[104] John Cantacuzenus became Emperor 1341, and abdicated 1354. His son Matthew was associated with him. His descendants have given many princes to Moldavia and Wallachia. The Palæologi held the Empire 1282-1453 (see Gibbon, chap. lxii., and following chapters). Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, when banished from his kingdom became a schoolmaster at Corinth.

[105] See Freeman’s Essays, Series iii. p. 418. ‘The Bulgarian land on the Volga—Great Bulgaria—kept its name long after the New or Black Bulgaria arose on the Danube. It remained Turanian; it became Mahometan; it flourished as a Mahometan state, till in the 15th century, it yielded to the advance of Russia, and gave the Russian Czar one of his endless titles.’ Mr. Freeman here quotes ἡ πάλαι καλουμένη μεγάλη Βουλγαρία from Theophanes. This is an oversight, the words are not taken from Theophanes, though he uses a similar expression, but from Nicephorus of Constantinople.

[106] Baldwin, tenth Count of Flanders, was elected Emperor 1204, and taken captive by Bulgarians 1205. He died a prisoner, but that he was put to death is by no means certain. He was succeeded by his son Baldwin, eleventh Count and second Emperor of that name. See Gibbon, chap. lxi. Busbecq would naturally take great interest in the Sovereign of his ancestors.

[107] The Rascians and Servians were distinct tribes in Busbecq’s time and long afterwards; see page [165], where he notices that at Semendria the Servians leave off and the Rascians begin; they are now both included under the name of Servians.

[108] This pass is commonly known as ‘Trajan’s Gate,’ or the ‘pass of Ichtiman.’ It is a point on the frontier between Bulgaria and East Roumelia.

[109] For an account of Selim, who at last succeeded in dethroning his father, see Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chap. vii., and Von Hammer, book xxi. He was father of the Sultan to whose court Busbecq was accredited. His successful rebellion against his father has an important bearing on the events of which Busbecq was about to be a spectator.

[110] Buyuk Tchekmedjé and Kutchuk Tchekmedjé. The bridges were constructed by Solyman.

[111] Of the two women mentioned here, one is called Bosphorana by Busbecq and the other Roxolana. Bosphorana means a native of the kingdom of the Bosphorus—not the Thracian Bosphorus near Constantinople, but the Cimmerian Bosphorus, now called the straits of Caffa—which included the Crimea and the Caucasus. Roxolana means Russian; she was always spoken of by contemporaneous Venetian ambassadors as ‘la Rossa,’ and Creasy in a note (p. 182), says that ‘La Rossa’ was euphonised into Roxolana; the mistake is obvious, for Roxolana is the classical equivalent for a Russian woman (see Smith’s Classical Dictionary, s.v. Roxolani), and it is to Busbecq that she owes the name by which she has become famous. Her real name was Khourrem, i.e., ‘the joyous one.’ See Von Hammer, book xxxi. vol. v. p. 538. A curious story is told of how Roxolana prevailed on Solyman to make her his wife. Having borne a son to the Sultan, she became entitled, according to the Mahometan law to her freedom; this she claimed, and then refused to allow Solyman the rights of a husband unless he married her. She cleverly pointed out to the Sultan, that though she had lived with him as a slave without the bond of marriage, as a free woman she could not feel justified in doing so any longer. Solyman, as Busbecq’s letters will show, was the very man to be influenced by such an argument, and being unwilling to give her up, he consented to her taking the position of a lawful wife.

[112] See Creasy, Ottoman Turks, chap. iii., Von Hammer, book vii., and Gibbon, chap. lxv. Tamerlane is a corruption of Timour lenk, i.e., Timour the lame.

[113] During the Russo-Turkish war, 1877-8, a paragraph appeared in a paper published at Constantinople, professing to give an account of Mr. Gladstone, late Prime Minister of England. It described him as originally ‘a pig-driver.’ This created great amusement in England, but to the countrymen of Roostem there seemed no inherent absurdity in the statement.