate of St. Romanus.

[257] Pusculus also gives these three places, but with the difference that he mistakes the Second Military Gate for the Third.

[258] Barb. p. 21.

[259] Phr. 242–47.

[260] Dolfin, p. 994.

[261] παρὰ τὰ πλάγια.

[262] See Prof. Van Millingen, 85–92. Barbaro states that the cannon were stationed at four places: opposite the Pegè Gate, by which he means the Third Military Gate (Triton); opposite the Palace, by which he probably means in the angle now occupied by the Greek cemetery opposite the Palace of Porphyrogenitus or Tekfour Serai; opposite the Cresu Gate, probably the Chariseus or Adrianople Gate, and opposite the Romanus Gate. Philelphus also mentions the Pegè Gate as one of the chief places of attack (ii. 809).

[263] Pusculus gives fourteen palms as the circumference; Phrantzes and Critobulus, twelve; while Barbaro gives thirteen to fourteen.

[264] P. 241, κοσμικούς τε καὶ μοναχούς.

[265] See ante, p. [193].

[266] Crit. xxv.

[267] ὅπου καὶ ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς μέρεσιν ἡ πόλις ἦν ἐπικίνδυνος. Phrantzes, p. 253.

[268] P. 1013. The locus arduus of the Myriandrion is the highest site of the city walls. Professor Van Millingen makes it identical with the Mesoteichion (p. 85), but Critobulus distinguishes between the two places (ch. xxvi.).

[269] Leonard; but Phrantzes says, p. 253, that Manuel, a Genoese, was in command at the Golden Gate.

[270] See Professor Van Millingen as to position of this gate, pp. 230–234. There were probably two Imperial Gates on the Golden Horn.

[271] According to Pusculus, Trevisano was from the first at Aivan Serai, the extreme west of the walls on the Horn and close to the Xyloporta.

[272] Barbaro, p. 19.

[273] Phrantzes states that the reserve was under Cantacuzenus and Nicephorus Palaeologus, and that the Grand Duke was in charge of the region from the Petrion to the Gate of St. Theodosia.

[274] Leonard’s account hardly varies from that of Phrantzes and others, except that, with his strong religious prejudices, he prefers to name foreigners rather than Greeks. The distributions of the defenders of the city given by Zorzi Dolfin and Pusculus do vary, however, from those given by Phrantzes and Barbaro. These differences are set out in Dr. Mordtman’s Esquisse Topographique, p. 23. See also Krause’s Eroberungen von Constantinopel, p. 169.

[275] Dethier’s Siege, p. 110. Chalcondylas says that it was found that the big gun of the Greeks did more damage to them by its recoil than to the enemy.

[276] Crit. xvii. The word machine is usually used by contemporary writers to designate a cannon, though here, as elsewhere, it may be employed in a general sense. What is certain is that such cannon as the Greeks possessed were few in number and of small value.

[277] Isidori Lamentatio, p. 676; also Christoforo Riccherio, Sansovin, p. 957: both in Dethier’s Siege.

[278] P. 369.

[279] P. 145. Boutell’s Arms and Armour.

[280] La Brocquière, p. 361, where five forts on the Save are described as well furnished with artillery. He particularly notices three brass cannon.

[281] There are still the remains of two towers in Prinkipo. I fix upon the one near the ruined monastery opposite the island of Antirobithos as the place of attack, with some hesitation. The account is given by Critobulus, xxxiii.

[282] Crit. xxxiv.

[283] Ducas says four, but he is at variance with Leonard, Barbaro, and Phrantzes, and wrote his account from hearsay years afterwards.

[284] Crit. xxxix.

[285] Phrantzes; though Ducas says from Morea.

[286] Ducas, p. 121, and Crit. xxxix.

[287] ‘Come homini volonteroxi de aver victoria contra el suo inimigod’ (p. 28).

[288] Ducas, p. 121, says, to pass τὸν Μεγαδημήτριον τὸν ἀκρόπολιν. The tower stood near Seraglio Point; Dr. Mordtmann places it on the Golden Horn side, while Paspates, in Τὰ Βυζαντινὰ Ἀνάκτορα, p. 37, thought he had identified the foundations just beyond the bridge crossing the railway line to the Imperial Treasury. To have been a conspicuous landmark for ships steering from the Marmora to the harbour, as it is represented to have been, the church must have been very lofty if in the position adopted by Dr. Mordtmann.

[289] Pusculus, 385, Book iv.

[290] Barbaro says, ‘Quando queste quatro naves fo per mezo la zitade de Constantinopli subito el vento i bonazò’ (p. 23).

[291] Pusculus iv. v. 415: ‘Deserit illic ventus eas; cecidere sinus sub moenibus arcis.’

[292] Barbaro, p. 24.

[293] I doubt whether Greek fire was so much used as it is usually asserted to have been. It was always dangerous to those who used it. When employed by the Byzantine ships it caused great damage and still greater alarm. I agree with Krause that it was very rarely employed. See Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters, by J. H. Krause; Halle, 1869.

[294] Pusculus, iv. 340.

[295] Phrantzes.

[296] Gyllius mentions this foreshore as existing in his time, gives its width, and vividly describes how it was utilised and increased by the inhabitants of Galata (book iv. ch. 10). In digging for the foundations of the British post office in Galata in 1895, on a site that is now upwards of a hundred yards from the water, remains of an old wooden jetty were discovered. Indeed, I think it highly probable that in 1453 the whole of what is now the main street of Galata from the bridge to Tophana was under water.

[297] Pusculus, 247.

[298] Crit. xli.

[299] Barbaro, p. 24, and Phrantzes.

[300] According to Ducas, Mahomet himself inflicted the blows: an absurd statement.

[301] Ducas, 121; Leonard, Phrantzes, and Nicolo Barbaro.

[302] Hunyadi, according to Phrantzes (p. 327), asked that Silivria or Mesembria, on the bay of Bourgas, should be given to him as the price of his aid, and Phrantzes declares that the emperor ceded the latter place, he himself having written the Golden Bull making the cession. He adds also that the king of Catalonia stipulated for Lemnos as the price of his aid. But no aid came from either.

[303] Barbaro, under April 21; Phrantzes, 246. The tower is called by Leonard Bactatanea. He afterwards writes of the breach near it as being in the Murus Bacchatureus. See, as to its situation, Professor van Millingen’s Byzantine Constantinople, pp. 86, 87.

[304] As the only church in the neighbourhood of the place defended by Justiniani was that of St Kyriakè near the Pempton, the information is valuable as helping to fix the locality where the great gun was stationed. The Moscovite, ch. vii.

[305] The Moscovite, ch. vii., in Dethier’s Siege; Barbaro, p. 27; Crit.

[306] Zarabotane.

[307] Barbaro, p. 27. The account of the fight given by Pusculus is very full and spirited. See note in Appendix as to the question where the naval fight took place.

[308] In 1203 the Crusaders and Venetians had forced the boom tower on the Galata side and loosed the chain; but it was then outside the city walls. In the time of Cantacuzenus, Galata had been enlarged so that the end of the chain was quite safe unless Galata were taken. The walls terminated, as may still be seen by the remaining towers, near Tophana.

[309] Leonard, and Sauli’s Colonia dei Genovesi in Galata, p. 158. Other similar instances are cited by contemporaries, but it is not necessary to suppose that Mahomet had ever heard either of the fable of Caesar’s attack upon Antony and Cleopatra or of a like feat performed by Xerxes. The Avars had made a crossing similar to that contemplated by Mahomet. The transport of the imperial fleet into Lake Ascanius in order to take possession of Nicaea in 1097 might possibly have been known to him.

[310] Λοιπὸν ὁ ἀμερᾶς τὰς τριήρεις φέρας ἐν μίᾳ νυκτί, ἐν τῷ λιμένι τῷ πρωῒ ηὑρέθησαν: Phrantzes, 251.

[311] Dethier places them on a small plateau now occupied by the English Memorial Church. [Note on Pusculus, book iv. line 482. Professor van Millingen (p. 231), in discussing the question of the position of St. Theodore, suggests that the sultan’s battery stood nearer the Bosporus than the present Italian Hospital. This suggestion is not necessarily at variance with the position indicated by Dethier.]

[312] Philelphus, book ii. line 976: ‘Genuae tunc clara juventus obstupuit.’ Ducas, however, states that the Genoese claimed to have known of the proposed transport and to have allowed it out of friendship to Mahomet.

[313] ‘Et hic quidem in superiori parte per montem navigia transportavit ... in litore stabant milites parati propulsare hostes bombardis, si accederent prohibituri deducere naves.’ Chalcondylas, book viii.

[314] Crit. says 68; Barbaro, 72; Tetaldi, between 70 and 80; Chalcondylas, 70; and Ducas, 80; Heirullah says there were only 20; the Janissary Michael, 30; the Anon. Expugnatio, edited by Thyselius, sect. 12, says not less than 80.

[315] ‘Lacertus’ is the word Leonard ingeniously uses for the Greek πῆχυς.

[316] Crit. book iv. ch. 42. It is difficult to determine the size of the boat selected for this overland transit. Barbaro says, ‘le qual fusti si iera de banchi quindexe fina banchi vinti et anchi vintido’ (page 28). This would agree fairly well with the statement of Chalcondylas, that some had thirty and some fifty oars. Mr. Cecil Torr calculates that a thirty-oared ship would be about seventy feet long, a statement which appears probable (Ancient Ships, p. 21). The mediaeval galleys and other large vessels propelled by oars differed essentially from those of the sixteenth century, which were worked with long oars. See note on p. [234]. I am myself not entirely satisfied that among the boats were not biremes and possibly triremes in the sense of boats which had two or three tiers of oars, one above the other. Fashions change slowly in Turkey, and I have seen a bireme with two such tiers of oars on the Bosporus. No writer mentions the length of the vessels which were carried across Pera Hill. A large modern fishing caique in the Marmora, probably not differing much in shape from the fustae then transported, and containing twelve oars, measures about fifty feet long. When the boats are longer, two men take one oar, but this is very unusual. Leonard speaks of the seventy vessels as biremes. Barbaro calls them fustae. The former was probably the best Latin word to signify the new form of vessel. Many of the ships were large, though it may be taken as certain that none were of the length of the two galleys recently raised in lake Nemi, near Rome, which belonged to Caligula, each of which is 225 feet long and 60 feet beam.

[317] See note in Appendix on transport of Mahomet’s ships.

[318] Ducas, xxviii.

[319] Phrantzes, p. 327.

[320] Crit. lxxii.

[321] Barbaro says that the meeting was in St. Mary’s; but Pusculus (iv. 578) says, in St. Peter Claviger, which Dethier places near St. Sophia.

[322] Phrantzes, 256.

[323] Barbaro, under April 24 and 25.

[324] Pusculus, lines 585 et seq.

[325] Pusculus, iv. 610.

[326] Barbaro, 31.

[327] The account of this attempt to destroy the Turkish ships in the harbour is best given by Barbaro, but Phrantzes and Pusculus are in substantial agreement with him.

[328] Phrantzes (p. 248) says 260 Turkish prisoners were executed.

[329] The Moscovite, ch. vii.

[330] Crit. xliv.

[331] Dr. Mordtmann places the bridge between Cumberhana and Defterdar Scala.

[332] Ducas gives the above dimensions. Assuming the width from centre of each barrel, including a space between them, to be four feet, this would give the length of the bridge as 2,000 feet, which is about the width of the Horn at the place mentioned. Phrantzes gives its length at a hundred fathoms and the breadth fifty fathoms. These dimensions are clearly wrong if applied to the bridge, since the length falls far short of the width of the gulf. Leonard says it was thirty stadia long. Here, as elsewhere, I suspect that he uses stadium for some measure about one ninth of a furlong in length. If this conjecture is right, his estimate of the length of the bridge is about 2,000 feet.

[333] Phrantzes, 252.

[334] Barbaro, 36; Phrantzes, 250.

[335] The Moscovite, xv. While there are useful hints in this anonymous author, he is generally untrustworthy. This fight, for example, is represented as being outside the walls. It is incredible that the Greeks should have made a sortie at this period of the siege. As an illustration of the untrustworthy character of the writer, it may be noted that the number of Turks killed during the siege totals up to 130,000!

[336] Leonard, the Vallum and the Antemurale.

[337] Phrantzes, p. 244.

[338] ‘Bastion’ is the word used for a wooden tower or castle by Barbaro and by the translator of the Moscovite. Chalcondylas calls it helepolis, distinguishing it from the cannon which he names teleboles. Ducas speaks of cannon usually by the word χωνείαν, sometimes as τὰς πετροβολιμαίους χώνας or σκευαὶ πετροβόλοι or simply as τὸ σκεῦος; Phrantzes employs the word helepolis for a wooden turret (pp. 237, 244). The latter word is used by Critobulus for a cannon. It was an epithet applied to Helen, ‘the Taker of Cities.’ In the Bonn edition of Phrantzes it is also employed, both in the text and the Latin translation, for cannon; but a reference to the readings of the Paris MS. suggests that it is an error. Phrantzes’s words for cannons are teleboles and petroboles.

[339] The ‘Chastel de bois’ was ‘si haut, si grand et si fort qu’il maistrisoit le mur et dominait par-dessus’ (Tetaldi, p. 25).

[340] Barbaro states that it occupied a place called the ‘Cresca,’ possibly a copyist’s error for Cressus (= Chariseus), the name which I believe he gave indifferently with San Romano to the Pempton. Elsewhere he uses Cresca for the Golden Gate (e.g. p. 18). Possibly, however, he is referring to another turret, which was at the Golden Gate. Barbaro’s knowledge of places and names is not accurate. If Barbaro’s ‘bastion’ is the ‘helepole’ of which Phrantzes speaks (p. 245), then the three writers agree that the principal turret was at the Romanus Gate.

[341] The Moscovite, 1087; Phrantzes, 247.

[342] Leonard, p. 93: ‘Mauritius Cataneus ... inter portam Pighi, id est fontis, usque ad Auream contra ligneum castrum, pellibus boum contectum, oppositum accurate decertat.’ Cardinal Isidore, in the Lamentatio, says, p. 676: ‘Admoventur urbi ligneae turres.’

[343] Barbaro, under dates of May 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.

[344] As to the question whether there was water in the foss, see Professor Van Millingen’s Byz. Constantinople, pp. 57–8.

[345] Crit. xxxi. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὕστερον περιττὸν ἔδοξε, καὶ ματαία δαπάνη, τῶν μηχανῶν τὸ πᾶν κατεργασαμένων.

[346] The return, as mentioned, was on May 23, but is given by Barbaro under the 3rd. This is one of the passages which show that his diary was revised and added to after the siege.

[347] Crit. xlvi.; Pusculus, iv. 889, says:

Candida completo cum Phoebe surgeret orbe

Moesta prodit, fati miseri cladisque propinquae

Nuntia; nam tristis faciem velamine nubis

Tecta atrae, mediaque latens plus parte sereno

Incedit coelo.

Barbaro seems to describe an eclipse of the moon on May 22. The elder Dr. Mordtmann states that there was no full moon and consequently no eclipse on the 22nd, but that there was on the 24th. Dethier’s note on The Moscovite, p. 1100. Phrantzes, p. 264, speaks of a light flashing from the sky settling over the city, and remaining during the whole night. See note, post p. [316].

[348] Constantine was a widower, his wife, Catherine, having died in 1442, a year after her marriage. Phrantzes, 195–8.

[349] The same remark applies to The Moscovite generally. There are so many manifest fringes to what ought to have been the correct narrative of an eye-witness that it is impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood.

[350] Barbaro, under May 20.

[351] Leonard, Opere, p. 94.

[352] Leonard, p. 92.

[353] Ibid. p. 95.

[354] Barbaro, under May 28.

[355] Ep. Ang. Johannis Zacchariae Potestatis Perae, Sec. 2, edition revised by Edward Hopf and Dethier.

[356] Leonard, p. 94, and also Italian version given by Dethier, p. 644.

[357] Tetaldi, pp. 32–35.

[358] Crit. xlviii.

[359] See also the Moscovite, xx.

[360] Crit. lx.

[361] Barbaro, Pusculus, and Leonard agree with Critobulus in their description of the stockade.

[362] Phrantzes, 263.

[363] Ibid. 326. M. Mijatovich, in his pleasant and valuable Constantine, last Emperor of the Greeks, states that Mahomet received an ambassador from Ladislaus on May 26 (p. 198); but I do not know on what authority.

[364] Phrantzes, 325.

[365] M. Mitjatovich’s suggestion that the negotiations had probably emanated from the wily cardinal who had been the evil spirit of Ladislaus, or possibly from the crafty, but unpractical, mind of George Brancovich, appears plausible.

[366] Phrantzes, 326; Ducas, xxxviii.

[367] Ducas, xxxviii.

[368] Tetaldi says: ‘Se l’armée de Venise que menoit et conduisoit Messire Jean le Rendoul [Loredano] fut arrivé à Constantinople ung seul jour avant que cette cité fust prinse, certes il n’y avoit aucun doute qu’ils eussent fort secouru et fussent venus bien à point’ (p. 30).

[369] ‘Per el campo del Turco in questo zorno se fexe asai feste, de soni, e de altra condition de alegreze, e questo perche i sentiva che tosto i volea dare la bataia zeneral’ (p. 48, under May 24).

[370] Phrantzes, 263.

[371] Leonard, p. 95; Phrantzes, 263; Crit. xlvi.

[372] Crit. xlvii.

[373] The accounts of this light (or darkness), which alarmed both sides, are somewhat conflicting. Perhaps here also Critobulus is the safest guide. In chapter xlvi. he mentions the religious procession already described, where the statue of the Virgin falls, and says it was ‘three or four days before the attack.’ Immediately after came torrential rains with vivid flashes of lightning. Then, ‘the next day,’ there was a thick fog lasting till evening. Barbaro speaks of a darkness, due, judging from his description, to an eclipse of the moon, lasting from the first to the sixth hour after sunset, as being on the 22nd. This alarmed the Greeks, he says, because of an ancient prophecy which declared that Constantinople should not be lost until the moon should give a sign in the heavens. Phrantzes (page 264) says: φῶς ἀστράπτον καταβαῖνον ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς ἄνωθεν τῆς πόλεως ἑστὸς διέσκεπεν αὐτήν. Possibly both Phrantzes and Barbaro have the same atmospheric night effects in view: that is, that there were frequent flashes of lightning during the night so long as the eclipse lasted. The statement of Pusculus, who was in the city at the time, has already been quoted. See p. [297], ante. The account of Critobulus appears clear, but it does not eliminate the miraculous, for he declares that many persons, both Romans and foreigners, declared that they had seen the Divinity hiding Himself in the clouds.

[374] Ducas also mentions the attempt recorded by Chalcondylas, but without mentioning the name of Ismail. Ducas thus mentions two negotiations for peace, the first (if it ever existed) being towards the end of April and the second nearly a month after.

[375] The Turkish historian Sad-ud-din, (p. 20) represents the emperor as offering to surrender everything except Constantinople; to which Mahomet’s reply was, ‘Either the city, the sword, or El-Islam.’

[376] Leonard.

[377] Leonard, Phrantzes, and Tetaldi all speak of him as friendly to the Christians. He was, however, disliked by Mahomet, because he had persuaded Murad to send his son to Magnesia. Tetaldi says that the Christians in the Turkish army shot letters into the city to let the besieged know all that went on in the council.

[378] According to Leonard, the sultan ordered Zagan to fix a day for a general assault.

[379] Phrantzes, 623–8, and also Leonard.

[380] The narrative of Phrantzes relating the decision of the meeting of the Turkish council concludes by stating that this was on the 27th—that is, Sunday (p. 269). It may have been, but it is difficult to believe that the council meeting, the sending of Zagan to learn the opinion of the soldiers, his return and the decision, together with the subsequent proclamation, were all crowded into one day. Barbaro gives the proclamation as being made on Monday the 28th. Leonard says that, as a result of the meeting, a proclamation was issued for the attack to be on Tuesday and for the three preceding days to be devoted to prayer and one of them to fasting. If he is correct, the council could not have been on the 27th. Tetaldi states that the council lasted during four days. The statement appears possible, and perhaps gives the explanation of the apparent discrepancies in the narratives.

[381] Leonard, 96, Phrant. 269; Barbaro adds that the Turks believed that on the morrow they would have so many Christians in hand that two slaves could be bought for a ducat: such riches that everything would be of gold, and they could have enough hair from the heads of Christian priests to make ropes with which to tie up their dogs.

[382] The Moscovite, xxii. This first wound is only mentioned by the Moscovite.

[383] Phrantzes, 269.

[384] Barbaro, p. 50.

[385] Barbaro. Ducas says, from St. Eugenius to Hodegetria and as far as Vlanga (p. 282–3), which is substantially the same position as that given by Critobulus.

[386] Zorso Dolfin, p. 78.

[387] Sad-ud-din, p. 16. Translation by E. J. W. Gibb.

[388] τούφακας; in modern Greek the name for sporting guns is τουφέκια. The Turks call them Toufeng. Ducas uses the word μολυβδοβόλοι.

[389] Crit. xlvii. to lii.

[390] According to Critobulus, the meeting of the Council was on the 27th.

[391] Phrantzes, 269–70. Was the speech as recorded by Critobulus ever delivered? The answer I am disposed to give is that a speech was delivered which was substantially that reported by Phrantzes and Critobulus. The fashion followed by the Byzantine writers, and their desire to imitate classical models, by putting all speeches in the first person, made it necessary to invent a speech if the substance of what was said were known. Critobulus, writing some years after the capture and having had many opportunities of meeting with the Turkish leaders, was in a position to learn what was said and done by them, and hence his report, wherever it can be tested, almost invariably proves trustworthy.

[392] Barbaro, May 28.

[393] Crit. liv.

[394] Phrantzes, 271–8; Leonard, 97.

[395] Phrantzes, 279; The Moscovite, p. 1113. The ceremony is also mentioned in the Georgian Chronicle.

[396] Libro d’Andrea Cambini Florentino della Origine de Turchi et imperio delli Ottomanni. Edition of 1529, p. 25.

[397] Phrantzes, p. 280. The closing of the gates behind the soldiers is mentioned also by other writers.

[398] The Caligaria Gate was the present Egri Capou. For a description of Caligaria and the neighbouring palace of Blachern see Professor van Millingen’s Byzantine Constantinople, p. 128. Caligaria was the name of a district which was in the corner made by the wall running at right angles to the foss, where it terminates on the north just beyond Tekfour Serai, and that which leads down the steep slope to the Golden Horn.

[399] Phrantzes, p. 280.

[400] The question when the general attack began is very much one of appreciation. According to Ducas, Mahomet commenced on the Sunday evening to make a general attack and during the night the besieged were not permitted to sleep but were harassed all night and, though in a less active manner, until between four and five of the afternoon of Monday. Phrantzes declares the capture to have been made on the third day of the attack and would thus make it begin on Sunday, but his narrative shows that the general attack began after midnight of the 28–9th. Barbaro’s statement substantially agrees with that of Phrantzes and is that during the whole of the 27th the cannons were discharging their stone balls: tuto el zorno non feze mai altro che bombardar in le puovere mure; but on p. 51 he says that Mahomet came before the walls to begin the general attack at three hours before day on the 29th. Critobulus makes the general attack begin on the afternoon of the 28th, when the sultan raised his great standard (Crit. lii. and lv.). Karl Müller, in his excellent notes to Critobulus, justly remarks that as Barbaro and Phrantzes were in the city their evidence ought to be preferred to that of Critobulus. They both represent the final assault as beginning very early in the morning of the 29th. The statements are reconcilable by supposing that the dispositions for a general attack began on the Sunday, but that the actual general assault did not take place until the Tuesday morning. Sad-ud-din says, on the authority of two Turkish contemporaries, that ‘the great victory was on Tuesday, the fifty-first day from the commencement of the war’ (p. 34).

[401] Cambini, 24.

[402] P. 160.

[403] Ch. lv.

[404] P. 52.

[405] Leonard, p. 86: ‘Testis sum quod Graeci, quod Latini, quod Germani, Panones, Boetes, ex omnium christianorum regionibus Teucris commixti opera eorum fidemque didicerunt.’

[406] Riccherio, 958: ‘Percioche Maometh pensava, ricreando gli stracchi col rimetter nuove genti nella zuffa, verrebbe a non dar punto di spatio per riposarsi a Greci, di maniera che, non potendo sostener tanta fatica per lo continuo combattimento, si sarebbono agevolmente potuti vincere.’

[407] Crit. liv.

[408] Michael Constantinovich, a Servian who was with a contingent of his countrymen in the Turkish army, says, ‘As far as our help went, the Turks would never have taken the city’ (quoted by Mijatovich, p. 234).

[409] τούφακας, Crit. li.

[410] Chalc. p. 160.

[411] Barbaro (54) says, Greeks and Venetians, omitting all mention of the Genoese.

[412] Crit. lvi.

[413] Leonard: ‘in loco arduo Myriandri.’

[414] Pusculus, iv. 173, and Zorzo Dolfin, 55.

[415] Crit. lvii.

[416] Leonard, p. 98: ‘Tenebrosa nox in lucem trahitur, nostris vincentibus. Et dum astra cedunt, dum Phoebi praecedit Lucifer ortum, Illalla, Illalla in martem conclamans, conglobatus in gyrum consurgit exercitus.’

[417] Crit. lvii.

[418] Παραπόρτιον ἓν πρὸ πολλῶν χρόνων ἀσφαλῶς πεφραγμένον, ὑπόγαιον, πρὸς τὸ κάτωθεν μέρος τοῦ παλατίου.

[419] Its complete name was Porta Xylokerkou, because it led to a wooden circus outside the city. See the subject fully discussed by Professor van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople, pp. 89–94.

[420] I am not satisfied that the Kerkoporta was the one indicated by Professor van Millingen. On the map published by the Greek Syllogos, as well as in Canon Curtis’s Broken Bits of Byzantium, a small postern is shown in the wall immediately south of the tower adjoining Tekfour Serai, and my own recollection is that I saw this walled-up postern with Dr. Paspates in 1875. The wall itself was pulled down on the outbreak of the last Turko-Russian war and replaced by a slighter one. Whichever view be correct, the statement in the text is not affected.

Professor van Millingen contends that the Kerkoporta strictly so called was the small gate in the corner between Tekfour Serai and the adjoining tower on the south. But he maintains also that the postern to which Ducas refers was in the transverse wall, giving access from the city to the Inner Enclosure. He remarks that if the Turks entered by the Kerkoporta they could have mounted the great Inner Wall from the city. As to the latter objection, it must be remembered that the fighters were within the Enclosure defending the Outer Wall, and if the Turks entered through the postern in the transverse wall they would take the fighters in the rear. It would have been a better position for attack than on the Inner Wall.

[421] Phrantzes, p. 285.

[422] Crit. lvi.

[423] Sad-ud-din gives an interesting variant of the story of Ducas. He states that while ‘the blind-hearted emperor’ was busy resisting the besiegers of the city at his palace to the north of the Adrianople Gate,’ ‘suddenly he became aware that the upraisers of the most glorious standard of “The Word of God” had found a path to within the walls’ (Sad-ud-din, p. 30). The statement that the emperor was present at Tekfour Serai agrees with that of Ducas; but the latter’s account of the events immediately following the entry by the Kerkoporta varies so much from that given by others that I suspect some sentences have dropped out of his narrative.

[424] Crit. lviii.

[425] Ibid.

[426] Leonard, p. 37.

[427] It is difficult to identify the gate described as having been opened on to the stockade. Critobulus gives no further indication of its position than that here mentioned (ch. lx.). Paspates thinks it was a temporary postern, walled up after the siege when the Inner Wall was repaired to prevent smuggling, but would place it not far from Top Capou, a position which cannot be accepted if the stockade were, as I have placed it, near the Military Gate of St. Romanus. The Podestà of Pera, however, says that Justiniani went ‘per ipsam portam per quam Teucri intraverunt’ (p. 648), which would indicate St. Romanus. Andrea Cambini, the Florentine already quoted, in his Libro della Origine de Turchi, published by the sons of the writer, says that Justiniani, who had behaved so well that the salvation of the city was largely attributed to him, was seriously wounded, and, seeing that the blood flowed ‘in great quantity’ and being unwilling that they should fetch a doctor, withdrew secretly from the fight ... all the gates which led from the Antimuro [i.e. the Outer Wall] being closed, because thus the fighters had to conquer or die (p. 25).

[428] His monument still exists in the church of S. Domenico at Chios with an epitaph which contains the phrase ‘lethale vulnere ictus interiit.’ Phrantzes says that Justiniani was wounded in the right foot by an arrow; Leonard, by an arrow in the armpit; Chalcondylas, in the hand, by a ball; Critobulus, by a ball in the chest or throat which pierced through his breastplate. The latter statement would be consistent with Tetaldi’s which speaks of the wound inflicted by a culverin. Riccherio says Justiniani was wounded by one of his own men. Barbaro (who, it must always be remembered where he is speaking of the Genoese, was a Venetian and incapable of doing justice to a citizen of the rival republic) does not mention any wound, but states roundly that Justiniani decided to abandon his post and hasten to his ship, which was stationed at the boom.

[429] Barbaro, p. 55.

[430] Philip the Armenian, who was probably present in the city, states that Justiniani and his men deserted their stations and that thus the city was lost (pp. 675–6). Riccherio, while speaking of the wound as severe, declares that Justiniani promised to return, and attributes the departure of many of his followers to the fact that the postern gate, which he had required to be opened for his departure, suggested the idea of flight to his men. In other words it created a panic (p. 960). The contemporaries who excuse Justiniani are Cardinal Isidore (Lamentatio, p. 677: ‘Ne caeteros deterreret, remedium quaerens clam sese pugnae subduxit’) and Leonard, who both state that he went away secretly so as not to discourage his followers. Tetaldi further declares that he left his command to two Genoese. Leonard and the Podestà wrote while the impression of the fall and the sack of the city were too recent to enable them to give a cool judgment on Justiniani’s conduct: the latter dating his letter June 23, and the archbishop August 16.

[431] Crit. lx.; also Leonard, 99.

[432] Cambini, p. 25.

[433] Phrantzes, 285.

[434] Crit. lx.

[435] Phrantzes, p. 285.

[436] ‘La prima sbara di barbacan,’ p. 54.

[437] Phrantzes, p. 285.

[438] Montaldo, xxiii.: ‘insigniis positis.’

[439] Montaldo (ch. xxiii.) incidentally confirms the version of Ducas. He states that the emperor determined on death only after he had learned that the enemy had entered the city and had occupied the palace and other places.

[440] Leonard, p. 99. In Dethier’s edition a note states that one of the MSS. reads eighty Latins ‘sine Graecis,’ p. 608.

[441] Leonard, 99, says that they formed a cuneus or phalanx.

[442] Crit. lxi.; Chalc. p. 164. Ahmed Muktar Pasha’s Conquest of Constantinople.

[443] Crit. lxi.; Tetaldi, p. 23, speaks of ‘deux banniers.’

[444] Crit. lxi.; Tetaldi, p. 29, ‘à l’aube du jour;’ Barbaro (p. 55) at sunrise. Phrantzes says that possession of the city was obtained at half past two, which by the then and present prevalent mode in the East of reckoning time would correspond to about ten. Possession of the city would probably be about three or four hours after the entry through the landward walls. Leonard says: ‘Necdum Phoebus orbis perlustrat hemisphaerium et tota urbs a paganis in praedam occupatur.’

[445] P. 647; ‘on the 29th of last month,’ ‘Qua die expectabamus cum desiderio quia videbatur nobis habere certam victoriam.’

[446] Crit. ch. lxx. Pusculus gives a somewhat different account (iv. 1025):

Auxilium Deus ipse negavit;

In Tenedi portu nam tempestatibus actae

Stabant bis denae naves, quas Gnosia tellus,

Quae Venetum imperium Rhadamanti legibus audit

Omissis, plenas frumento et frugibus, inde

Bis quinas Veneti mittebant Marte triremes

Instructas, urbi auxilio Danaisque; sed omnes

Mensem unum adverso tenuerunt sidere portum;

Nec prius inde datum est se de statione movere

Quam Teucri capiant urbem regemque trucident.

[447] Phrantzes, p. 327.

[448] Pusc. iv. 1025.

[449] Crit. lxxii.

[450] Crit. lx.

[451] Leonard, p. 99; Polish Janissary, 332; Montaldo notes one report, that he was trampled down in the throng, and another, that his head was cut off. Philelphus (book ii. v. 990) says, ‘Enseque perstricto nunc hos, nunc enecat illos, Donec vita suo dispersa est alma cruore.’

[452] See also ch. xxvii. of Montaldo, who adds that the head was sent to the pasha of Babylon accompanied by forty youths and forty virgins, a procession intended to make known the sultan’s great victory.

[453] The Turks show a place in the bema of St. Sophia which they pretend to be the tomb of Constantine.

[454] Sad-ud-din also makes a Turkish soldier strike off the emperor’s head (p. 31).

[455] Phrantzes, p. 291.

[456] Until about ten years ago a tomb was shown by local guides to travellers at Vefa Meidan as the burial-place of Constantine. It bore no inscription. M. Mijatovich is mistaken in stating (in Constantine, last Emperor of the Greeks, p. 229), on the authority of the elder Dr. Mordtman, that the Turkish government provides oil for the lamp over his grave. Alongside the alleged grave of Constantine is that of some one else, probably a dervish, and a lamp was burnt there some years ago. Similar lamps are burnt nightly in many other places in Constantinople. It is now entirely neglected. Dr. Paspates suggests, and probably with truth, that the whole story grew out of the desire for custom by the owner of a neighbouring coffee-house.

[457] ὡς καλὸν ἐντάφιον ἡ βασιλεία ἐστί. The conclusion of Theodora’s speech as recorded by Procopius.

[458] My authority for this statement is on p. 228 of a remarkable book in Turkish, published only in September 1902, describing the ‘Conquest of Constantinople and the establishment of the Turks in Europe.’ Its author is Achmed Muktar Pasha. It is especially valuable as containing many quotations from Turkish authors who are inaccessible to Europeans.

[459] Barbaro, p. 56.

[460] Crit. lvi.

[461] Crit. lxiii.

[462] The Horaia Gate occupied the site of the present Stamboul Custom House. The Validé Mosque, at the end of the present outer bridge, is built on part of the Jewish quarter. See the subject fully discussed by Professor van Millingen, p. 221 and elsewhere.

[463] Leonard, 99; Phrantzes, 287.

[464] Barbaro, pp. 55, 56.

[465] The Moscovite, xxv. The whole chapter is full of improbable statements.

[466] Ch. lxi.

[467] Barbaro, p. 55.

[468] Thyselii Expugnatio, ch. xxvi.

[469] Phrantzes, p. 291.

[470] P. 57.

[471] The Capture of Constantinople, from the Taj-ut-Tavarikh by Khodja Sad-ud-din. Translated by E. J. W. Gibb, p. 29.

[472] Phrantzes, 287. Professor van Millingen (p. 189) believes that these towers were a little to the south of the present Seraglio Lighthouse. One of them had an interesting inscription, stating that it was built by the emperor Basil in 1024.

[473] Another version of Tetaldi’s Informacion calls the galleys in question Venetian (Dethier, p. 905).

[474] Crit. ch. lxiii.

[475] Barbaro, p. 57.

[476] οὗ ἔσωθεν τῶν ἀδύτων καὶ ἄνωθεν τῶν θυσιαστηρίων καὶ τραπέζων ἤσθιον καὶ ἔπινον καὶ τὰς ἀσελγεῖς γνώμας καὶ ὀρέξεις αὐτῶν μετὰ γυναικῶν καὶ παρθένων καὶ παίδων ἐπάνωθεν ἐποίουν καὶ ἔπραττον. Phrantzes, p. 290.

[477] Crit. xlii.

[478] Ducas, xlii.: βιβλία ὑπὲρ ἀριθμόν.

[479] P. 31. Khodja Sad-ud-din, translated by E. J. W. Gibb.

[480] Report of Superior of Franciscans. He was present at the siege and arrived at Bologna July 4, 1453.

[481] Crit. lxvii. The Superior of the Franciscans reported that three thousand men were killed on both sides on May 29. Probably we shall not be far wrong in saying that between three and four thousand were killed on May 29 on the Christian side and fifty thousand made prisoners.

[482] Barbaro and Ducas.

[483] Barbaro pretends, indeed, that they were the victims of a trick on the part of the Genoese, who wished to secure their own safety by seizing their ships and delivering them to Mahomet. His story, like everything else he says about the Genoese, may well be doubted.

[484] A portion of the chain which formed part of the boom is now in the narthex of St. Irene. Its links average about eighteen inches long.

[485] Tetaldi states that the Turks captured a Genoese ship and from thirteen to sixteen others.

[486] Ducas says five.

[487] Crit. lxvii.

[488] Ibid. lxiii.

[489] About three fourths of the sea-walls were taken down. The remaining fourth was spared, and a portion of them near Azap Capou still remains.

[490] Angeli Johannis Zachariae Potestatis Perae Epistola. Leonard, p. 100. Ducas says that Mahomet had an inventory made of the property of those who had fled, and gave the owners three months within which to return, failing which, it would be confiscated.

[491] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 1040. See also Sauli’s Colonia dei Genovesi in Galata, vol. ii. p. 172, and Von Hammer, vol. ii., where the treaty is given in full in the appendix. Usually Dolfin’s narrative is taken from Leonard, but the paragraphs relating to the capitulations are an exception. Dolfin uses the word Privilegio. The capitulations are called at different times by different names: grants, concessions, privileges, capitulations, or treaties. I have already pointed out, in the Fall of Constantinople, that the system of ex-territoriality, under which, in virtue of capitulations, foreigners resident in Turkey are always under the protection of their own laws, is the survival of the system once general in the Roman empire. Of course it is ridiculous to speak of the capitulations as having been wrongfully wrung from the Turks by Western nations, and equally absurd to claim that their grant shows the far-reaching policy of the Turks in their desire to attract foreign trade. The Turks found the system of ex-territoriality in full force and maintained it, being unwilling, as they still are, to allow Christians, whether their own subjects or foreigners, to rank on an equality with Moslems.

[492] Ducas makes the entry to Hagia Sophia on the 30th. Phrantzes and Chalcondylas, on the 29th.

[493] Cantemir, vol. ii. p. 45 (ed. Paris, 1743). He gives the Persian text.

[494] Report of podestà; Philip the Armenian, p. 680; also Leonard, 101.

[495] Riccherio (p. 967), whose narrative is singularly clear and readable. See also the report of the Superior of the Franciscans.

[496] Phrantzes, 385.

[497] Ibid. p. 383: ἐν ᾧ δὴ χρόνῳ καὶ μηνὶ ἀνεῖλεν αὐτοχειρίᾳ τὸν φίλτατόν μου υἱὸν Ἰωάννην ὁ ἀσεβέστατος καὶ ἀπηνέστατος ἀμηρᾶς, ὃς δῆθεν ἐβούλετο τὴν ἀθέμιτον σοδομίαν πρᾶξαι κατὰ τοῦ παιδός.

[498] Crit. lxxiii.

[499] Ibid.

[500] Ducas, p. 137: ἐμφάνισας αὐτὰς τῷ αἱμοβόρῳ θηρίῳ.

[501] Phrantzes, 291.

[502] Pusculus also is violently hostile to Notaras, and probably for the same reason: because he would not accept the Union.

[503] Ducas, 137.

[504] Crit. (lxiii.) gives a different version. He states that he tried to pass as a Turk, in which his knowledge of the Turkish language aided him: but that he was recognised and flung himself from the walls. His head was cut off and carried to the sultan, who had offered a great reward for his capture dead or alive.

[505] Crit. lxiii and lxvii.

[506] Ibid. lxvii.

[507] Report, p. 940. The houses were empty and bore the marks of the reckless ravages of a savage horde.

[508] Crit. lxix.

[509] Ducas, 142.

[510] Crit. bk. ii. ch. i.

[511] Von Hammer states that the walls were completely repaired in 1477, but gives no authority (Histoire de l’empire ottoman, iii. 209). A valuable hint is obtained from Knolles, who, writing his history of the Turks in 1610, says that ‘the two utter walls with the whole space between them are now but slenderly maintained by the Turks, lying full of earth and other rubbish’ (Knolles’s History, p. 341, 3rd ed. 1621). The lowest of the three walls has almost entirely disappeared except as to the lower portion, which forms one of the sides of the foss. In the Lycus valley, and even throughout the whole length of the landward walls, I think it is manifest to an observer that only the Inner Wall has been repaired.

[512] Crit. lxxiii.

[513] Ibid. lxxiv.

[514] Crit. lxxv.

[515] Phrantzes, 304.

[516] Crit. bk. ii. ch. i.

[517] Crit. bk. ii. ch. ii.

[518] Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs after the Conquest, by Athanasius Comnenos Hypsilantes, pp. 1, 2. The version of Phrantzes agrees with that given above. He gives a full account of the usual procedure on the appointment of a patriarch and confirms the statement that the Church of the Apostles was assigned to Gennadius as an official residence. Subsequently it was taken from the Greeks, was destroyed and replaced by a mosque built in honour of the conqueror and known as the Mahmoudieh. The former patriarch, says Phrantzes, was dead.

[519] Crit. bk. iii. ch. v.

[520] Commentari di Theo. Spandugino Cantacusino.

[521] All these illustrations are from book ii. of Critobulus.

[522] Fallmerayer’s Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt. Not only is this work the great authority for the history of Trebizond, but Fallmerayer himself brought to light the most valuable materials for its history. He was the discoverer in Venice of the chronicles of Panaretos in the library of Cardinal Bessarion. Since Fallmerayer wrote, the MS. of Critobulus has been discovered. In book iv. a full account is given of the capture of Trebizond and the treatment of its emperors. Finlay’s History of Trebizond is very good, but he wrote without seeing the account of Critobulus.

[523] iii. 302.

[524] Crit. bk. iii. ch. xxi. and xxii.

[525] Von Hammer, iii. 282.

[526] i. 32.

[527] Voyage au Levant par ordre du roy, 1630.

[528] Turcorum Origo, p. 22.

[529] This was Gentile Bellini, who arrived in Constantinople in 1479 and left at the end of 1480. He was sent, at the request of the sultan, by the Doge of Venice.

[530] Crit. bk. iv. ch. ix.

[531] Ibid. bk. v. ch. x.

[532] Crit. bk. v. ch. xi. It is possible that as some of the Latin writers spoke of the Turks as Teucri, in the belief that they were the descendants of the Trojans, Mahomet may have been under the same illusion.

[533] Les Sultans Ottomans, par Halil Ganem, p. 129 (Paris, 1901).

[534] Chalcondylas.

[535] These and many other fictions of the like kind come from Spandugino and Sansovino.

[536] Zorzo Dolfin (p. 985) says: ‘E homo non dedito a libidine, sobrio, in tempo del ramadan non vol aldir sobrieta; a nulla volupta, a nulla piacea e dedito saluo a gloria.’ This is in striking contradiction with Barbaro’s account, which in describing Mahomet says, ‘Che a un momento importantissimo alla vigilia della gran bataglia s’inebriò col capedan pascia secondo la sua usanza.’ Barbaro’s narrative is written immediately after the capture of the city, and, as usual, he is careless of the accusations which he brings against the Turks or Genoese.

[537] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 936.

[538] Les Sultans Ottomans, pp. 150 and 125.

[539] The fascination of the old Greek stories still continues even among the poorest Greeks, and it is astonishing how generally they are known. I have often heard old Greek women, unable to read or write, tell children Greek paramythia which have evidently been handed down by oral tradition. A few years ago, in travelling among the mountains of Bithynia, I came on Easter Monday to a Greek village, far remote from any other, and away from all lines of communication, where they were performing a miracle-play. The villagers, dressed in their best, were all present as actors or spectators. The play itself was a curious mixture of incidents in the life of Christ and of others—and these formed the largest part—from Greek mythology. No one knew anything of its origin, and all the information obtainable was that the play had always been performed on Easter Monday.

[540] See Aristarchi’s (the Grand Logothete) papers on Photius in the Transactions of the Greek Syllogos of Constantinople, and two volumes edited by him of that patriarch’s sermons and homilies, published 1901.

[541] Heeren, in his Essai sur les Croisades, p. 413, quoted in Hallam’s Middle Ages, ascribes the loss of all the authors missing from the library of Photius to the Latin capture. Probably the statement is too sweeping.

[542] Gibbon, vol. vii. 116.

[543] See H. F. Tozer’s article on ‘The Greek-speaking Population of Southern Italy,’ in Journal of Hellenic Studies, x. p. 99.

[544] ‘Nemo est qui Graecas literas novit.’ Quoted in Hodius, De Graecis illustribus, p. 8.

[545] Hodius, De Graecis illust.

[546] Hodius, p. 28.

[547] Philelphi Epis. in 1451.

[548] Filelfo died in 1481. Dethier gives the letter which he wrote to Mahomet praying for the release of his mother-in-law, a prayer which was granted.

[549] Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1875), pp. 392 etc.

[550] Burckhardt’s Renaissance in Italy, p. 192.

[551] Gibbon selects some examples to show the anti-christian character of the classical enthusiasm. (1) At the Council of Florence, Gemistos Pletho said in familiar conversation to George of Trebizond that in a short time mankind would unanimously renounce the Gospel and the Koran for a religion similar to that of the Gentiles (Leo Allatius). (2) Paul II. accused the principal members of the Roman Academy of heresy, impiety, and paganism (Tiraboschi). I suspect the first charge of being grossly exaggerated or invented, but the fact that such a statement could be credited shows to what extent the classical reaction had gone.

[552] It is curious that the non-progressive party in Oxford, who violently opposed the introduction of the new studies, called themselves Trojans. Roper’s Life of Sir T. More (ed. Hearne), p. 75. The archbishops of Chios and Pusculus invariably describe the Turks as Teucri.

[553] Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae.

[554] Ducas, xliii.

[555] αἱ πλείους δὲ αὐτῶν, οὐ πρὸς ἀπόδοσιν μᾶλλον ἢ ὕβριν &c. Crit. ch. lxii.

[556] Hodius, De Graecis illustribus.

[557] Aeneas Sylvius, in 1454, before the diet of Frankfort says: ‘Quid de libris dicam, qui illic erant innumerabiles, nondum Latinis cogniti?... Nunc ergo et Homero et Pindaro et omnibus illustrioribus poetis secunda mors erit.’

[558] One such at least still remains at Zeirek Jami.

[559] Probably more manuscripts existing as rolls (the original volumen) than in book form have disappeared. The Turks, for example, when they occupied Mount Athos during the Greek revolution, found the rolls very convenient for making haversacks. The books have perished mostly from neglect. The discovery by the present bishop of Ismidt of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων) in 1883, in the library of a monastery on the Golden Horn bound up with other manuscripts, the first of which only was indexed, gives hope that others of value may yet be found. The same remark applies to the recovery, about six years ago, of the Purple MS. of the Gospels, known technically as Codex N, and now at St. Petersburg.

[560] The influence of Byzantine art upon the West does not fall within the limits of my task. But every one interested in the subject is aware that during some centuries its influence was dominant. In the composition of pictures as well as in their drawing and treatment Western artists for a long time copied those of Constantinople. In painting, Byzantine influence prevailed throughout Italy from Justinian to the middle of the fourteenth century. Giotto, who died in 1336, was, says Kugler, the first to abandon the Byzantine style. In the intervening centuries the monasteries of Constantinople, Salonica, and Mount Athos were the central ateliers of painting, and furnished the models for artistic activity to all Europe. The mosaics in the church of San Vitale at Ravenna are magnificent illustrations of what Byzantine art was in the time of Justinian. Those in Hagia Sophia, as well as its general plan of colour-ornamentation, are still unsurpassed. Those of the Kahrié Mosque belonging to the fourteenth century are interesting and show a deep feeling for colour-combination as well as accuracy of drawing. Byzantine architecture in like manner greatly influenced the builders of churches in Western lands. The front view of St. Mark’s in Venice in the thirteenth century placed side by side with that of the Kahrié Mosque at the present day shows that the plan of the earlier one was familiar to the architect of the other, and, as has been pointed out by an architect who has made a careful study of the two buildings, when St. Mark’s differs from the Kahrié, the difference may be found in details reproduced from another church in Constantinople, that of the Pantocrator. The resemblance between St. Mark’s and the Kahrié illustrates Mr. Fergusson’s observations on the decoration of the exteriors of Byzantine churches. He points out that while the interior of Hagia Sophia is ‘the most perfect and most beautiful church which has yet been erected by any Christian people,’ the exterior was never finished (Fergusson’s History of Architecture, ii. 321). The Kahrié of to-day resembles St. Mark’s of the thirteenth century before the exterior casing was added to it.

The question of the influence of Byzantine art and architecture on the West has often been dealt with. For a list of books on the subject see Karl Krumbacher’s Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, pp. 1124–27.

[561] Hallam’s Middle Ages, ch. vi.

[562] Angeli Johannis Epistola, p. 62.

[563] See, for example, Cuspinianus, De Turcorum Origine; the author was in the employ of the emperor Maximilian I. and insists again and again on the necessity of resisting the Turk and the certainty of being able to do so with success. Almost every European traveller in Turkey during two centuries, beginning with La Brocquière and Tetaldi, made similar representations.

[564] One of the best illustrations of the degraded position assigned to woman in Mahometan countries is found in the fact that the popular belief is that she has no soul. The influence of such a belief is of course fatal to the progress of the race. I am well aware that Khaireddin Pasha and other progressive Mahometans have maintained that this belief is contrary to the teaching of the Koran, and that Mr. Hughes and other well-informed students of the sacred writings of Islam agree in this opinion. Still, my statement as to the popular belief is not affected by these researches into the original teaching. It is not alleged that the houris of Paradise are the representatives of earthly women. The sensual rewards promised to faithful men are clear and unmistakeable. The rewards to women in the Koran have to be searched for and are the result of interpretation. As a confirmation of the truth of my statement I may refer to the interesting interview given by Sir Edward Malet in Shifting Scenes (1901), p. 67. He describes a meeting which he had with Tewfik, the Khedive of Egypt, at a very critical moment, when indeed the latter’s life was in hourly danger. He represents Tewfik as saying: ‘Death does not signify to me personally. Our religion prevents us from having any fear of death; but it is different with our women. To them, you know, life is everything: their existence ends here; they cry and weep and implore me to save them.’

As to the custom of repudiating a wife, two learned Moslems, one Turkish and the other Indian, and both enlightened men, assure me that repudiation, though a general custom, is contrary to the teaching of Islam, which only recognises divorce. Both, however, admit that the practice is general, though they consider it irreligious or—what is the same thing in the Sacred Law of Islam—illegal.

[565] I may add here that the great value of Christian missions from the West in the Turkish Empire, those of the Latin Church and of the American Protestant Churches alike, lies not only in their educational work but still more in their holding up to the members of the Eastern Churches higher standards of truthfulness and morality. Their influence has been already very useful. They have kindled a desire for instruction, and have infused new life in many of the members of the ancient Churches. While Greeks, Bulgarians, and Armenians look with intense distrust on any attempts to proselytise, they have all been awakened by these missions to the necessity for education. Considering the means at their disposal, I think it may be fairly said that no other people during the last half-century has done so much for education as the Greeks. The desire of every Greek who makes money seems to be to found a school in his native place. In Constantinople several large and excellent institutions, both for boys and girls, exist, all of course unaided by the Government, and in other cities of the Turkish empire like efforts have been made by patriotic Greeks. In Bulgaria one of the first acts of the newly enfranchised state was to establish an efficient system of education. The Armenians are not behind either, and their efforts, perhaps to a greater extent than those of the other two peoples mentioned, are directed to bringing their priests into line with those of the West. In 1896 the American missionaries in Turkey met in a ‘summer school’ on the island of Proti, near Constantinople; the late Armenian patriarch visited them, and, having spent a day in listening to their discussion on questions of teaching and Biblical scholarship, declared that he would be ready to sacrifice his life if his own priests could have the advantage of such gatherings.

[566] ‘Pontes qui ad moenia ducunt dirumpunt.’ Pusculus iv. 137.

[567] Professor van Millingen’s Byzantine Constantinople, p. 96.

[568] Esquisse Topographique, p. 25.

[569] Critobulus, Book II. ch. i.

[570] Knolles, History of the Turks, p. 341 (written in 1610, edition of 1621).

[571] P. 28.

[572] 1078, Dethier’s edition.

[573] Byzantine Constantinople, p. 96. In the same manner Dethier, commenting on Pusculus, iv. line 169, says: ‘Pseudoporta Charsaca vel Pempti omnium celeberrima et in fortificatione calx Achilles erat. Hic enim ab utra parte, nempe a Porta Polyandrii [Adrianople Gate] et a Porta Sancti Romani in vallem Lyci linea recta murus descendit, idque contra omnem legem artis fortificationum.’

[574] The Anonymous Chronicle, in verse, of the Latin Capture (edited by Joseph Mueller and Dethier), line 390.

[575] Threnos, 610–613.

[576] Dethier and the elder Mordtmann considered (in error, as the learned son of the latter and Professor van Millingen agree) that they had proved that the Pempton was the Chariseus. See, in addition to the sentence just quoted from the Threnos, the archaeological map of the Greek Syllogos and also Dethier’s note on Pusculus, iv. line 172.

[577] Ch. xxiii.: πρὸς ταῖς καλουμέναις πύλαις τοῦ Ῥωμανοῦ.

[578] Ahmed Muktar Pasha’s Siege of Constantinople (1902).

[579] Esquisse Topographique, pp. 12, 21.

[580] Book i. ch. 20.

[581] Belagerung und Eroberung Constantinopels im Jahre 1453.

[582] Πολιορκία.

[583] Constantine, the last Emperor of the Greeks.

[584] Les derniers Jours de Constantinople.

[585] Book iii. ch. x.

[586] 248–9.

[587] ἐκ τοῦ λιμένος τῆς χρύσης πύλης ἐκτός.

[588] E.g. in the ancient account of the regions of the city given in the Notitia utriusque Imperii the Aurea Porta is mentioned as in the 12th Regio—that is, near the Seven Towers. Upon this Pancirolus remarks ‘The Greeks call it [i.e. the Aurea Porta] Ὡραία.’ Ducas might have been told that the fleet went to the Ὡραία πόρτα and understood it to be the Aurea Porta or the Golden Gate.

[589] ‘Intuentibus nobis,’ p. 90.

[590] ‘Teucrorum rex ex colle Perensi proconspicit,’ p. 90. It must be remembered that all across the Horn was Pera, and that Galata is properly Galata of Pera.

[591] ‘Rex qui ex colle circumspicit,’ p. 90.

[592] ‘Cogitavit itaque ex colle Galatae Orientali plaga vel eas lapidibus machinarum obruere vel a cathena repellere,’ p. 91.

[593]

‘Nec flare quievit

Structa donec statuit super aequora, Bosporus arctat

Litora ubi geminae telluris.’

Book iv. 413.

[594] ‘Deserit illic ventus eas; cecidere sinus sub moenibus arcis,’ iv. 415.

[595] ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐκ τῶν τείχων ἄνωθεν ταῦτα θεωροῦντες, p. 248.

[596] Vol. vii. p. 184.

[597] Other contemporary authors give us distances which enable us to get an approximate length of a stadium: e.g. Chalcondylas says that the walls of Constantinople were 111 stadia, or a little over 13 English miles, in circuit. Critobulus gives the total length of walls as 126 stadia and the length of the landward walls as 48. Both his figures are somewhat too high, unless they are intended to give the measure of the sinuosities of the walls. But the statements both of Chalcondylas and Critobulus as well as that of Leonard, if his intention is to represent a measure about a ninth or tenth of a furlong, are all pretty nearly accurate.

[598] Book iv. line 550.

[599] Book ii. line 974.

[600] Byzantine Constantinople, p. 234.

[601] Note to Pusculus, p. 237.

[602] P. 138.

[603] ‘Die letzten Tage von Byzanz,’ in the Mitteilungen des deutschen Exkursions-Klubs in Konstantinopel.

[604] εἰς πυγάς.

[605] Esquisse de Constantinople, by Dr. Mordtmann, sect. 71–75.

[606] Mr. Theodore Bent, who had paid greater attention to the archæology of the Greek Islands and to their present condition than any other Englishman, called my attention to the fact that the churches on the highest peaks not dedicated to St. George were usually dedicated to St. Elias, or to the Transfiguration, and suggested that there may have been a confusion in the minds of the islanders between Elias and Helios, the aspirate in the latter word being silent in modern Greek.

[607] Valuable suggestions and information are given by Mr. Sathas in reference to the survival of paganism in Documents inédits, Athens, vol. i. Lord Beaconsfield in Lothair shows a true insight into the actual condition of Greek Christianity when he represents Mr. Phœbus as describing what he proposes to do with an island which he has leased in the Aegean. He will restore paganism, will set up the statue which he has sculptured of the American Theodora in a grove of laurel still much resorted to, and will have processions in the beautiful pagan fashion. The people are still ‘performing unconsciously the religious ceremonies of their ancestors.’ Lothair, ch. xxvii. and xxviii.

---

[INDEX]

• Abassid dynasty used symbol of the Crescent, [141] n.
• Achaia, principality of, [40]
• Acropolitas, George (historian), [16];
  • at the Union ceremony at Lyons in 1274, [34]
• Agriculture: Turks have never taken kindly to, [58]
• Alans, Asiatic tribe, [43] sqq., [47], [61], [64]
• Alexander of Sinope, [317]
• Alexis, Emperor of Trebizond (1222), [9];
  • called himself Grand Comnenus and Emperor of the Faithful Romans, [387]
• Ali, chief of a Turkish band: shared in Othman’s raids on the empire, [61]
• Ali Pasha (grand vizier of Bajazed), [134], [136]
• Alphonse of Aragon, [129]
• Amadeo of Savoy, [91]
• Amer Bey, standard-bearer of Mahomet II., [289]
• Ameroukes, George (mathematician): at the court of Mahomet II., [393]
• Amogavares, Spanish mercenaries, [42]
• Amurath, son of Orchan. See Murad
• Anatolia-Hissar, [120], [126], [164] n., [213], [215]
• Anatolians: defeat of their attack in the siege, [337] sqq.;
  • their discipline and daring, [338]
• Andronicus II., Emperor (1282–1328: son and successor of Michael VIII.): hostility to Unionist party, [37];
  • question as to marriage of his son Michael, [37] sq.;
  • Latin attempts against his empire, [38];
  • calls to his aid Roger de Flor and the Catalan Grand Company, [39];
  • their actions caused introduction of Turks into Europe, [49];
  • loss of Imperial territory through Othman’s attacks, [61];
  • Turks cross Dardanelles, [61] sq.;
  • Andronicus’s son Michael co-emperor with his father, [65], [67];
  • quarrels between Andronicus II., and Andronicus his grandson, [67] sq.;
  • Andronicus II. abdicates and ends his days as a monk, [68]
• Andronicus III. (Palaeologus), Emperor (1382–41; son of Michael IX.; successor to Andronicus II.): quarrels with his grandfather and causes him to abdicate, [67] sq.;
  • constant warfare with Turks, [68];
  • the emperor seeks aid from the West, with little result, [69];
  • his death (1341), [70]
• Andronicus, son of John V.: regent during his father’s absence, [92];
  • his boyish compact with Sultan Murad’s son, and its punishment, [94];
  • retaliation on his father, [94] sq.
• Angora (1402), 112; details of the battle, [142] sqq.;
  • result of Timour’s victory, [147]
• Anjou, Charles of (King of Sicily): designs restoration of Latin empire, [34];
  • his forces find other employment, [36]
• Apocaukus: his strife with John Cantacuzenus, [71] sq.;
  • hired (1343) a Turkish fleet and army, [100]
• Arabs: their various attempts to capture New Rome, [230]
• Aragon, Frederic of, [38]
• Aragon, Peter of, [36];
  • his mercenary troops, [41]
• Archers, Turkish, [135];
  • their excellence, [167], [251]
• Aretinus, Leonard: enthusiasm for Greek, [405]
• Armenia, king of, [38]
• Arquebusers: Anatolian, [167];
  • German, [173]
• Arrows carrying flaming materials, used by Timour, [146]
• Arsenius, patriarch: excommunicated Michael VIII. for cruel treatment of the boy John Lascaris, [26];
  • withstands the emperor’s threats, [27];
  • is deposed and exiled, [28];
  • his strong opposition to the Latins, [31];
  • religious relations with a Turkish sultan, [56] sq.
• Asia Minor: its old commerce with Constantinople, [23];
  • Tartar ravages in, [53]
• Asomaton, [164] n.
• Athanasius, patriarch (1450), [202]
• Athens, duchy of, seized by Catalans, [69]
• Aurispa, pupil of Chrysoloras, [406]
• 
  Babylon, sultan of. See Egypt
• Bachaturean walls, [240]
• Bactatinian Tower, [240];
  • destroyed by Turks, [268]
• Bagdad, the last of its caliphs, [53]
• Bajazed, Sultan (1389–1403, son of Murad): obtained nickname of Ilderim or the Thunderbolt, [132];
  • successful attacks upon the empire, ib.;
  • crushes Bulgarian kingdom, [134];
  • defeats Western armies at Nicopolis, [134] sqq.;
  • for years kept Constantinople under terror of sieges, [137];
  • extent of his possessions, ib.;
  • summons of Timour to Bajazed, [138] sq.;
  • the sultan’s reply, [141];
  • Timour’s crushing defeat of Turks at Angora, Bajazed taken captive, [142] sqq.;
  • his treatment by his captor, [144] sq.;
  • territory taken from Turks by Timour, [145];
  • Bajazed’s death, [147]
• Baldwin, Emperor (Latin, 1204–05), [2] sq.
• Baldwin II., Emperor (Latin, 1237–61, successor of John of Brienne), [11];
  • gave his niece in marriage to sultan of Konia, [15];
  • put his son in pledge to Venetians for what he had borrowed, [16]
• Bâle, Council of (for Union, 1431): strife over its transference to Bologna, [121]
• Balkan peninsula: the continuous mutual jealousies of the races inhabiting it, [187];
  • a ‘Debateable Land,’ [187] n.
• Baloukli, Holy Well of, [18]
• Baltoglu, a Bulgarian renegade: in command of Turkish fleet at the great siege, [233], [244];
  • treatment of defenders of Prinkipo, [253];
  • attempt to force the boom, [256];
  • attack on aid-bearing Genoese ships, description of the battle, [259] sqq.;
  • Turks defeated, [265];
  • sultan degrades admiral, [267]
• Barlaam, Abbot (an Eastern controversialist), [69], [87];
  • taught Greek (at Avignon) at Petrarch’s request, [404]
• Bartolo, Nicolo (Venetian): his ‘Diary of the Siege of Constantinople,’ ix
• Bashi-Bazouks, [223];
  • an undisciplined mob: what they were used for, [229];
  • their eagerness for the final struggle, [319];
  • they begin the general attack, and are defeated, [335];
  • their body made up of Moslems, Christians and foreigners, ib.;
  • Mahomet’s object in making them the first to attack, [335] sq.;
  • their weapons and manner of fighting, [336]
• ‘Bastion’ of Mahomet II.: description of its construction, [292] sq.;
  • its position, [293]
• Bektash, Hadji, dervish and saint: honoured by Janissaries, [223];
  • the dervish order of Bektashis, [223] n.;
  • the order suppressed (1826), [227] n.
• Belgrade: captured by Turks: Serbians become vassals of Murad, [107]
• Bellini, Gentile (artist): at court of Mahomet II., [393]
• Benedict XI., Pope: reply to Andronicus III.’s appeal for aid, [69]
• Berenger of Catalonia, leader of mercenaries: joins with Roger de Flor, [45];
  • aids the Catalans, [46];
  • death, [48]
• Bessarion: Eastern representative at Council of Florence, [125] sq.;
  • made Cardinal by Eugenius IV., [128];
  • his profound learning, [406]
• Bethune, John de: his expedition to help Baldwin II., [11]
• Biremes, description of, [234]
• Blachern, palace of, [19], [243], [290], [332]
• Blackbirds, Plain of. See Cossovo-pol
• Black Death, the, [76], [104];
  • description of the scourge in 1347, [189];
  • its rapid spread and devastation, [190]
• Blum, Robert. See Roger de Flor
• Boccaccio: promoted study of Greek, [404] sq.;
  • learned Greek and lectured on its literature, [405]
• Bocchiardi, Paul, Antony, and Troilus, three Italian brothers: provided, at their own cost, a contingent in defence of Constantinople (1453), [249];
  • their prowess during the great assault, [339], [344];
  • their ultimate escape to Galata, [360]
• Bogomils, an heretical sect, 87 and n., [151]
• Bohemians (followers of John Huss), [121]
• Bolero, Emperor Michael’s hunting-ground, [17]
• Boniface IX., Pope: procures aid for the Greeks: the expedition defeated (1396), [110]
• Boom, the, across Golden Horn, [221], [271], [287], [290]
• Boucicaut, Admiral of Venetian and Genoese combined fleets, [111], [137]
• Brancovich, George (of Serbia): supplies men and much money to the combination against Murad II., [159];
  • refuses to break the treaty of Szegedin, [163];
  • relations with Mahomet II., [311]
• Brienne, Gautier de, duke of Athens, [69]
• Brousa: its surrender to Othman (1326), [64];
  • captured by Timour, [145];
  • Bajazed buried at, [147]
• Bulgaria: Baldwin’s expedition against (1204), [3], [7] sq., [25];
  • allied with Tartars in Thrace, [64];
  • procured aid alike from Turks and Tartars, [99];
  • fate of Eastern Bulgarians sealed at Maritza (1371) and of Western at Cossovo-pol (1389), [108];
  • end of the kingdom (1393), [134]
• Burgundians at Nicopolis, [135]
• Burgundy, Louis of, [40]
• Byzantine art: its influence upon the West, [413]
• Caligaria: defence of its walls, [221]
• Caloyers (Greek monks): defenders in the great siege, [250], [259]
• Cannon, Urban’s monster gun, [231], [245];
  • account of other large guns, [231] n.;
  • various names for cannon, [246];
  • size of stone balls thrown, ib.;
  • probably not mounted on wheels, ib.;
  • Urban’s great cannon destroyed, but afterwards recast and again used, [245];
  • Turkish superiority in the use of cannon, [252];
  • siege of Constantinople an era in employment of large cannon, [252];
  • brass cannon, in use, [252] n.;
  • destructive effect shown in the siege, [255];
  • Greek words used for ‘cannon,’ [292] n.
• Cantacuzenus, Andronicus: a defender in the great siege, [249]
• Caraja, leader of European Turks: killed at Varna, [168]
• Caraja Pasha: head of European division of Turks, [243];
  • position in final assault, [325];
  • suffers defeat, [359]
• Caristo, an old Venetian: a defender in the great siege, [249]
• Castriotes, George. See Iskender
• Catalan Grand Company. See Roger de Flor
• Catalusio, Catherine, wife of Constantine Dragases (died 1442), [203] n., [298] n.
• Cesarini, Cardinal Julian, [125];
  • papal legate at Constantinople, [159];
  • persuaded Ladislaus to violate the treaty of Szegedin, [162];
  • his pretexts in justification, [163];
  • at the battle of Varna, [166], [168]
• Charles VI. (France): refuses Manuel’s proposed vassalage, [111]
• Chateaumorand, lieutenant of Boucicaut, [112], [137]
• China: Timour’s intended invasion, [147]
• Clement IV., Pope, [31]
• Clement VI., Pope: his efforts to check Moslem progress: sends a fleet against Turks, [81];
  • the expedition massacred, ib.;
  • the pope’s relations with John Cantacuzenus, [82];
  • desired a Council to settle Union of the Churches, [83]
• Christ, Tower of, [270]
• Chrysoloras, Manuel: taught Greek at Florence, Pavia, Venice, and Rome, [405] sq.
• Coco, James: scheme to capture Turkish vessels in Cassim Pasha Bay, [279], [283], [288]
• Colonies of Westerns domiciled in Constantinople, [77]
• Comans (or Tur-Comans): a band of, in service of Latins, [13]
• Commerce, the stream of, through the Bosporus, [23]
• Constantine XI., Emperor (sometimes called Constantine XII., Dragases: 1449–53: brother of John VII.): ruler in the Peloponnesus, [171];
  • defeated by Murad II.: compelled to pay tribute and surrender territory to him, [172];
  • becomes last Christian emperor: crowned 1449, [201];
  • the Union question combined with desired aid from the West, [202];
  • preparations for its formal completion, [203];
  • the emperor’s relations with Mahomet II., [211] sq.;
  • the fortress of Roumelia-Hissar, [213] sqq.;
  • Mahomet declares war, [216];
  • preparations against siege, [219];
  • help from the pope, from Venice and the Genoese, [220];
  • Justiniani made Commander-in-chief, ib.;
  • Turkish fleet in the Bosporus, [233];
  • Greeks break down bridges leading across the foss, and close the city gates, [235];
  • gradual approach of Turkish army, [236];
  • emperor’s reply to Mahomet’s formal offer of peace, [236];
  • paucity of the imperial forces, [246] sq.;
  • positions occupied by his troops, [248] sqq.;
  • his cannon were few and of little value, [250];
  • equipment and arms of the forces, [251]
• Constantine XI.—The Siege: the city beleaguered (April 7, 1453), [254];
  • first bombardment, [255];
  • defeats of enemy’s attempts, [256];
  • a naval battle: defeat of Baltoglu, [257] sqq.;
  • fruitless appeals for further aid, [268];
  • more destructive bombardment, [269];
  • transport of Turkish vessels overland, [269] sqq.;
  • Constantine alleged to have sued for peace, [277];
  • the sultan’s reply, ib.;
  • the statement is hardly probable, [278];
  • the emperor sends a vessel to search for the expected Venetian fleet, [285];
  • his reply to proposal that he should leave the city, [286] sq.;
  • pacifies quarrel of Venetians and Genoese, [288];
  • strange phenomena seen in city (May 22–26, 1453), [296] sqq.;
  • great alarm of emperor and people, [298]
• Constantine XI.—Last days of Empire: comparison of conditions of besieged and besiegers, [313];
  • difference of character in their final preparations, [314];
  • some food for hope for the Greeks, ib.;
  • Ismail of Sinope brings suggestion of Greek surrender, on terms, [317];
  • emperor’s reply, [318];
  • religious preparations for the coming struggle: the last religious procession in the city, [327];
  • Constantine’s ‘funeral oration of the Empire,’ [328];
  • spirit of the speech, [329];
  • his last view of the city, [332];
  • his attempt to rally defenders at the stockade, [347];
  • took the post of Justiniani after the latter’s departure, [348];
  • death of Constantine, [350];
  • variant accounts as to the manner of his death, [353] sqq.;
  • his character, [355];
  • his burial-place unknown, [357]
• Constantinople—Latin Empire, 1204–61: the city never recovered the blow inflicted by the Fourth Crusade, [1];
  • Baldwin, the first Latin emperor: the parcelling out of the empire and division of the spoil, [2] sq.;
  • dissensions, [3];
  • conflict with Bulgarians, ib.;
  • disputes among leaders, [4];
  • opposition of Greek population: empire of Nicaea, [5] sq.;
  • Baldwin’s death: succeeded by Henry (1205), [7];
  • Henry’s policy of conciliation, [8];
  • mysterious death of his successor, Peter of Courtenay, ib.;
  • fate of Peter’s successor, Robert, [9];
  • in 1222 there were four persons claiming to be emperors, ib.;
  • Robert’s successor, John de Brienne (1228): troubles of his reign, [10];
  • Baldwin II. succeeded (1237): his visit to the West to beg for help in men and money, ib.;
  • intense distress and want of food in the city, [11];
  • decay of the empire, [12];
  • sacred relics and other valuables sold to raise money, ib.;
  • decay of the city, [13];
  • lawlessness of Crusaders, [13] sq.;
  • events after Baldwin’s return: more degradation, [15] sq.;
  • fruitless negotiations with Emperor Michael (of Nicaea), [16];
  • the capture of Constantinople (1261), [17] sqq.;
  • ignominious flight of Baldwin, [19];
  • the Latin empire had done irreparable mischief and no compensatory good, [20]
• Constantinople—Reconstructing the Empire: a city of desolation: destruction and plunder of treasures of art and civilisation, [22];
  • its old commerce ruined, [23];
  • desolation in the city reproduced in the provinces, [24];
  • Michael VIII.’s difficulties: anarchy within his dominions and hostility from without, [25];
  • hatred of Orthodox towards Roman Church, ib.;
  • from Michael’s own usurpation, [26];
  • from attempts by Latins to recover the Empire, [29];
  • strife about Union of Churches, [31] sqq.;
  • Union apparently effected (Lyons, 1274), but rejected at Constantinople, [34];
  • further desperate papal efforts, [35];
  • death of Michael: his son, Andronicus II., succeeded (1282), [36] sq.;
  • popes still favour re-establishment of Latin empire, [38];
  • various projects in that direction, [38] sqq.;
  • Andronicus calls in the aid of the Catalan Grand Company, [40];
  • ill effects thereof, [41] sqq.;
  • outrages upon subjects of the empire, [43] sq., [46];
  • emperor’s effort to buy them off, [47];
  • disastrous results from attempts to restore Latin empire, [49] sqq.
• Constantinople—Dynastic Struggles: attack of Sultan Othman on imperial
  • territory (1282), [61] sqq.;
  • Turks called in as partisans in imperial dynastic struggles, [63];
  • Brousa captured by Othman, [64];
  • distressed condition of the empire in 1320, [65];
  • long and lasting evils of dynastic struggles, [66];
  • the quarrels between Andronicus II. and his grandson, [67];
  • thirteen years constant war against Turks, [68] sqq.;
  • the bitter strife between John V. and John Cantacuzenus (1342–55), [70] sqq.
• Constantinople—Causes leading to Decay of Empire: the small remnant of territory to which Constantine Dragases succeeded, [180];
  • the decay was not due to demoralisation of people, [180] sq.;
  • they were superstitiously religious, but not given to frivolous amusement, [181];
  • their indifference to matters political, [182];
  • no fervour or energy among Churchmen and nobles, [182] sq.;
  • no commercial spirit existed, [183];
  • merits and faults were alike negative, [184];
  • enervation caused by relaxing climate of Constantinople, [184] n.;
  • chief causes of decay: mischief arising out of Latin conquest, [185];
  • internal divisions and civil wars helped the Turks’ aims against empire, [185] sq.;
  • autocratic form of government, [186];
  • hostile races, and their mutual jealousies, [187];
  • dissensions between co-emperors, ib.;
  • immiscible racial groups, [188];
  • the system of Turkish conquests: nomads replace agriculturists, [188] sq.;
  • fearful havoc of the Black Death, (1347), [189] sqq.;
  • densely populated and flourishing countries become a desolation, [191];
  • population of Constantinople in 1453, [192] sqq.;
  • its commerce, [194];
  • relations of government and governed, ib.;
  • no divine right of succession, [195];
  • co-emperors, ib.;
  • law fairly administered, ib.;
  • popular interest in religious questions, [196];
  • intellectual life: classical Greek modified by Christianity, [197];
  • Greek historians of the period, ib.;
  • character of civilisation of the time, [197] sq.;
  • intellectual life in provincial cities, [199];
  • few glimpses of domestic life, ib.;
  • a period of disasters, struggles, alarms, and illusions, [200]
• Constantinople—Topography of the City: Galata of Pera (Genoese colony), [237];
  • Stamboul (in 1453), ib.;
  • position and shape of the city proper, ib.;
  • the foss from Seraglio Point to Aivan Serai, [238];
  • description of the walls: Landward Walls, [238] sqq.;
  • the Peribolos or enclosure, [238];
  • Outer Wall, [239];
  • gates, civil and military, ib.;
  • valley of the Lycus, ib.;
  • the Mesoteichion and the Myriandrion, [240];
  • Bachaturean walls, ib.;
  • Inner Wall, [241];
  • the neglect of keeping the walls in good condition: money intended for their repair had been misappropriated, [242];
  • the defenders at the great siege took up their position in the Peribolos, [243];
  • local disposition of the enemy’s forces, [243] sq.;
  • positions of the imperial forces, [248] sqq.
• Constantinople—Events of the Siege: the Queen City cut off from the outside world, [254];
  • damage done by enemy’s cannonades, [255];
  • construction of a stockade, ib.;
  • attempted capture and attack on boom repelled, [256];
  • Baltoglu’s attack on aid-bearing vessels: description of the fight, [257] sqq.;
  • attack defeated: number of casualties, [267];
  • attack on the landward walls: destructive bombardment, [268];
  • a stockade formed, [269];
  • the transport of Turkish ships overland, [269] sqq.;
  • Greek scheme to destroy these vessels, [279] sq.;
  • the attempt made, [281];
  • failure, [282];
  • constant attacks on the landward walls; operations of the great cannon, [283];
  • provisions running short, [285];
  • naval skirmishes, ib.;
  • vessel sent out to find Venetian fleet, ib.;
  • proposal that emperor should leave the city, [286];
  • attacks on boom, [287], [290];
  • jealousy between Venetians and Genoese, [288];
  • attempts to capture city by assault defeated, [289] sq.;
  • attempts to undermine walls, [281], [294] sq.;
  • a ‘bastion’ erected by Turks, [292] sq.;
  • destroyed by Greeks, [294];
  • failure to find Venetian fleet, [295];
  • supernatural omens, [296] sq.;
  • dissensions in city: among Greeks, arising out of the Union, [303];
  • between Greeks and Italians: mainly from religious animosity, [301];
  • between Venetians and Genoese: charge of treachery against the latter, [303];
  • Greeks charged with lukewarmness and defections, [305];
  • breaches made in the walls by Turks, [308];
  • Justiniani’s stockade, [309];
  • failure of Serbia and Hungary to send aid, [311];
  • Hunyadi said to have been in communication with sultan, [312]
• Constantinople—The last days of Empire; Ismail of Sinope brings from sultan suggestion to surrender, on terms: rejected, [317] sq.;
  • final preparations by the Greeks, [326];
  • last religious procession in the city, [327];
  • speech of the emperor, [328];
  • last Christian service in St. Sophia, [330];
  • the gates closed, [331];
  • the general assault (May 29, 1453), [334];
  • first attacks defeated, [335] sqq.;
  • the assault by Janissaries, [340];
  • the Kerkoporta incident, [341];
  • how the Turks got inside the Outer Wall, [342] sqq.;
  • Justiniani wounded, [345];
  • the consequences, [346] sqq.;
  • final charge and success of Janissaries, [348];
  • stockade captured, [349];
  • death of Constantine, [350];
  • capture of Constantinople, ib.;
  • Mahomet enters the city, [351];
  • the capture due to two accidents, the neglected postern and the wound of Justiniani, ib.;
  • tardy arrival of aid, [352]
• Constantinople—In the hands of the Turks: the final struggles, [358] sqq.;
  • panic throughout the city, [351];
  • general slaughter during half a day, [362];
  • flight of Christians to ships, [363];
  • atrocities by looters, [364];
  • gross treatment of refugees in St. Sophia, [366];
  • and of the church, [367];
  • wanton destruction of books, ib.;
  • number of persons captured or killed, [368];
  • fate of fugitives, [369];
  • St. Sophia made a mosque, [373];
  • fate of defenders after capture, [373] sqq.;
  • the city brought to desolation, [377];
  • love of Easterns for it, [378];
  • picturesque beauty of its situation, [379];
  • sultan’s endeavours to repeople it, [380] sqq.;
  • Christian worship tolerated: Gennadius appointed patriarch, [382] sq.
• Constantinople—Effects of the Capture: an epoch-marking event, [414];
  • alarm created in Europe, [415];
  • degradation of the Queen City, [416];
  • disastrous results upon Christian subjects: they became rayahs or cattle, [417];
  • causes of their impoverishment and demoralisation, [418] sq.;
  • degradation of Church, [420];
  • injury to religion and learning, ib.;
  • destruction of benefits conferred by the Church, [421];
  • inducements offered to abandon Christianity, [422];
  • degraded position of women, [422] n.;
  • Christians became demoralised and lost self-respect, [423];
  • impossibility of obtaining justice, [424];
  • slight effect of the conquest on mass of Turkish population, [425];
  • dawn of a better day, [426] sqq.
• Constantinople, Synod of (1450), on Union: deposed patriarch Gregory (a favourer of Union), [202]
• Contarini, James (Venetian): a defender in the great siege, [250]
• Cossovo-pol (or Plain of Blackbirds), the first battle of (1389): utter defeat by Turks of Serbians and their allies, [108];
  • sealed the fate of Northern Serbians and Western Bulgarians, ib.;
  • battle of 1448: defeat of Christians, [174];
  • the losses on both sides, [175]
• Countouz, son of Murad: raised rebellion against his father, [106];
  • his punishment, ib.
• Courtenay, Catherine of: a marriage proposed between her and a Palaeologus, [37];
  • she married Charles of Valois, [38]
• Crescent, the: use of the symbol is ancient: its probable origin, [140] n.
• Cretan ships in imperial fleet (1453), [250];
  • their crews were the last Christians to quit their posts after the capture of the city, [363]
• Crimea: Turks driven out by Tartars (1300), [64]
• Critobulus: his ‘Life of Mahomet II.,’ x
• Crusade, the Fourth, [1];
  • the Crusaders’ share in spoil of Constantinople (1204), [3];
  • mischief wrought by, in and around the city, [13];
  • their lawlessness, [14]
• Dalmata, John: with Constantine in final assault, [350]
• Dan, prince (of the Wallachs): does homage to Murad II., [156]
• Dandolo, doge of Venice (1192), [1], [4] sq. [39], [49]
• Dante: helped to Western appreciation of Greek literature, [404]
• Danube, the: the highway between the Black and the North Seas, [23]
• David, emperor (Trebizond): defeated by Mahomet II., [388]
• Demetrius, brother of Constantine Dragases, [201]
• Demetrius, brother of John VII.: refused to sign Act of Union, [127]
• Derrybeys: meaning of the term, [222]
• Dervish sects: character of their religion, [171] n.
• Diedo, Alexis (Aloysius), naval officer: in the great siege, [220] sq.;
  • admiral of the fleet, [250];
  • defence of boom against Turks, [291];
  • escaped, with his galleys and some Venetian refugees, [369]
• Dnieper, the: the commerce of, [23]
• Documents relating to siege of Constantinople unknown to Gibbon, xiii sq.
• Dolma Bagtche, palace of, [233]
• Double Columns (Diplokionion), the, [233], [291]
• Double Procession, the: discussions on, at Florence, [125] sq.
• Drakul, prince of Wallachia, [164], [170]
• Dromon: meaning of the word as applied to ships, [235]
• Ducas, John, Emperor (of Nicaea, 1258–60: a boy;
  • successor of Theodore Lascaris II.), [16]
• Egypt, sultan of (known to Crusaders as sultan of Babylon), [60]
• Elephants employed in battle by Timour, [143]
• Elias Pasha, abettor of Mustafa, [115] n., [154]
• Elizabeth, mother of young king Ladislaus: her successful resistance of Murad II. in Hungary, [157]
• Emperor: the title assumed by rulers of Trebizond and Nicaea, [5]
• England: destructiveness of Black Death in (1348), [190] n., [191]
• Epirus, [5], [7];
  • the despot of, [8] sq.
• Erasmus: promoted study of Greek, [410]
• Ertogrul (or Orthogrul), father of Othman or Osman, the founder of Ottoman dynasty, [60]
• Eugenius IV,. Pope, great struggle for Union of the Churches, [120] sqq.;
  • summons Western princes to help the empire, [129];
  • preaches a new Crusade (1428 and 1442), [157], [159];
  • said to have approved violation of treaty of Szegedin, [163];
  • encouraged study of Greek, [406]
• Eugenius, Tower of, [221]
• Europe, Eastern: its gigantic struggle
  • in fifteenth century against hordes of Asia, Turks and Tartars, [132]
• Eyoub, standard-bearer of the Prophet, [230]
• Ferrara, Council of (for Union, transferred from Bâle, 1437), [123];
  • outbreak of plague, 125;
  • Council transferred to Florence, [125]
• Firelocks or fusils (throwing leaden balls): used by the Turks in siege, [269], [325]
• Flatanelas, an imperial naval commander, [258];
  • gallant conduct in battle with Baltoglu, [263] sq.
• Florence, Council of (for Union, transferred from Bâle, 1439): the chief representatives on both sides, [125];
  • the subjects of discussion, [125] sq.;
  • Union signed, [127];
  • analysis of opinions represented in the Council, ib.
• Foscari, doge of Venice (1451), [203]
• Foss, the, from Seraglio Point to Aivan Serai, [238];
  • still in good condition, [239];
  • its dams, [240];
  • attack on, from the ‘bastion,’ [293] sq.
• Francisco of Toledo, Don: with Constantine in final assault, [350]
• Franco, standard-bearer at Varna, [167] sq.
• Frederic, Emperor: his excommunication (1245), [15] sq.
• Frederic, King of Sicily (1313), [40] sq.
• Frenchmen among fighting men of the Latins, [19] n.
• Fustae (vessels), description of, [234]
• Galata, a village near Varna, [165]
• Galata of Pera (the Genoese colony), [237], [243];
  • its surrender to Mahomet II., [370] sqq.
• Galata, Tower of (formerly called Tower of Christ), [221], [281], [371]
• Galley: its meaning in fifteenth century, [235]
• Gates of Constantinople: Adrianople, [236], [239] sq., [243] sq., [343];
  • Caligaria (now called Egri Capou or Crooked Gate), [249], [332];
  • Chariseus, [293] n.;
  • Civil Gates, [243];
  • Cresu (probably Chariseus or Adrianople Gate), [246] n.;
  • Golden, [19] n., [73], [114], [130] n., [133];
  • Hedjoum Capou (‘Gate of the Assault’), [240], [310];
  • Horaia, [250], [360], [363];
  • Kerkoporta (Porta Xylokerkou): the results of its postern gate being neglected, [342] sqq., [351];
  • Military Gates, [239] sq., [243], [245];
  • Pegè (or Gate of the Springs): now Silivria Gate), [18], [19] n., [239];
  • Psamatia, [322];
  • Rhegium (now called Mevlevihana Capou), [245];
  • St. Eugenius, [322];
  • St. Kyriakè, [240];
  • St. Romanus (formerly known as the Pempton), [114], [236] n., [283], [290], [350];
  • St. Theodosia, [250] n.;
  • Top Capou (Cannon Gate), [236], [239] sq., [243], [356];
  • Triton, [239];
  • Xyloporta (Woodgate), [114], [243]
• Genghis Khan, a Mongol: his followers mainly Turks, [52], [54];
  • married a Christian, [54]
• Gennadius. See Scholarius, George
• Genoese, in occupation of Galata, [17];
  • made alliance with Emperor Michael, ib.;
  • defeat of Catalans, [46];
  • colony at Galata, [77];
  • rivalry with Venetians: a battle between them in the Bosporus, ib.;
  • joined with Turks against Constantinople, 78;
  • bought off with a concession of territory by Cantacuzenus, [78];
  • their defeat (1379) of Venetians, [95];
  • colonists desire to acknowledge Timour as suzerain, [146], [148];
  • the size of their ships, [154] n.;
  • their hatred of Venetians, [157] n.;
  • preparations against the great siege, [220];
  • joined with Venetians in defence of Constantinople (1453), [247] sq.;
  • ships bringing aid to the city attacked by Turks, [259];
  • Turks defeated, [265];
  • Genoese accused of giving aid to Mahomet II., [270];
  • their relations with him, [287];
  • quarrels, during siege, with Venetians, [288];
  • discussion of charge of treachery brought against them, [303];
  • Mahomet ordered them to prevent help being sent clandestinely to the city, [320];
  • escape of some galleys, with refugees from the captured city, [370]
• Germanus, patriarch, succeeded Arsenius, [28]
• Giant’s Mountain, the, [164]
• Gibbon: his ‘Decline and Fall’ needs rectification by new sources of information, v sq.;
  • the sources he used were vitiated by prejudices, vii;
  • bias caused by his own principles, ib.;
  • criticism of his statement that the Greeks’ spirit of religion was productive only of animosity and discord, [306]
• Godfrey de Bouillon, [97] n.
• Godfrey, imperial Grand Huntsman, [98]
• Grant, John (a German): a defender in the great siege, [249];
  • his skilful countermining of the Turks, [292]
• Greek Empire: influence of Hellenism upon, [399];
  • deep love of the people for the old Greek language and literature, [400];
  • this formed a strong bond of union, ib.;
  • dark periods of literature, [401];
  • disappearance of books after 1204, ib.;
  • in Constantinople there was always a considerable number of scholars and students, [402];
  • these helped to preserve Greek language and literature, ib.;
  • departure of Greek scholars to the West began with the Latin conquest, [403];
  • their dispersion introduced to Western Europe new ideals, 413.
  • See also Renaissance
• Greek fire: the use of, [263]
• Greeks: their condition in Constantinople after 1204, [3], [5], [13]
• Gregory, patriarch, a favourer of Union: deposed (1450), [202];
  • restored, [205]
• Gregory IX., Pope, [11]
• Gregory X., Pope: negotiations with Michael VIII. for Union, [32];
  • the reconciliation of 1274, [34]
• Gregory XI., Pope: efforts against Moslem progress, [92];
  • and for Union, [93]
• Grione, Zacharia, naval officer: a defender in the great siege, [266];
  • helped in Coco’s scheme, [281]
• Gul Jami (Mosque of the Rose): formerly church of St. Theodosia, [360]
• Guy de Lusignan, [90]
• Hagia Sophia, [204] sq., [297] sq.;
  • shunned by Greeks after the Union, [301];
  • the last Christian service in, [330];
  • crowded with refugees after the capture, [365];
  • these taken captive or slain by Turks, [366];
  • gross treatment of the church and its contents, [366] sq.;
  • wanton destruction of books, [367]
• Halil Pasha, a Turkish leader friendly to the Greeks, [158];
  • grand vizier of Mahomet II., [209], [212];
  • chief officer under the sultan, [244];
  • endeavoured to induce the sultan to abandon siege, [318];
  • his final command, [325]
• Halil, son of Orchan, [102]
• Hamoud, Admiral, successor of Baltoglu, [322], [325];
  • failure of his fleet’s operations, [359];
  • destroyed Greek ships at Galata, [370]
• Harmanli, battle of: Serbians and Bulgarians defeated by Turks (1371), [105]
• Hassan, a gigantic Janissary, [348]
• Helepoles: Greek name for cannon, [293]
• Henry, Emperor (Latin, 1205–16: brother and successor of Baldwin), [7] sqq.
• Henry III. (England), [11]
• Henry IV. (England): refused aid to Manuel, [112]
• Heraclia, Bishop: his rejection of Union, [127] sq.
• Hexamilion, rampart of, [172]
• Hieron: question of its situation, [164] n.
• Hilarion, a valiant monk, [63]
• Histodokè (in a trireme): its use, [234]
• Holy Apostles, church of the: presented by Mahomet to patriarch Gennadius, [384]
• Holy Cross, Tower of, [371]
• Holy Gates, the (in a Greek church), [36]
• Honorius III., Pope, [9]
• Houlagou, grandson of Genghis Khan: his ravages in Asia Minor, [53];
  • married Prester John’s granddaughter, [55];
  • men of various religions in his army, [55]
• Hungary: king of (1318), [40];
  • a great host of Tartars there, [64];
  • in communication with Mahomet II., [311] n., [312]
• Hunyadi, John Corvinus, waywode of Transylvania: in chief command of combined forces against Murad II., [159];
  • his previous successful operations against Turks, ib.;
  • his victory at Slivnitza (1443), [160];
  • the treaty of Szegedin: not signed by Hunyadi, [161];
  • he reluctantly consents to its violation, [163];
  • battle of Varna, [164] sqq.;
  • complete defeat of Christians, [170];
  • again defeated, at Cossovo-pol (1448), [174] sq.;
  • Hunyadi’s loss of reputation, [175];
  • made a truce with Mahomet II., [213];
  • nicknamed ‘Black John’ by Turks, [228];
  • the price he demanded for aid to the emperor in the great siege, [268] n.;
  • no aid came from him, ib.;
  • in communication with Mahomet II., [312];
  • his agents said to have instructed Turks in use of great bombard, ib.
• Ibrahim Bey: his revolt against Mahomet II., [211] sq.
• Iconostasis, the (in a Greek church), [36] n.
• Impalement of captives: practised by Turks, [253]
• Innocent III., Pope, [1], [6];
  • foretold the evil effects of the capture of Constantinople by Crusaders, [20], [30], [49]
• Innocent V., Pope: sent preaching friars to Constantinople, [35]
• Innocent VI., Pope: relations, about Union, with John V., [90]
• Iradè (Turkish edict) issued by Mahomet II., [315]
• Isa, son of Bajazed, [143] sq., [149]
• Isaac, Emperor, [4]
• Isaac Pasha, vizier of Mahomet II., [209];
  • head of Turkish Asiatic troops, [243], [325]
• Isidore, metropolitan of Russia, [125];
  • made Cardinal by Eugenius IV., [128];
  • legate of Nicholas V. at Constantinople, [203], [220];
  • took part in defence at the great siege, [250];
  • his fate after the capture, [374]
• Isidore, patriarch, [75]
• Iskender Bey (i.e. Alexander Bey = George Castriotes; also known as Scanderbeg), an Albanian leader, [158];
  • in possession of Albania and Macedonia, [161];
  • prevented from joining Ladislaus against Murad II., [163];
  • Iskender’s origin, [172];
  • his capture of Croya, [172] sq.;
  • in the battle of Cossovo-pol (1448), [174] sq.;
  • twice repels Murad’s attempts to recapture Croya, [202];
  • siege of Sventigrad: losses of Turks, ib.
• Islam: growth of its influence, [102];
  • its character as a religion, [209] n.
• Islands, Greek: surrender of, to Mahomet, [381]
• Ismail of Sinope: endeavours to persuade Greeks to surrender on terms, [317]
• Ismidt, Gulf of: Turks build a fortress on (1395), [110]
• Italians; the number who took part in defence of Constantinople (1453), [247];
  • their chivalrous conduct, [248]
• Jacoub: strangled by his brother, Bajazed, [133]
• Jagarus: supposed repairer of walls of the city: embezzled the money, [242]
• Janissaries, [103];
  • fought at battle of Nicopolis, [135];
  • at Angora (1402), [144];
  • at battle of Varna, [167];
  • at Cossovo-pol (1448), [174];
  • the body founded by Sultan Orchan, [103], [223];
  • origin and source of their supply, [224];
  • strictness of their training and discipline, [225];
  • esprit de corps, [226];
  • developed into an imperium in imperio, [227];
  • resemblance between them and the Knights Templars, ib.;
  • Janissaries completely devoted to the sultan, ib.;
  • success of sultans largely due to the New Troops, [228];
  • their prowess turned the disaster of Varna into a great victory, ib.;
  • their position in the grand assault, [323];
  • their attack, [340];
  • the incident at the Kerkoporta, [341];
  • their final charge, [348];
  • stockade captured, [349];
  • complete success, [350];
  • young Greek nobles placed in the corps after the capture, [381]
• John V. (Palaeologus), Emperor (1341–91; son of Andronicus III.): on account of John’s youth, Cantacuzenus was associated with his mother (Anne of Savoy) as regent, [70];
  • in 1342 John Cantacuzenus was proclaimed joint emperor, ib.;
  • the strife which followed: civil war, [71];
  • John’s marriage to Helen, daughter of Cantacuzenus, [73];
  • a remarkable coronation service: of the two emperors, their wives, and the dowager empress, ib.;
  • vicious character of John, [74];
  • persistent animosity of the partisans of both emperors, [75];
  • alliance and aid of Turks called in, against Serbians, [75] sq.;
  • John’s quarrels with his father-in-law, [78];
  • treatment of Matthew Cantacuzenus, [79];
  • causes abdication of his co-emperor, [80];
  • John’s speedy disposal of Matthew, [87];
  • his dislike of religious controversies, ib.;
  • alliance with Sultan Murad, [88];
  • political basis of his views about Union, [39];
  • appeal to the pope, [90];
  • unsatisfactory results, [90] sq.;
  • visit to Rome: little help gained, [92];
  • relations with Murad, [94];
  • cruel treatment of his son Andronicus, and the son’s retaliation, ib.;
  • his son Manuel co-emperor, [94] sq.;
  • further domestic troubles, [95];
  • death of John V. (1391), [96];
  • his practical vassalage to the Turks, [96], [101];
  • formally recognised (1373) Sultan Murad as his suzerain, [104]
• John Cantacuzenus, joint emperor with John V. (1342–55); held the
  • dignity of Grand Domestic, [70];
  • associated with Anne of Savoy as regent, ib.;
  • proclaimed joint emperor, ib.;
  • the civil war and decadence of the empire which followed, [70] sqq.;
  • married his daughter Theodora to Sultan Orchan, and his daughter Helen to John V., [72];
  • financial difficulties, [74];
  • calls in Turkish aid against the Serbians, [76];
  • a medley of incidents between the partisans of the two emperors, [76] sqq.;
  • nomination of Matthew Cantacuzenus as co-emperor with his father, [78] sq.;
  • Cantacuzenus retires to the monastery of Mount Athos (1355), [80];
  • his death (1380), ib.;
  • his character, [84] sqq.;
  • his History, [85];
  • his mother a Bogomil, [87]
• John VII. (sometimes called John V.: Palaeologus), Emperor (1425–48: nephew of Manuel II.): co-emperor with his uncle, [110];
  • his appeals for aid from West, [115];
  • conditions on which help was promised: Union and acknowledgment of papal supremacy, [116];
  • position of empire in regard to the Turks in 1425, [119];
  • the great attempt at Reunion, [120] sqq.;
  • the Council on Union: Bâle (1431), [121];
  • Ferrara (1438): John with imperial representatives present, [124];
  • Florence (1439), [125];
  • Union signed, [127];
  • hotly opposed in Constantinople, [127] sqq.;
  • events of John’s last years, [129];
  • his death: summary of his reign, [130];
  • terms of peace (1423) with Murad, [155];
  • John does homage to the sultan, [156]
• John, grandson of John V.: made co-emperor with his grandfather and his uncle Manuel, [95]
• John, Emperor (Trebizond), [387]
• John of Brienne, Emperor (Latin, 1228–37: successor of Robert), [10]
• John, King (England), [10]
• John the Bastard, despot of Epirus, [35]
• John XXI., Pope: sent nuncios to Constantinople (1276), [35]
• John XXII., Pope: reply to Andronicus III.’s appeal for aid, [69]
• John of Austria, Don: victory over Turks at Lepanto (1571), [416]
• John, patriarch, [75]
• John, Father (head of Dominicans, 1439), [125]
• Joseph, patriarch: succeeded Germanus, and formally absolved Michael VIII., [28] sq.;
  • obliged to resign office, [31];
  • his restoration, [37]
• Justiniani: a commercial company in Chios, [133] n.
• Justiniani, John: a Genoese soldier of great reputation, [220];
  • commander-in-chief of imperial forces at the great siege, ib.;
  • his preparations: closes the harbour by a boom, [221];
  • disposition of the few troops under his command, [249];
  • erects a stockade to defend the walls where the attack was fiercest, [255], [283];
  • defeats Turks in their first assault, [256];
  • shares in scheme for attack on Turkish vessels, [279];
  • is alleged to have advised the emperor to leave the city, [286];
  • led the defence against attack at Turks’ ‘bastion,’ [294];
  • Justiniani’s loyalty, bravery, and continuous labours in the siege, [303], [309];
  • description of his stockade, [309];
  • high esteem in which he was held, [310];
  • influence of his energy and courage upon his troops, ib.;
  • he led the defenders against Bashi-Bazouks, [336];
  • and against Janissaries, [341], [345];
  • Justiniani mortally wounded: retires within the walls, [345];
  • his death, [346];
  • his departure creates a panic among the forces, [346] sq., [352];
  • partisan charges against him, [347], [352]
• Kahriè Mosque, [413] n.
• Knights of Rhodes, [93], [146], [151]
• Knights Templars, [53] sq., [227]
• Konia, sultan of, [387]
• Ladislaus, King of Poland (1428), [129], [157];
  • crowned King of Poland and Hungary (1440), [158];
  • at the battle of Slivnitza, [160];
  • the treaty made after the battle: immediately violated by Ladislaus, [161];
  • he was killed in the battle of Varna, [169]
• Languages, various, in the Greek empire, [187]
• Lascaris, Theodore, emperor of Nicaea (1204–22): struggle with Baldwin and Henry (Baldwin’s successor), [6];
  • Lascaris’s success: extent of his territory, [7]
• Lascaris, Theodore II., Emperor (of Nicaea, 1254–58; son and successor of John Vataces): his prosperous reign, [15];
  • increase of territory, [16]
• Lazarus, Kral of Serbia (son of Stephen): effort against Turks, [107];
  • utterly defeated by them at Cossovo-pol (1389), [108];
  • fate of Lazarus, ib.;
  • in battle of Angora, [143];
  • does homage to Murad II., [156]
• Leontius of Salonica: first Professor of Greek in any Western country, [405]
• Loredano, Admiral (Venetian), [285], [296]
• Louis, King of Hungary, [91], [93]
• Louis of Blois, Count, [4] sq.
• Lycus, valley of the, [239], [283]
• Lydia, sultan of, [100]
• Lyons, Council of (1245), [15];
  • the apparent reconciliation of East and West in 1274, [34]
• Lysippus, the bronze horses of, [22]
• Macedonia, kingdom of: included in empire of Theodore Lascaris II., [16]
• Mahmoud, head of Turkish Asiatic troops, [243]
• Mahomet, the Prophet; his promise to captors of New Rome, [230]
• Mahomet I., Sultan (1413–20, son of Suliman): the first of the name in Ottoman dynasty, [113];
  • proclaimed himself Grand Sultan of the Ottomans, [151];
  • conciliatory relations with Manuel II., ib.;
  • breach caused by Manuel’s treatment of Mustafa, [152];
  • death of Mahomet, ib.
• Mahomet II., Sultan (1451, son of Murad II.): his aim from boyhood, to capture Constantinople, [207];
  • two sides of his character: student and bloodthirsty tyrant, [207] sqq.;
  • his accession, [209];
  • puts to death his infant brother, [210];
  • his great military skill: relations with his troops, ib.;
  • secret preparations for the siege, [211];
  • Constantine and other rulers send him conciliating embassies, [211];
  • makes a truce with Hunyadi, [213];
  • active preparations: Roumelia-Hissar, ib.;
  • reply to emperor’s remonstrances, [214];
  • the fortress completed: Mahomet declares war, [216];
  • capture of ships, [217];
  • the sultan’s address to the pachas, ib.;
  • he devastates country round the city, [218];
  • composition and numbers of his army, [222] sqq.;
  • Urban’s great bombard, [231];
  • details of Mahomet’s fleet, [232] sqq.;
  • army arrives before the walls, [235];
  • he makes formal offer of peace: the reply, [236];
  • disposition of his forces, [243] sqq.;
  • number and disposition of his cannon, [244] sq.;
  • size of the guns and of the balls they threw, [245] sq.;
  • their great influence on the siege, [252];
  • capture of fortresses outside the city, [253]
• Mahomet II.—The Siege: city invested, [254];
  • first bombardments and their effects, [255];
  • attacks that failed, [256] sq.;
  • attempt to capture aid-bearing ships: a failure, [257] sqq.;
  • sultan a spectator of the fight, [266];
  • Baltoglu degraded, [267];
  • attempt to gain possession of Golden Horn: transports vessels overland, [269];
  • his reasons for this, [270] sqq.;
  • concealment of his design, ib.;
  • its success, [276];
  • alleged request for peace by Constantine, and sultan’s reply, [277];
  • failure of Greek attack on Turkish fleet, [277] sqq.;
  • attacks on city walls, [283];
  • and on the boom, [287], [290];
  • Mahomet’s relations with Genoese, [287] sq., [291], [304];
  • his secret and rapid construction of a wooden turret or ‘bastion,’ [292] sqq.;
  • lack of success of his attempts at undermining, [295];
  • the work done in first six weeks of siege, [298];
  • preparations for a general assault, [307];
  • effect of cannonading on the walls, [308];
  • Justiniani’s stockade, [309];
  • relations of the sultan with Hunyadi, [312]
• Mahomet II.—The last days of the Siege: the sultan orders his forces to observe three days of praise to God and one day of fasting, [315];
  • he hesitates to attack, ib.;
  • alarmed at the strange phenomena of May 22–26, [316];
  • employs Ismail of Sinope to offer terms of surrender to Greeks, [317];
  • proposal rejected, [318];
  • sultan calls council, and decides upon attack, [319];
  • personally makes final arrangements, [320];
  • proclaims three days of plunder, ib.;
  • speech to the pashas, [323];
  • disposition of the leaders of divisions, [325];
  • the general assault, [335];
  • begun by Bashi-Bazouks: their defeat, [335];
  • the sultan puts himself at the head of his reserves: the attack by Janissaries, [340];
  • their success, [348];
  • stockade captured, [349];
  • death of Constantine: Mahomet enters the city, [351]
• Mahomet II.—After the Capture: his rage at the escape of many refugees, [370];
  • treatment of surrendered Galata, [371] sq.;
  • triumphal entry into Constantinople, [372];
  • in St. Sophia: makes it a mosque, [373];
  • his treatment of eminent captives, [373] sqq.;
  • makes the city a desolation, [377];
  • attempts to repeople it, [380];
  • tries to get Greeks to settle in it, [381];
  • placed young Greek nobles in the corps of Janissaries, ib.;
  • treatment of surrendered Greek islanders, ib.;
  • tolerates Christian worship, [382];
  • his intercourse with new patriarch, George Scholarius (Gennadius), [383];
  • later attempts at repeopling, [384];
  • brings back fugitives, [385];
  • subjugates empire of Trebizond, [386]
• Mahomet II.—His Character: he conquered two empires and seven kingdoms, [388];
  • his wars were wholly for conquest ib.;
  • he improved Turkish fleet, [389];
  • reformed the administration, ib.;
  • legitimised the slaughter of younger brothers by Ottoman sultans, [390];
  • was reckless of human life: examples of his cruelty, [390] sq.;
  • yet he was kind to prisoners of war, [392];
  • he knew six languages, ib.;
  • his studies, ib.;
  • drew learned men to his court, [393];
  • his religious opinions: he was not a religious fanatic, [394] sqq.;
  • the good and the evil in him, [396] sqq.
• Maine, Sir Henry, [186]
• Mango Khan, [54]
• Manuel II. (Palaeologus), Emperor (1391–1425: son of John V.): had been given by his father as hostage to Murad, [104];
  • associated with his father in the government, [106];
  • had with him, to render military service to the sultan, their suzerain, ib.;
  • father and son compelled Philadelphia to surrender to Murad, [107];
  • Manuel escapes, as hostage, from Bajazed, and is proclaimed at Constantinople as sole emperor, [109];
  • the empire attacked on every side by Turks, ib.;
  • Manuel’s arrangement with the pretender, his nephew John, [110];
  • Hungarian cooperation with the emperor: their crushing defeat at Nicopolis (1396), ib.;
  • help from Venice and the Genoese: small results, [111];
  • Manuel’s resultless visit to France and England, [111] sq.;
  • Bajazed’s three attempts to capture Constantinople, [112];
  • Manuel gave his granddaughter in marriage to Suliman, Bajazed’s successor, ib.;
  • friendly relations with Sultan Mahomet I., [113], [151] sq.;
  • war with Murad II., ib.;
  • his unsuccessful siege of the city (1422), [114], [154];
  • death of Manuel, [115], [155]
• Manuscripts and books: huge drafts by Italian scholars upon the stores of, in Constantinople, [406];
  • numbers destroyed for the sake of their costly bindings, [411];
  • treatment of those in Constantinople in 1453 and after, [411] sq.
• Martin IV., Pope: threatens to depose Michael VIII., [36]
• Matthew Cantacuzenus (son of John), [73] n., [75];
  • associated with his father in government, [79];
  • chosen as his father’s successor, ib.;
  • John V.’s treatment of him after his father’s retirement, [87]
• Maundeville, Sir J., [54], [55] n., [56] n., [65] n., [191]
• Medici, Cosimo de’, [407]
• Mersaite, a Mahdi: at siege of Constantinople (1422), [114]
• Mesoteichion, [236], [240], [349]
• Michael VIII., Emperor (of Nicaea, 1260–61: succeeded John Ducas; was Emperor of the East 1261–82): negotiations of Baldwin with him, [16];
  • Michael’s efforts to subdue the Latin Empire, [17];
  • alliance with Genoese, ib.;
  • details of his capture of Constantinople, [18] sqq.;
  • his entry into the city: end of Latin empire, [19];
  • difficulties in his new position, [25];
  • he was really a usurper: his cruel treatment of the de jure heir, John, son of Theodore Lascaris, [26];
  • his excommunication therefor, [27];
  • efforts to obtain absolution, [27] sqq.;
  • troubles caused by Latin attempts to recover the empire, [29];
  • threatening encroachment of Turks, ib.;
  • to gain aid from West he seeks reconciliation with Roman Church, [30];
  • details of strife about Union of the Churches, [30] sqq.;
  • Michael’s endeavours in favour, [33];
  • double failure: with popes and with his own people, [36];
  • his death, ib.
• Michael IX. (Palaeologus), co-emperor with his father, Andronicus II. (died 1320), [37];
  • married sister of king of Armenia, [38];
  • expedition against Catalans, [45] sq.
• Military colonies in conquered territories, Turkish system of, [189]
• Miners, Serbian, employed as sappers by Turks, [291]
• Minotto, Venetian bailey, [249];
  • his fate after the siege, 373
• Missions, Christian: their great value in Turkey, [424] n.
• Montferrat, Boniface, Marquis of, [1];
  • struggle with Emperor Baldwin, [4] sq.;
  • killed in battle, [8]
• Moscow: destroyed by Tartars (1239), [53]
• Mousa, son of Bajazed, [113];
  • captured at Angora, [143] sq.;
  • quarrels with his brother, Suliman, [149];
  • forms an army of Turks and Wallachs, ib.;
  • attacks Manuel: his devastations, [150];
  • ultimate defeat: put to death by his brother, Mahomet I., [157]
• Murad (or Amurath) I., Sultan (1359–89, son and successor of Orchan): fanatical persecutor, [103];
  • organisation of Janissaries, ib.;
  • endeavours to carry out in Europe his father’s policy in Asia Minor, ib.;
  • contests with other Turks, and with Hungarians, Serbians, and Bulgarians, [103] sq.;
  • John V. formally recognised him as his suzerain, [104];
  • defeat of Serbians &c. at Harmanli, [105];
  • treatment of his rebel son, Countouz, [106];
  • obliges John V. to pay him annual tribute and render military service, ib.;
  • Murad’s captures of towns and strongholds, [107];
  • the crushing defeat of Serbians &c. at Cossovo-pol, [107] sq.;
  • assassination of Murad, [108]
• Murad II., Sultan (1420–51: son of Mahomet I.): relations with Manuel II., [152];
  • question of the pretender Mustafa, [152] sq.;
  • rebellion in behalf of Murad’s young brother, Mustafa, [154];
  • siege of Constantinople (1422): why it was raised, ib.;
  • terms of peace (1423), [155];
  • triumphal progress of Murad, [156] sqq.;
  • sovereigns do homage to him, [156];
  • attacks Hungary and Serbia, [157];
  • fails in siege of Belgrade, [158];
  • refuses to attack Constantinople during John’s absence at Florence, ib.;
  • combined Western movement against Murad, [158] sq.;
  • Turkish defeats by Hunyadi: Slivnitza, [160];
  • Murad sues for peace, [161];
  • treaty with King Ladislaus: its terms, ib.;
  • soon violated, by Christians, ib.;
  • Murad abdicates in favour of his young son, Mahomet, [162];
  • resumes his duties to repel army of Ladislaus, [164];
  • helped by Genoese to cross Bosporus, ib.;
  • battle of Varna, [165] sqq.;
  • crushing defeat of Christians, [170];
  • Murad ravages Morea, [171];
  • attacks the Albanians: is defeated by Iskender Bey, [172];
  • Hunyadi again attacks Murad, but is defeated at Cossovo-pol (1448), [174];
  • death of Murad (1451), [178];
  • character, ib.
• Mustafa, son of Bajazed, [143]
• Mustafa, brother of Murad II.: his revolt and punishment, [114], [115] n., [152], [154]
• Myriandrion, [240], [249], [339]
• Neophytus, a monk: embezzler of public moneys, [242]
• Nicaea: its rulers assumed title of emperor, [58];
  • captured by Orchan, [98];
  • its present condition, [101]
• Nicholas IV., Pope: promotes project of marriage of Catherine of Courtenay to the son of Andronicus II., [37]
• Nicholas V., Pope: calls upon Constantine to complete the decreed Union, [202];
  • reconciliation of the Churches apparently effected (1452), [203] sq.;
  • the pope sends 200 men to help emperor, [220];
  • he was the first ‘humanist’ pope, and founder of Vatican library, [407]
• Nicopolis: combined Western armies defeated at (1396), [110], [134];
  • details of the battle, [135]
• Notaras, Lucas; made Grand Duke, [155];
  • a defender in the great siege, [250];
  • directed the countermining in siege [292];
  • his treatment by Mahomet, [374]
• Orchan, Sultan (son and successor of Othman): married a daughter of Cantacuzenus, [72];
  • sent an army to assist his father-in-law against partisans of John V., ib.;
  • and another to help Matthew Cantacuzenus against Serbians, [73] n.;
  • John V. endeavoured to gain his aid, [78];
  • capture of Nicaea, [97];
  • conciliatory treatment of Christians, [98];
  • varied successes and disasters, [98] sq.;
  • capture of Ismidt (Nicomedia), [99];
  • relations with John V., [101] sq.;
  • Orchan’s death (1359): summary of what he had effected, [102];
  • he was the maker of the Turkish nation, ib.
• Orchan, son (or grandson) of Suliman: his maintenance at Constantinople, [150], [211] sq., [213];
  • a defender in the great siege, [250];
  • his fate after the capture, [377]
• Orthogrul. See Ertogrul
• Othman (or Osman), founder of Ottoman dynasty, [60];
  • attacks upon Greek empire, [61];
  • obtained a fleet, ib.;
  • took title of Sultan (1299), ib.;
  • defeated imperial troops, ib.;
  • divided territory acquired with other chiefs, ib.;
  • attempted to capture Rhodes, 63; siege and capture of Brousa, [64];
  • his death (1327), ib.;
  • his work, [97]
• Ottoman Turks, [54];
  • made a separate nationality by Orchan, [102];
  • contests with other Turks, [103];
  • spread in Europe, [104], [107]
• Ottoman coins, the first, [98]
• Overland transport of Mahomet II.’s ships, [269], [272];
  • similar feats performed before, 272 and n.;
  • the plan and execution kept secret, ib.;
  • attention diverted from it, [273] sq.;
  • precautions against opposition, [274];
  • the number of vessels, [275];
  • method of transport, ib.;
  • distance traversed, [276];
  • size of the vessels, [276] n.;
  • discussion of question of the route adopted, [443] sqq.
• Oxford: Grocyn and Linacre taught Greek at (temp. Henry VII.), [410];
  • the opponents to this novelty called themselves ‘Trojans,’ ib.
• Pammacaristos, monastery, [152]
• Parandaria, description of, [235]
• Parateichion, the, [239]
• Pera (modern name Stavrodromion), [273]
• Peribolos, [114], [238]
• Peter of Courtenay, Emperor (Latin, 1217–19: successor of Henry), [8] sq.
• Petrarch: promoted study of Greek, [404]
• Petroboles: Greek name for cannon, [293]
• Philadelphia: surrendered to Turks (1379), [107]
• Philelphus: wide range of his scholarship, [407] sq.
• Philip Augustus, King (France), [11]
• Philotheus, patriarch, [78]
• Photius, patriarch (877–85): disappearance of two thirds of works enumerated in ‘Myriobiblion,’ [401]
• Phrantzes: Mahomet II.’s treatment of him and his family, [374]
• Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius: statement that Eugenius IV. justified violation of treaty of Szegedin, [163] n.;
  • on the number of Turks at Cossovo-pol in 1448, [174] n.;
  • his depreciation of Turkish valour, [176];
  • on the very large number of manuscripts at Constantinople (1453), [412] n.
• Plague, the, [125], [189]
• Plato: study of, in Constantinople, [196]
• Plethon, George Gemistos, [196];
  • a favourer of Union, [204];
  • his body brought for burial from Morea to Florence, [407]
• Podestà, the, of Galata, [271], [304];
  • his account of surrender of Galata, [371]
• Poland: attacked by Tartars, [53]
• Pomaks (Bulgarians who have accepted Islam), [58] n.
• Porphyrogenitus, palace, [73], [243], [290]
• Prester (or Presbyter) John, [55]
• Prinkipo, island of, [77];
  • treatment of its defenders by Baltoglu, [253]
• Printing with moveable types: Greek scholars scorned printed Greek books, [408]
• Purgatory and intermediate state of souls: the question treated at Council of Florence, [126]
• Pusculus: his account of the siege of Constantinople, in Latin verse, xii
• Ramazan, observance of, [315]
• Rangebè, Greek general: encounter with standard-bearer of Mahomet II., [289]
• Red Horse-tail surmounted by Golden Crescent (Timour’s standard), [143]
• Relics in Constantinople: sold by Latins to raise money, [12], [14]
• Religion: the influence of, on Greeks and Moslems respectively, [447] sqq.
• Renaissance, the: its rise and effects, [129];
  • benefits it derived from dispersal of Greek scholars from Constantinople, [403];
  • learned Easterns taught Greek in Italy, [404] sq.;
  • enthusiasm in Italy for the study, [405];
  • increase in reproduction of manuscripts, [408];
  • scholars’ objection to printed Greek books, ib.;
  • increased number of fugitive scholars after 1453, ib.;
  • the Renaissance movement carried to unjustifiable extremes, [409];
  • zeal for Greek died out in Italy, but spread in Germany, [410]
• Robert of Courtenay, Emperor (Latin, 1219–28: successor of Peter), [9], [14]
• Rocafert, [47] sq.
• Roger de Flor (otherwise Robert Blum): his varied life, [42];
  • to avoid personal troubles in West, he took service under Andronicus II., ib.;
  • his 8,000 followers: known as the Catalan Grand Company, [42] sq.;
  • made Grand Duke by the emperor, [43];
  • as terrible to Christians as to Moslems, ib.;
  • examples of their methods and outrages, [43] sq.;
  • he desired to carve out a kingdom for himself, [44];
  • treatment of the emperor, [45];
  • suspected ill intentions towards Greeks, ib.;
  • assassinated by a leader of the Alans, [46];
  • Catalans’ revenge and the retaliation, ib.;
  • further outrages by Catalans, [46] sq.;
  • at open war with Greeks, ib.;
  • emperor’s vain endeavours to buy them off, [47];
  • dissensions in the Company, [48];
  • its end, [49]
• Romanus Gate: discussion of view that it was the chief place of final assault on the city, [429] sqq.
• ‘Roum,’ Turkish form of ‘Rome,’ [53] n.
• Roumelia-Hissar, [164] n.;
  • object of the fortress, [213] sqq.;
  • description, [216]
• Russia: Tartars long firmly established in, [53], [64]
• Sacred Mouth, The (entrance to Black Sea), [164]
• St. Demetrius, Tower of (‘Megademetrius’), [250];
  • its position, [260] n.
• St. Louis of France, [11] sq., [16], [31] sq.
• St. Mark (Venice), treasures of: many came from Constantinople, [123]
• St. Sophia. See Hagia Sophia
• St. Theodore, Hill of, [273]
• St. Theodosia, church of: a congregation there, mostly women, the first victims after capture of city, [361]
• Salonica, kingdom of, [4] sq., [8];
  • city captured by Murad II., [156] sq.
• Saracens, [23], [53] sqq., [69], [90] sqq.
• Saraja Pasha, [325]
• Savoy, Anne of, wife of Andronicus III., [70];
  • her efforts towards union of the Churches, [89]
• Scanderbeg. See Iskender
• Schildberger, a Belgian present at battles of Nicopolis and Angora, [145] n.
• Scholarius, George, [126] sq.;
  • became a monk (Gennadius) at monastery of Pantocrator, [204];
  • continued a strong opponent of Union, ib.;
  • after the capture he was made a slave, [382];
  • brought back to Constantinople and made patriarch, [383];
  • friendly intercourse with Mahomet, ib.
• Sea-fight of April 20, 1453: where it took place, [436] sqq.
• Seljukian Turks, [2], [6];
  • their sultan called himself ‘Sultan of Roum,’ [53]
• Selymbria (modern Silivria): captured (1260) by Strategopulus, [17]
• Seraglio Point, [238], [244], [359]
• Serbians, [25];
  • procured aid alike from Turks and Tartars, [99];
  • their complete subjection to Turks, [107] sq.
• Shishman, king of Bulgaria, [134]
• Sicilian Vespers (1282), [36], [41]
• Sigismund, Emperor, [121]
• Sigismund, King (Hungary): defeated by Murad II., [157];
  • co-operates with Manuel against Bajazed: battle of Nicopolis, [110], [134]
• Silivria. See Selymbria
• Slaves: captured Christians sold as, [78]
• Slivnitza, battle of (1443): Turks completely defeated by Hunyadi, [161]
• Smyrna: captured by Timour, [146]
• Sobieski, John: relief of Vienna, [416]
• ‘Soldiers’: meaning of the term in the Crusades, [11] n.
• Sphendone of the Hippodrome, the, [260]
• Stamboul: derivation of name, [237] n.
• Stephen, kral of Serbia: his advance against the empire, [72];
  • took title of Emperor of Serbia and Romania, [101]
• Stockade, Justiniani’s, [255]
• Strategopulus, Emperor Michael’s general, [17];
  • his capture of Constantinople, [18] sq.
• Studium, fortress of, [253]
• Sublime Porte, The (or ‘The Lofty Gate’): meaning of the term, [58]
• Subutai, Tartar leader in Russia, [53]
• Suliman, Sultan (Bajazed’s successor, 1402–09): married Manuel’s granddaughter, [112];
  • escape from Angora, [145];
  • struggle with his brothers, [149];
  • killed by Janissaries, ib.
• Suliman, son of Orchan, [101];
  • defeat of Tartars in Asia Minor, ib.;
  • capture of Angora, [102]
• Supernatural omens: discussion of the strange phenomena at Constantinople (May 22–26, 1453), [296] sqq.;
  • the growth of a myth, [298];
  • opinion of Turks about them, [316];
  • conflicting accounts, [316] n.
• Supremacy, papal: not publicly discussed at Council of Florence, [126]
• Sventigrad, siege of, [202]
• Szegedin, treaty of (1444), [161];
  • results of its speedy violation, [161] sqq.
• Tana, the great caravan route from, [23]
• Tarentum, Philip of, son-in-law of Charles of Valois, [39];
  • failure of his designs against Constantinople, [40]
• Tartars, the, [31], [36], (the form ‘Tatars’ is incorrect) [52] and n., [53] sq., (a great number in Thrace in 1324) [64], [73] n., [99] sq.;
  • in Bajazed’s army at Angora, [144];
  • their name derived by Crusaders from Tartarus, [53];
  • later Greek authors use it as distinction from Ottoman Turks, [144] n.
• Teleboles, Greek name for cannon, [293]
• Tetaldi, a Florentine soldier: his ‘Informacion,’ xii;
  • a defender in the siege, [311]
• Teucri: Turks called so by some Latin writers, [394] n., [410]
• Theodore, Greek despot of Epirus, [8];
  • proclaimed emperor at Salonica (1222), [9]
• Theodosian walls (Constantinople), [238], [240]
• Theophilus Palaeologus, [350]
• Therapia, fortress of, [253]
• Thessalonica, kingdom of, [40]
• Thomas, brother of Constantine Dragases, [201]
• Time, Eastern mode of reckoning, [351] n.
• Timour, ruler of Tartars on Volga, [63]
• Timour (or Tamerlane: Timour the Lame), [55];
  • his summons to Bajazed, [112];
  • his origin and character, [139];
  • enormous host of followers, ib.;
  • his career of conquest and barbarism, [139] sq.;
  • in Egypt, [140];
  • kept from Jerusalem by a plague of locusts, ib.;
  • carnage attending his captures, [141];
  • requests aid from West to crush the Turkish sultan (Bajazed), ib.;
  • battle of Angora (1402): Bajazed defeated and taken prisoner, [143] sq.;
  • Timour’s progress in conquest, [145];
  • horrible cruelties, [147];
  • his death, ib.;
  • results of battle of Angora, [147]
• Trajan, Gate of (Slivnitza), [160]
• Trebizond: its rulers assumed title of emperor, [5];
  • the empire put an end to (1461) by Mahomet II., [387];
  • summary of its history, ib.
• Trevisano, Gabriel: leading Venetian commander at the great siege, [220] sq.;
  • helped in Coco’s scheme, [281];
  • with his men, is transferred to the defence of the walls at Aivan Serai, [289];
  • defeats an attack by Zagan, [359];
  • a prisoner in hands of Turks, 369
• Triremes, description of, [234]
• Turkish mercenaries among defenders in the great siege, [250]
• Turks, the—Before 1326: Turkish auxiliaries in Greek army, and in Rocafert’s Catalan band [47] sq.;
  • their invasion of Europe, [53];
  • origin and characteristics of the first hordes, [54] sqq.;
  • how they became Mahometans, [56];
  • relations with Greek Christians in 1267, ib.;
  • permanent characteristics of Turkish race, [57] sq.;
  • domestic life, [59];
  • a constant stream of immigrants from Central Asia westward, ib.;
  • their conquests were followed by settlement, but their nomadic character has remained, [60];
  • their early chiefs, ib.;
  • first attacks upon Greek empire, [61];
  • entry into Europe (1306–07), [62];
  • progress in Asia Minor, ib.;
  • other Turkish invaders attack Russia, Poland, and Hungary, [63];
  • capture of Brousa (1326), [64];
  • their advance and successes under Orchan and his immediate successors, [98] sqq., [103] sqq., [107] sqq.
• Turks, the—After Timour: speedy recovery of their influence and territory after Timour’s death, [114], [155];
  • their marvellous success over armies of Central Europe, [130];
  • their prowess and methods in battle, [135];
  • in 1402 they had possession of all outside the walls of Constantinople, [137];
  • deterioration of their armies under Bajazed, [147];
  • enter Bosnia (1415), [151];
  • their increased numbers in Europe, [155];
  • system of establishing military colonies in conquered territories, [189]
• Turks, the—At the Siege: details of their forces, [222] sqq.;
  • marvellous discipline and mobility of troops, [229];
  • their methods of fighting, [230];
  • Europeans among them, [231];
  • constitution of Mahomet II.’s fleet, [232] sq.;
  • number and size of its vessels, [233] n.;
  • disposition of besiegers’ army, [243];
  • duties of the fleet, [244];
  • the batteries of cannon, [244] sq.;
  • arms and equipment of the men, [251];
  • their skill in use of cannon, [252];
  • a naval battle, [257] sqq.;
  • tactics and manner of fighting [262], [269];
  • Turks murder captives, [283];
  • failure of attempts at undermining walls, [291], [295];
  • results of six weeks of siege, [298];
  • ardour for final assault, [321];
  • their fusiliers, [325];
  • failure of first attacks, [335] sq.;
  • the great assault by Janissaries, [340] sqq.;
  • Turks enter the city through a neglected postern, [342];
  • final charge, [348];
  • the city captured, [350];
  • failure of fleet’s operations, [359]
• Turks, the—After the Capture: Turks’ treatment of the people, [361];
  • a morning’s massacre, [362];
  • plunder organised: atrocities of looters, [364] sqq.;
  • innumerable books destroyed or sold, in mockery, for pence or even farthings, [367];
  • not a few Christian renegades among the Turks, [368];
  • their military reputation enormously increased by the capture, [415];
  • extension of their power by sea and land, [416];
  • their piracy and slave trade, ib.;
  • utter degradation of Constantinople, [417];
  • treatment of Christians as mere chattels, ib.;
  • impoverishment due to Turks’ contempt for industry and commerce, [418];
  • injury they did to religion and learning, [420];
  • Turks’ treatment of women and marriage, [422] n.;
  • Turkish misrule, [424];
  • the conquest had little effect on mass of Turkish population, [425];
  • their religious intolerance only virulent at intervals, ib.;
  • only in the art of war have Turks benefited by their neighbours’ example, [426];
  • present conditions of Christian nations in the vicinity of Turkey, [427]
• Uglisha, son of Kral Stephen, [105]
• Union of Orthodox and Roman Churches: details of the strife over, [31] sqq.;
  • the question revived by Andronicus III., [69] sq.;
  • Cantacuzenus, [75], [81] sq.;
  • Anne of Savoy and John V., [89], [91];
  • Western misconceptions about Orthodox Church, [116];
  • statement of position of Easterns, [166] sqq.;
  • Cæsaro-papism, [117];
  • the position of the popes and the Westerns, [118] sq.;
  • the great effort at Reunion (1429): details of its progress, [120] sqq.;
  • decree signed at Council of Florence (1439), [127];
  • disillusionment of Greeks, ib.;
  • variations in copies of Decree of Union, [128] and n.;
  • its formal completion demanded by Nicholas V. as condition of aid given to Constantine XI., [202];
  • the Reconciliation service in Hagia Sophia (Dec. 1452), [203] sq.;
  • dissensions that followed, [204], [300];
  • the reconciliation was a sham, [205]
• Unleavened bread (in the Mass): violent controversy about, at Council of Florence, [126]
• Urban, Hungarian cannon-founder: made a monster bombard or gun for the great siege, [231];
  • its conveyance to the city walls, [232];
  • Urban killed by mishap which destroyed his great gun, [245]
• Urban IV., Pope: proclaimed (1262) a Crusade against Michael VIII. and against his allies the Genoese, [31];
  • diverted the expedition to Palestine, against Tartars, ib.
• Urban V., Pope: Crusade against Saracens (1366), [91];
  • efforts for Union, [91] sq.
• ‘Valley of the Springs,’ the (now Cassim Pasha), [272]
• Valois, Charles of; object of his marriage with Catherine of Courtenay, [38];
  • treaty with Venetians for conquest of Constantinople, ib.;
  • the design abandoned, [39]
• Varna, battle of, [165] sqq.
• Vataces, John Ducas (1222–54), successor of Theodore Lascaris at Nicaea: his successful rule, [9], [14];
  • restricted boundaries of the Latin territory, ib.;
  • in alliance with Bulgarians, attacks Constantinople, [13];
  • gets possession of Salonica, ib.
• Veccus, patriarch, [33], [37]
• Vefa Meidan: the pretended burial-place of Constantine at, [355] n.
• Venetians: their share in spoil of Constantinople (1204), [2];
  • save Constantinople from attack of Vataces, [13];
  • commerce of the city in their hands, [14];
  • relations with Michael VIII., [32];
  • treaty of alliance against Constantinople (1306) with Charles of Valois, [39];
  • later made a truce with Andronicus II., [40];
  • rivalry with Genoese in the Greek empire, [76];
  • a battle between them in the Bosporus, [77];
  • Venetian and Genoese fleets co-operate against Bajazed, [111];
  • the nations again at war with each other, [112];
  • Venetians made peace with Murad II., [157];
  • preparations against the great siege, [220];
  • their nobles took part in the defence, [221];
  • Venetians and Genoese associated in it, [247] sq.;
  • Venetians quarrel during siege with Genoese, [288];
  • both peoples alike were looked upon by Greeks as interlopers in Constantinople, [301];
  • escape of some Venetians from the captured city, [369]
• Volunteers (Θεληματάριοι), Greek settlers in country behind Constantinople, [18]
• Wallachs, [149];
  • treachery at Cossovo-pol, [174]
• Walls of Constantinople, 238–42
• Weapons and implements of warfare: various names for, [251], [269]
• Western attempts against Turks: reasons for failure, [175];
  • lack of knowledge of numbers of Turkish fighting men, [176];
  • low estimate of the Turks as soldiers, ib.;
  • the lack of concerted action among Western powers, [177]
• Woolwich Artillery Museum: a great Turkish cannon there, [232] n.
• Ximenes, Fernand: head of a body of mercenaries in connection with Roger de Flor, [43], [48]
• Zacharia, A. J., Podestà of Galata: his account of the surrender of the town, [371]
• Zagan Pasha, [243], [271], [291] sqq., [319], [325], [359]

---

PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO. LTD., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON