No More Learning

Stephen Tomašević assumed all the pompous titles of his predecessors---
the sovereignty of Serbia, Bosnia, the land of Hum, Dalmatia, and
Croatia-at a time when Serbia was a Turkish pashalik, when a Turkish
governor ruled over the “Bosnian province" of Foča, and when the self-
styled “King of Dalmatia” was imploring the Venetians to give him a
place of refuge on the Dalmatian coast! There was still, too, one
Christian enemy whom he had not appeased. The King of Hungary
had never forgiven the surrender of Semendria, and had never forgotten
the ancient Hungarian claim to the overlordship of Bosnia. He resented
the Pope's recognition of Stephen Tomašević as an independent sovereign,
and was only appeased by pecuniary and territorial concessions, and by
a promise that the King of Bosnia would pay no more tribute to the
Sultan. This last condition sealed the Bosniak's fate.
When Mahomet II learnt that Tomašević had promised to refuse
the customary tribute, he sent an envoy to demand payment. The
Bosnian monarch took the envoy into his treasury, and shewed him the
money
collected for the tribute, telling him, however, at the same time
that he was not anxious to send the Sultan so much treasure, “ For in
case of war with your master,” he argued, “I should be better prepared
if I have money ; and, if I must flee to another land, I shall live more
pleasantly by means thereof. ". The envoy reported to Mahomet what
the king had said, and Mahomet resolved to punish this breach of
faith. In the spring of 1463 he assembled a great army at Hadrianople
for the conquest of Bosnia. Alarmed at the result of his own defiant
refusal, Tomašević sent an embassy at the eleventh hour to ask for a
fifteen years' truce. Michael Konstantinović, a Serbian renegade, who was
an eye-witness of these events, has preserved the striking scene of
Mahomet's deceit. Concealed behind a money-chest in the Turkish
treasury, he heard the Sultan's two chief advisers decide upon the plan
of campaign: to grant the truce and then forthwith march against
Bosnia, before the King of Hungary and the Croats could come to the
aid of that notoriously difficult and mountainous country. Their advice
was taken ; the Bosnian envoys were deceived; and even when the
eavesdropper warned them that the Turkish army would follow on their
heels, they still believed the word of the Sultan. Four days after their
departure Mahomet set out. Ordering the Pasha of Serbia to prevent
the King of Hungary from effecting a junction with the Bosniaks, he
marched with such rapidity and secrecy that he found the Bosnian
1 Laonikos Chalcocondyles, p. 532.
CH. XVIII.
37—2


## p. 580 (#622) ############################################

580
Turkish conquest of Bosnia, 1463
frontier undefended and met with little or no resistance until he reached
the ancient castle of Bobovac. The fate of the old royal residence was
typical of that of the land. Its governor, Prince Radak, a Bogomile
forcibly converted to Catholicism, could have defended the fortress for
years if his heart had been in the cause. But, like so many of his
countrymen, he was a Bogomile first and a Bosniak afterwards. On the
third day of the siege he opened the gates to Mahomet, who found
among the inmates the two envoys whom he had so lately duped.
Radak met with the fitting reward of his treachery, for when he claimed
his price the Sultan ordered him to be beheaded. The giant cliff of
Radakovica served as the scaffold, and still preserves the name, of the
traitor of Bobovac.
At the news of Mahomet's invasion, Stephen Tomašević had
withdrawn with his family to his capital of Jajce, hoping to raise an
army and get help from abroad while the invader was expending his
strength before the strong walls of Bobovac. But its surrender left him
no time for defence. He fied at once towards Croatia, closely pursued
by the van of the Turkish army. At the fortress of Kljuc (one of the
keys” of Bosnia) the pursuers came up with the fugitive, whose
presence inside was betrayed to them. Their commander promised the
king in writing that if he surrendered his life should be spared, where-
upon Tomašević gave himself up, and was brought as a prisoner to the
Sultan at Jajce. Meanwhile, the capital had thrown itself upon the mercy
of the conqueror, and thus, almost without a blow, the three strongest
places in Bosnia had fallen. The wretched king himself helped the
Sultan to complete his conquest. He wrote, at his captor's dictation,
letters to all his captains, bidding them surrender their towns and for-
tresses to the Turks. In a week more than seventy obeyed his commands,
and before the middle of June 1463 Bosnia was practically a Turkish
pashalik, and Mahomet, with the captive king in his train, was able
to set out for the subjugation of the Herzegovina. But the Turkish
cavalry was useless against the bare limestone rocks on which the castles
were perched, while the natives, accustomed to every cranny of the crags,
harassed the strangers with a ceaseless guerrilla warfare. The duke and
his son Vladislav, who only a few months before had intrigued with the
Sultan against his own father, now fought side by side against the common
foe, and Mahomet, after a fruitless attempt to capture the ducal capital
of Blagaj, withdrew to Constantinople. But before he left he resolved
to rid himself of the King of Bosnia, who could be of no further use
and might be a danger. It was true that the Sultan's lieutenant had
promised to spare the prisoner's life; but a learned Persian was found to
pronounce the pardon to be invalid because it had been granted without
Mahomet's previous consent. The trembling captive, with his written
pardon in his hands, was summoned to the presence, whereupon the lithe
Persian drew his sword and cut off Tomašević's head. The body of the last


## p. 581 (#623) ############################################

Hungarian banats of Jajce and Srebrenik
581
King of Bosnia was buried by the Sultan's orders at a spot on the right
bank of the river Vrbas only just visible from the citadel of Jajce, where,
in 1888, the skeleton was discovered, the skull severed from the trunk.
The remains of the ill-fated monarch are now to be seen in the Franciscan
church there, his portrait adorns the Franciscan monastery of Sutjeska,
but the fetva, which was carved on the city gate of Jajce to excuse the
Sultan's breach of faith by representing his victim as a traitor (“ the
true believer will not allow a snake to bite him twice from the same hole ")
vanished some seventy years ago. The king's uncle Radivoj and his
cousin were executed after him ; his two half-brothers were carried off
as captives; and his widow Maria became the wife of a Turkish officiall.
But his stepmother Catherine escaped to Ragusa and Rome, where she
received a pension from the Pope. There, in the midst of a little colony
of faithful Bosniaks, she died on 25 October 1478, after bequeathing her
kingdom to the Holy See, unless her two children, who had become con-
verts to Islām, should return to the Catholic faith. A monument with a
dubious Latin inscription in the church of Ara Coeli and a fresco in the
Santo Spirito hospital still preserve the memory of the Bosnian queen,
far from the last resting-place of her husband by the banks of the
Trstivnica.
Even although Bosnia had fallen, the Turks were not allowed
undisturbed possession. In the same autumn the King of Hungary
entered Bosnia from the north, while Duke Stephen's son Vladislav
attacked the Turkish garrisons in the south. Before winter had begun
Matthias Corvinus was master of Jajce, and even the return of Mahomet
in the following spring failed to secure its second surrender. Such was
the terror of the Hungarian king's arms that the mere report of his
approach made the Sultan raise the siege. Matthias Corvinus then
organised the part of Bosnia which he had conquered from the Turks
into two provinces, or banats, one of which took its name from Jajce,
and the other froin Srebrenik. Over these territories, which embraced
all lower Bosnia, he placed Nicholas of Ilok, a Hungarian magnate, with
the title of king, not however borne by his successors? . Under Hungarian
rule, these two Bosnian banats remained free from the Turks till 1528
and 1520 respectively-serving as a buffer-state between the Ottoman
Empire and the Christian lands of Croatia and Slavonia.
The Herzegovina, which had repulsed the conqueror of Bosnia, did
not long maintain its independence. The great Duke Stephen Vukčić,
after losing nearly all his land in another Turkish invasion caused by
the aid he had given in the recovery of Jajce, died in 1466, leaving all
his possessions to be divided equally between his three sons, Vladislav,
Vlatko, and Stephen? The eldest, however, whose quarrels with his
1 Hopf, Chroniques, p. 333; Historia Politica, p. 83; Wiss. Mitt. III. p. 384.
2 Makuscev, II. p. 95.
3 Ibid. II. p. 104; Hopf, Chroniques, pp. 333, 335.
CH. XVIII.


## p. 582 (#624) ############################################

582
Turkish conquest of the Herzegovina
father had wrought such infinite harm to his country, did not long
govern the upper part of the Herzegovina which fell to his share; he
entered the Venetian service, and thence emigrated to Hungary where
he died. Accordingly, the second brother, Vlatko, assumed the title of
Duke of St Sava, and re-united for a time all his father's estates under
his sole rule, relying now on Venetian and now on Neapolitan aid, but
only secure as long as Mahomet II allowed him to linger on as a
tributary of Turkey. In 1481 he even ventured to invade Bosnia, but
was driven back to seek shelter in his strong castle of Castelnuovo.
Two years later Bāyazīd II annexed the Herzegovina, whose last reigning
duke died in the Dalmatian island of Arbe. The title continued,
however, to be borne as late as 1511 by Vladislav's son Balša'.
Stephen, the youngest of old Duke Stephen's three sons, had a far more
remarkable career. Sent while still a child as a hostage to Constanti-
nople, he embraced the creed and entered the service of the conqueror.
Under the name of Aḥmad Pasha Hercegović, or “the Duke's son," he
gained a great place in Turkish history, and, after having governed
Anatolia and commanded the Ottoman fleet, attained to the post of
Grand Vizier. His name and origin are still preserved by the little town
of Hersek, on the Gulf of Izmid, near which, far from the strong duchy
of his father, he found a grave.
The fall of the Bosnian kingdom is full of meaning for our own time.
The country is naturally strong, and under the resolute government of
one man, uniting all creeds and classes under his banner, might have
held out like Montenegro against the Turkish armies. But the
jealousies of the too powerful nobles who overshadowed the elective
monarchy, and the still fiercer rivalries of the Roman Catholics and
the Bogomiles, prepared the way for the invader, and when he came
the persecuted heretics welcomed him as a deliverer, preferring “the
mufti's turban to the cardinal's hat. " Most of the Bogomiles embraced
İslām, and became in the course of generations more fanatical than the
Turks themselves; they had preferred to be conquered by the Sultan
rather than converted by the Pope; and, when once they had been
conquered, they did not hesitate to be converted also. The Musulman
creed possessed not a few points of resemblance with their own despised
heresy, while it conferred upon those who embraced it the practical
advantage of retaining their lands and their feudal privileges. Thus
Bosnia, in striking contrast to Serbia, presents us with the curious
phenomenon of an aristocratic caste, Slav by race yet Muslim by religion,
whose members were the permanent repositories of power, while the
Sultan's viceroy in his residencies of Vrhbosna, Banjaluka, or Travnik,
was, with rare exceptions, a mere fleeting figure, here to-day and gone
to-morrow. In fact, Bosnia remained under the Turks what she had
been in the days of her kings, an aristocratic republic with a titular
1 Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, p. 388 ; Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid. vi. pp. 114, 126.


## p. 583 (#625) ############################################

לי
Venice in Albania
583
head, who was thenceforth a foreigner instead of a native; while the
Bosnian beys were in many cases the descendants of these medieval
nobles who had lived in feudal state within their grey castle walls,
whose rare intervals of leisure from the fierce joys of civil war were
soothed by the music of the piper and amused by the skill of the
jongleur, and who, unlike the rougher magnates of the more primitive
Serbian court, received some varnish of western civilisation from their
position as honorary citizens and honoured guests of Ragusa, “ the
South-Slavonic Athens. ” But, besides these converted Bogomiles, there
remained in the midst of Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats some who
adhered to the ancient doctrines of that maligned sect, and it is said that
only a few years before the Austrian occupation a family named Helež,
living near Konjica, abandoned the “Bogomile madness” for the Muslim
faith. Their bitter enemies, the Roman Catholics, at first emigrated in
numbers to the territories of adjacent Catholic Powers, till a Franciscan
prevailed upon Mahomet II to stop the depopulation of the country by
granting them the free exercise of their religion in what was thence-
forth for four centuries the border-land between the Cross and the
Crescent, the home of "the lion that guards the gates of Stamboul. ”
The Turkish conquest of Bosnia was followed, after a desperate
struggle, by that of Albania. That mysterious land, whose sons are
probably the oldest race in the Balkan peninsula, had been divided upon
the collapse of the great Serbian Empire between a number of native
chieftains, over whom Carlo Thopia exercised, with the title of “Prince
of Albania," a species of hegemony for a whole generation. After his
death, Albania was split up among rival clans who acknowledged no
common head, and seemed inevitably destined to one of two fates—that
of a Turkish province or that of a Venetian protectorate. At first there
appeared to be some hope of the latter alternative. The republic
began her career as an Albanian power with the acquisition of Durazzo
in 1392; Alessio, “its right eye,” was annexed as a matter of necessity
in the next year; then followed in succession Scutari and Drivasto,
Dulcigno and Antivari, all acquisitions from the Balša family, and
finally, in 1444, Satti and Dagno on the left bank of the Drin. At
that time the whole Albanian coast as far south as Durazzo was Venetian,
and the Albanian coast-towns were so many links in the chain which
united Venetian Dalmatia with Venetian Corfù. The Adriatic was,
what it has never been again, an Italian lake. It was not, however,
the policy, nor indeed within the power, of the purely maritime republic
to conquer the interior of a country so difficult and so unproductive.
It was her object to save expense alike of men and money, and she
saved the former by devoting a little of the latter to subsidising the
native chieftains in order that they might act as a bulwark against the
Turks. But the brute force of the Turkish arms proved to be too
strong even for such astute diplomatists as the Venetians and such
CA. XVIII.


## p. 584 (#626) ############################################

584
Career of Skanderbeg
splendid fighters as the Albanians. As early as 1414 the Turks began
to establish themselves as masters of Albania, and for nearly twenty
years the castle of Kroja, soon to be immortalised by the brave deeds
of Skanderbeg, was the seat of a Turkish governor. The national hero
of Albania, whose name is still remembered throughout a land which
has practically no national history except the story of his career, was
of Serbian origin! His uncle had, however, married an heiress of the
great Thopia clan, and had thus acquired, together with the fortress
of Kroja, some of the prestige attached to the leading family of Albania.
Then came the Turkish invasion, and George Castriota, the future
redeemer of his country, was sent as a youthful hostage to Constantinople.
The lad was educated in the faith of Islām, and received the Turkish
name of Iskander, or “ Alexander," with the title of beg, subsequently
corrupted by his countrymen into the form of Skanderbeg, under which
he is known as one of the great captains of history. For many years
he fought in the Turkish ranks against Venetians and Serbs, leaving to
Arianites Comnenus, a prominent Albanian chief, the futile task of
trying to drive out the Ottoman garrisons from his native land. At
last, in 1443, while serving in the Turkish army which had been defeated
by Hunyadi's troops near Niš, he received the news of a fresh Albanian
rising. Realising that his hour had come, he hastened to Kroja, made
himself master of the fortress, which was thenceforth his capital, abjured
the errors of Islām, and proclaimed a new crusade against the Turks.
His personal influence was increased by a marriage with the daughter
of Arianites; the other chiefs rallied round him ; the Montenegrins
flocked to his aid ; and at a great gathering of the clans held on
Venetian soil at Alessio he was proclaimed Captain-General of Albania.
Venice, at first hostile to this new rival of her influence there, took him
into her pay as a valuable champion against the common enemy,
and
soon Christendom heard with delighted surprise that an Albanian chief
had forced the victor of Varna and Kossovo to retreat from the castle-
rock of Kroja. The Pope and the King of Naples hastened to assist
the tribesmen, who were both good Catholics and near neighbours,
while the king dreamed of reviving the claims of the Neapolitan
Angevins beyond the Adriatic, and even received the homage of
Skanderbeg.
Mahomet II was, however, a more formidable adversary than his
predecessor. He played upon the jealousy of the other Albanian chiefs,
and his troops utterly routed an allied army of natives and Neapolitans.
For the moment Skanderbeg seemed to have disappeared, but he soon
rallied the Albanians to his side; fresh victories attended his arms,
until in 1461 the Sultan concluded with him an armistice for ten years,
and the land had at last a sorely-needed interval from war. But the
peace had lasted barely two years when Skanderbeg, at the instigation
Hopf, Chroniques, p. 334.
1


## p. 585 (#627) ############################################

Turkish conquest of Albania
585
of Pope Pius II, broke his plighted word and drew his sword against
the Turks. The death of the Pope caused the failure of the projected
crusade ; and Skanderbeg found himself abandoned by Europe and left
to fight single-handed against the infuriated Sultan whom he had deceived.
In the spring of 1466 Mahomet himself undertook the siege of Kroja;
but that famous fortress baffled him as it had baffled his father, and
Skanderbeg journeyed to Rome, where a lane near the Quirinal still
commemorates his name and visit, to obtain help from Paul II. With
the following spring the Sultan returned to the siege of Kroja, only
once again to find it impregnable. But his valiant enemy's career was
over; on 17 January 1468 Skanderbeg died in the Venetian colony of
Alessio. Thereupon the Turks easily conquered all Albania, with the
exception of the castle of Kroja, occupied by Venice after Skander-
beg's death, and of the other Venetian stations. Ten years later, the
disastrous war between the republic and the Sultan brought Kroja,
Alessio, Dagno, Satti, and Drivasto under Turkish rule until 1912; the
peace of 1479 surrendered Scutari ; in 1501 Durazzo, and in 1571
Antivari and Dulcigno, the two ports of modern Montenegro, were
finally taken by the Turks, and the flag of St Mark disappeared from
the Albanian coast. To-day, a part of the castle of Scutari, a mutilated
lion there, a Venetian grave and escutcheon at Alessio, and a few old
houses and coats-of-arms at Antivari and Dulcigno, are almost the sole
remains of that Venetian tenure of the Albanian littoral which modern
Italy was anxious to revive. Skanderbeg's memory, however, still
lives in his own land. Although his son and many other Albanian
chiefs emigrated to the kingdom of Naples, where large Albanian
colonies still preserve their speech, a soi-disant Castriota has in our own
day claimed the Albanian throne on the strength of his alleged descent
from the hero of Kroja. If his grave in the castle of Alessio has
disappeared, the ruins of the castle which he built on Cape Rodoni
still stand to remind the passing voyager that Albania was once a nation.
And, even under Turkish rule, the Roman Catholic Mirdites preserved
their autonomy under a prince of the house of Doda, still wearing
mourning for Skanderbeg, still obeying the unwritten code of Lek
Ducagin.
Serbia, Bosnia, and Albania had successively fallen, but there was
another land, barren indeed and mountainous, but all the more a
natural fortress, which sheltered the Orthodox Serbs in this, the darkest
hour of their history, and which the Turks have in vain tried to conquer
permanently. We saw how the Balša family had established a century
earlier an independent principality in what is now Montenegro, and
how upon the death of the last male of that house in 1421 his chief
cities had been partitioned between Venice and Stephen Lazarević of
Serbia. Even in the time of the Balšas, however, a powerful local
Phrantzes, p. 430; Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid. xxII. p. 404.
ܐ
CB. XVIII.


## p. 586 (#628) ############################################

586
History of Montenegro
family, that of the Crnojević, derived by some from the royal line of
Nemanja itself", had made good its claim to a part of the country, and
its head, Radič Crnoje, even styled himself “ lord of the Zeta. ” After
his death in battle against the Balšas in 1396, the family seems to have
been temporarily crushed; but early in the fifteenth century two
collateral members of it, the brothers Jurašević, had established their
independence in the upper, or mountainous, portion of the Zeta, the
barren sea of white limestone round Njeguš, which then began to be
called by its modern name of Crnagora? (in Venetian, Montenegro),
perhaps from the then predominant local clan, less probably from the
“ black” forests which are said to have once covered those glaring,
inhospitable rocks. Venice found the brothers so useful in her struggle
with the Balšas that she paid them a subsidy, and offered to recognise
one of them as “voïvode of the Upper Zeta,” although they were
supposed to be nominally subjects of the Despot of Serbia. A son 3
of this vożvode, Stephen Crnojević by name, revolted against the Serbian
sovereignty, then weakened by its conflict with the Turks, made himself
practically independent in his native mountains, but in 1455 admitted
the overlordship of Venice, which had appointed him her “ captain and
voïvode" in the Zeta. A solemn pact was signed, between the republic
and the 51 communities which then composed Montenegro, on the sacred
island of Vranina on the lake of Scutari : Venice swore to maintain the
cherished usages of Balša and to permit no Roman Catholic bishop to
rule over the Montenegrin Church ; while Stephen Crnojević, victorious
alike over Serbs and Turks, hoisted the banner of St Mark at Podgorica,
and made his capital in the strong castle of Žabljak“.
On his death in 1466, his son and successor, Ivan the Black, was
confirmed by Venice in his father's command as her “captain and voivode”
in the Zeta. In this capacity he assisted with his brave Montenegrins in
the defence of the Venetian city of Scutari against the Turks in 1474,
an event still commemorated by a monument on a house in the Calle del
Piovan at Venice and by a picture by Paolo Veronese in the Sala del
Maggior Consiglio. Four years later he again aided the Venetian
governor of Scutari and the heroic Dominican from Epirus who was the
soul of the defence. But by the peace of 1479 the republic ceded
Scutari to the Turks after an occupation of 85 years, and Montenegro
lost this powerful obstacle to the Turkish advance from the south, the
quarter from which the principality has always been most vulnerable.
The conclusion of peace was a severe blow to the Montenegrin chief,
1 Petrović (trsl. Ciampoli), Storia del Montenegro, p. 23.
2 First found in a Ragusan document of 1362. (Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid,
xxvII. p. 212. )
3 Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid. xxi. pp. 10, 164, 205, 382, 384.
4 Ibid. xxII. pp. 67-8, 153.
6 Ibid. XXII. pp. 364, 383.


## p. 587 (#629) ############################################

End of the “ Black Princes”
587
especially of a peace on such terms. Abandoned by Venice, Ivan the
Black was now at the mercy of the invader.
His capital was too near
the lake of Scutari to be any longer a safe residence; accordingly, he
set fire to Žabljak, and founded in 1484 his new capital at Cetinje,
which remained the seat of the Montenegrin government. There he
built a monastery and a church, and thither he transferred the
metropolitan see of the Zeta, hitherto established in the Craina', the
piece of the Dalmatian coast between the Narenta and the Cetina. The
Turks occupied the lower Zeta ; but a national ballad expresses the
belief that Ivan the Black would one day awake from his sleep in the
grotto of Obod near Rjeka, and lead his heroic Montenegrins to the
conquest of Albania. At Obod he erected a fortress and a building to
house a printing-press for the use of the church at Cetinje, and under
his eldest son George the first books printed in Slavonic saw the light
there in 1493, an achievement commemorated with much circumstance
four centuries afterwards. But George Crnojević was driven from
Montenegro in 1496 by his brother Stephen with the support of the
Turks. The exiled prince took refuge in Venice, the home of his wife,
whence, after a futile attempt to recover his dominions, he threw himself
upon the mercy of the Sultan, embraced Islām, and died, , a Turkish
pensioner, in Anatolia. Meanwhile, Montenegro was governed by
Stephen II till 1499, when’ it was annexed to the Sanjak of Scutari and
placed under a Turkish official who resided at Zabljak 3. But the
mountaineers resisted the Turkish tax-gatherers, and in 1514 Stephen II
was restored by the Sultan *. According to tradition, one of his
descendants, married to a Venetian wife who found residence at Cetinje
both monotonous and useless, abandoned the Black Mountain for ever
and retired to the delights of Venice in 1516, after transferring the
supreme power to the bishop, who was assisted by a civil governor
chosen from among the headmen of
the headmen of the Katunska district. The prince-
bishop, or Vladika, was elective, until in 1696 the dignity became
hereditary, with one interval, in the family of Petrović. Meanwhile, for
some years after the final abdication of the Crnojević family, another
brother of George, who had become a Musulman, held, under the name
of Skanderbeg, the post of Turkish “ governor of Montenegro," a
land which, although the Turks have often invaded and overrun it, they
never permanently conquered.
While Montenegro, the autonomous Mirdites, and the tiny republic
of Poljica alone remained free on the west of the Balkan peninsula, the
two Danubian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia retained a large
2
1 Mon, spect. hist. Slav. Merid. xxii. p. 67.
Sanudo, Diarii, 11. pp. 372, 504.
3 Ibid. xii. p. 153.
4 Ibid. xvii. p. 397.
CH. XVIII.


## p. 588 (#630) ############################################

588
The Danubian Principalities
וי
measure of domestic independence, under the forms of vassalage, on the
east. After a long period of civil war between rival claimants, who
called in their neighbours and partitioned their distracted dominions,
Wallachia acknowledged in 1456 a strong if barbarous ruler in the
person of Vlad “ the Impaler,” and Moldavia in 1457 a vigorous prince
in that of Stephen the Great. The Wallach's hideous cruelties do not
belie his name; he executed 20,000 of his subjects to consolidate his
throne; but he achieved by his savage punishments what his pre-
decessors had failed to obtain, the loyalty of his terrified nobles and the
suppression of brigandage. As soon as he felt secure at home, he defied
his Turkish suzerain, refusing to send him the contingent of 500 children
which Mahomet demanded in addition to the customary annual tribute.
He impaled the Sultan's emissaries, and when the Sultan himself marched
forth to avenge them in 1462 forced him to retire in disgrace. In th
same year, however," the Impaler” was driven from his throne by his
brother, a Turkish puppet, aided by the great Prince of Moldavia. For
the rest of the century Stephen overshadowed the petty rulers of the
sister-principality, and became the leading spirit of resistance to the
Turks in Eastern Europe. His father had, indeed, paid tribute to them
as far back as 1456; but he completely routed them at the battle of
Racova in 1475, the first time that a Turkish and a Moldavian army
had
met. Europe applauded his success; but, after in vain trying to form
a league of the Christian Powers against the enemy, he realised at the
end of his long reign that his efforts had only postponed the necessity
of recognising the suzerainty of the Sultan. His son Bogdan in 1513
made his submission and promised to pay tribute, on condition that the
Moldaves should retain the right of electing their own princes and that
no Turks should reside in their country-a condition modified in 1541
by the imposition of a guard of 500 Turkish horsemen upon the prince
of that period. Thus, largely owing to the fraternal quarrels of their
rulers, both the principalities had fallen within the sphere of Turkish
influence; their constantly changing princes, whether natives or
Phanariote Greeks, were the creatures of the Sultan; but, unlike
Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia, they never came under his direct rule, were
never formally annexed to the Turkish Empire.
The medieval history of the Balkan states and the causes of their
fall are full of significance for our own time. In the Near East, and
in the Near East alone, the Middle Ages are but as yesterday to the
newly-emancipated nations, which look upon the centuries of Turkish
domination as a watch in the night, and aspire to take up the thread
of their interrupted national existence where it was left by their ancient
Tsars, each regardless of the other's overlapping claims to lands which
have been redeemed from the Turk. The medieval records of the motley
peninsula teach us to regard with doubt, in spite of 'Turkish vicinity,
the prospect of common action between Christian races, which, if small
=


## p. 589 (#631) ############################################

Jealousies of the Powers
589
individually, would, if united, have formed a powerful barrier against the
foreigner either from the East or from the West. But the greater
nations of Christendom cannot afford to criticise too harshly their weaker
brethren in the Balkans; for it was quite as much the selfishness and the
mutual jealousy of the Western Powers as the fratricidal enmities of the
Eastern States which allowed the East of Europe to be conquered by Asia,
and which has even in our own day retarded its complete emancipation.
CH. XVIII.


## p. 590 (#632) ############################################

TABLES OF RULERS.
590
SERBIA.
BULGARIAN TSARS.
John Asên 1}
1186
FRANKISH DUKES OF PHILIPPOPOLIS.
Renier de Trit
1204
Gerard de Stroem
1229
(Bulgarian : 1235]
Stephen Nemanja,"Great Zupan" 1143 (or
1159)_1196 + 1200
Stephen, “Great Župan
1196
King 1217
[Vukan, “King of Dioclea' 1195-1207]
Radoslav, King
1228
Vladislav, King
1234-43
+ 1263
Stephen Uroš I, King
1243
Stephen Dragutin, King 1276-81 + 1316
Stephen Uroš II, Milutin, King 1281
1321
Stephen Uroš III, Dečanski, King 1322
(Vladislav, King
1321-4]
Stephen Uroš IV, Dušan, King 1331
Tsar 1346
Stephen Uroš V, Tsar
1355-1371
Simeon Uroš, Tsar
1356–71
_Vukašin, King
1366-71]
Lazar I Hrebeljanović, Prince 1371
Lazar II, or Stephen Lazarević,
Despot
1389-1427
"Vuk Branković, Despot 1389
_George Branković, Prince 1398
George Branković, Despot 1427
Irene
1456
Lazar III Branković, Despot . . . )
Lazar III
alone 1457
Stephen Tomašević, Crown Prince
of Bosnia, Despot
1458-9
[Turkish : 1459)
Peter
Kalojan
Kalojan alone
Boril
John Asên II
Kaliman I
Michael Asên
Kaliman II
Constantine Asên
Ivailo
John Asen III.
George Terteri I
Smilec
Theodore Svętslav
George Terteri II
Michael Shishmanich
John Stephen
John Alexander
1196
1197
1207
1218
1241
1246
1257
1258
1277
1279
1280
1292
1295
1322
1323
1330 + 1373
1331
Tables of Rulers
. . .
John Shishman 1362
- 1393 +1395
(Trnovo) or 1365)
[Turkish : 1393]
John Sracimir
(Vidin)
1360-5; 1369-98
[Hungarian: 1366-9;
Turkish : 1398]


## p. 591 (#633) ############################################

. . . c. 1220
. . .
BOSNIA.
Borić
Ban. 1154-63
[Byzantine Empire: 1166–80]
Kulin
Ban. 1180-1204
Stephen
Bun, after 1204
Matthew Ninoslav
Ban. 1232-37 ; 1240-50
[Kingdom of Hungary: 1237-40)
Prijesda I, “the great
Ban. after 1250-87
Prijesda II and Stephen Kotroman Bans, 1287-90
Stephen Kotroman, alone
1290-1302
Paul Šubić
Ban. 1299-1312
Mladen Šubić
Ban. 1312-22
Hum. (Herzegovina. )
Miroslav, Prince.
1180-90
[Hungarian : 1198-1202]
Peter, Prince
[Hungarian: 1237]
Tolen, Prince
-1239
Andreas, Prince
1239
Radoslav, Župan
1254
[Hungarian: 1254]
[Serbian: c. 1284-1325]
[Bosnian : 1325–57]
(1 Hungarian : 1357-74]
Vojeslav Vojnov, Count 1357-71
2
Niccolò Altomanović 1371-4
[Bosnian*
1374–1435]
Stephen Vukčić
1435
“Duke of St Sava'
1445-66
Vladislav
Vlatko 3
1466–7
Vlatko, “Duke of St Sava 1467-83
[Turkish : 1483]
. . .
Tables of Rulers
Lower Bosnia
[under Hungary). Hungarian magnates, 1254-64.
Duchy of Mačva and Bosnia
Agnes, Duchess
1264
Béla, Duke
1271-2
Stephen Borić . . .
Ban. 1272
Egidius
Вап. 1273
Ugrin
Ban. 1279
Queen Elizabeth of Hungary, Duchess 1280-84
Stephen Dragutin, ex-King of Serbia 1284-1316
Stephen Kotromanić
1322
Stephen Tvrtko I
Ban. 1353, King 1376
Stephen Dabiša, King
1391
Helena Gruba, Queen
1395
Stephen Ostoja, King
1398
Stephen Tvrtko II Tvrtković, King
1404
Stephen Ostoja (2), King
1408
Stephen Ostojić, King . . .
1418
Stephen Tvrtko II Tvrtković (2), King
1421
Stephen Thomas Ostojić, King
1443
Stephen Tomašević, King
1461-3
* Sandalj Hranić-Kosača practically
independent 1404–35.
591
[Turkish 1403, except Banat of Jajce: Hungarian 1463–1528
and Bunut of Srebrenik:
1463-1520]
CH. XVIII.


## p. 592 (#634) ############################################

592
The ZETA (MONTENEGRO).
:::::
Radić Crnoje
1392-96
George and Alexius Jurašević 1403-c. 1427
[Part Serbian : 1421-7]
Stephen I Crnojević. . .
. . . c. 1427
Ivan I
1466
George I
1490-6 + before 1514
Stephen II
1496–9; 1514
Ivan II
1515
George II
1515-16
(Skanderbeg Crnojević, Turkish “Governor of
Montenegro
1523-6]
Tables of Rulers
THE REPUBLIC OF POLJICA.
Balša I
Stracimir
George I
Balša II
George II
Balša III
c. 1360
1362
1372
1378
1385
1405-21
(Part Venetian : 1421-1479) ]
VENETIAN COLONIES IN ALBANIA.
Founded
Under Hungariau Bans.
Under Venetian suzerainty
944
c. 1350
1444
Durazzo
Alessio
Drivasto
Scutari
Antivari
Dulcigno
Dagno
Sattis
1205-15; 1392–1501
1393–1478
1396–1419; 1421-3; 1442–78
1396-1479
1421-23; 1444-1571
1421-1571
1444-56 ; 1458-78


## p. 593 (#635) ############################################

TURKISH SULTANS.
PRINCES OF MOLDAVIA.
C. MEN, H. VOL. IV. CH. XVIII
Osman
Orkhān
Murād I
Bayazid I
Sulaiman
1299
1326
1360
1389
1402
1410
1413
1421
1451
1181
Mūsà . . .
>>
Mahomet I
Murad II
Mahomet II
Bayazid II
}
. . .
. . .
PRINCES OF WALLACHIA.
Radou I Negrou
. . . c. 1290
Ivanko Basaraba
1310
Nicholas Alexander Basaraba 1330
Vladislav
1364
Radou II
1372
Dan I
1385
Mircea «the Great
1386
[First Tributary to Turkey : 13911
(Vlad I
1394-5)
Michael I
1418
Dan II
1420
Radou III
1422
Dan II (2)
1427
Vlad II “the Devil
1432
Dan INI
1446
Vladislav II
1448
Vlad III “the Impaler
1456
Radou IV “the Fair'
1462
Laïote Basaraba
1465
Vlad III (2) “the Impaler 1477
Laïote Basaraba “the Young
1477
Vlad IV “the Monk'
1481
Radou V “the Great
1494
i ::
>>
: : :
Tables of Rulers
Elias (2)
(Under Hungarian suzerainty : c. 1288-1349)
Bogdan I
1349
Latzcou
1370
Juga I Coriatović
1374
Peter I Mouchate
1375
Roman I
1390
Stephen I
1394
Stephen II
1395
Peter II
Roman II
1399
Juga II
1400
Alexander I il the Good"
1401
Elias, alone
1433
Stephen JII, alone
1433
1435
Stephen III
Stephen III
Roman III
1444
Peter III
Roman III, alone
1447
Peter III (2)
1448
Alexander IIS
Bogdan II
1449
Peter III (3)
1451
Alexander II (2)
Peter III, alone
1455
[First Tributary to Turkey : 1456]
Stephen IV “the Great”.
1457
Bogdan III
1504
East Roman EMPERORS FROM 1261
Michael VIII Palaeologus 1259-82
Andronicus II
1282-1332
Michael JX
1295-1320
Andronicus III
1325(28)-41
John V
1341-76
John VI Cantacuzene
1347-54
Andronicus IV
1376-79
John V (restored)
1379-91
John VII, usurper
1390
Manuel II
1391–1425
John VII, co-regent (restored) 1399-1412
John VIII
1423-48
Constantine XI Dragases 1448-53
. . .
(23)}
. . .
38
593


## p. 594 (#636) ############################################

594
CHAPTER XIX.
ATTEMPTS AT REUNION OF THE GREEK
AND LATIN CHURCHES.
BETWEEN the schism of Michael Cerularius and the capture of Con-
stantinople by the Turks, a period of four hundred years, from 1054 to
1453, some thirty attempts were made to unite the Greeks and the Latins
once more in the same communion. At three separate times, in 1204
under compulsion, and in 1274 and 1439 by the terms of an agreement,
the union appeared to have been effected; but on each occasion it was
inchoate and ephemeral.
It might be said that, from the eleventh to the fifteenth century, the
union was the “great ambition " of the Popes and Emperors. It seemed
to them the one effective remedy for all the ills of Christendom, which
would reconstruct the unity of the Church and re-establish religious con-
cord; strengthened by it, Christendom could resist the attacks of the
infidels. Every time that this splendid ideal seemed within grasp, events
thwarted its realisation; and the wisest combinations, the most subtle
compromises, the fruit of long and laborious negotiations, were powerless
before the permanent causes of schism which were destined to render all
these efforts abortive. The history therefore of the attempts at union
is one of continued mortification, repeated checks, perpetual failures,
which militated against religious peace. In point of fact, the union
could never be completely attained, and it was the impossibility of
achieving this end which brought on the final fall of the Empire.
At the present day the dogmatic and disciplinary divergences which
were then separating the two Churches, the double Procession of the
Holy Ghost, the dispute as to the pains of purgatory, the use of un-
leavened bread, and so on, do not appear insuperable difficulties to the
union. Agreement on these points was reached several times, and the Popes
recognised the right of the Uniate Greeks to preserve their peculiar
uses.
But all these questions, which gave birth to countless controversies,
were really only an excuse for schism. The fundamental difficulty was the
recognition by the Greek Church of the papal supremacy, which was far
more wide-reaching in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries than in the
days of Photius and Cerularius. The Greek Church, jealous of her tra-


## p. 595 (#637) ############################################

Hindrances to the Union
595
ditions, proud of her history and of the Ecumenical Councils on which
orthodoxy was based, and in which she had played so prominent a part,
could not accept passively the idea of pontifical monarchy held by a
Gregory VII or an Innocent III. She admitted the primacy of the
Pope, while the more moderate of her members allowed the Papacy its
universal character, but one and all rejected the disciplinary jurisdiction
which made all bishops merely delegates and papal vicars.
Two irreconcilable parties were thus opposed, and there was no solu-
tion to the dispute on the religious side. The Western conception of the
freedom of the Church from the State, for which the supremacy of the
Pope was the essential guarantee, was confronted by the Eastern doctrine
of the autocephalous Church, whose autonomy corresponded to that of the
State, to which it was strictly subordinated. It is the rule with the East
that an independent sovereign requires an autonomous patriarch, whose
relations with the other patriarchs are only spiritual. The one link be-
tween the Churches is the participation in orthodoxy established by the
Councils. The Patriarch of Constantinople himself was bound, within his
own territory, to recognise the autocephalia of the island of Cyprus,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, and Moldo-Wallachia.
Since no agreement was possible between these two contradictory
conceptions, the questions of dogma and discipline were always in dis-
pute. Theologians, far from trying to solve them, took pleasure in
complicating them. This is the explanation why that protracted contro-
versy, in which on the Latin side men like St Anselm or St Thomas
Aquinas, on the Greek side men like John Beccus (Veccus), Barlaam,
Mark of Ephesus, Bessarion, Gemistos Plethon, are found, produced
absolutely no results.
It may be said that from 1054 to 1453 the question did not advance
one step. Nothing can surpass the monotony of these erudite treatises on
the Procession of the Holy Ghost, of these dialogues and contradictory
debates, which repeat over and over again the same arguments and appeal
continually to the same authorities. Whether at Constantinople in 1054,
at Lyons in 1274, or at Florence in 1439, the discussion revolves round
the same points and arrives at no result.
One chief hindrance to the establishment of the union was its compli-
cation at all times with political interests. It was never desired for its
own sake, but for the temporal advantages which the Emperors, Byzan-
tine and Western alike, expected from it. The consequence was that,
when the political advantages looked for from the union disappeared,
the union itself was abandoned.
From 1054 to 1453 the Emperors always looked to religious union as
a means of carrying out their political designs, or of assuring the defence
of the Empire. From 1055 to 1071 they, as Constantine IX had done,
contracted, by means of the union, a political and military alliance with
the Papacy against the Normans of Italy. Then from 1073 to 1099 the
CH. XIX.
38-2


## p. 596 (#638) ############################################

596
The different points of view
union was courted by Michael VII and Alexius Comnenus to assure the
defence of the Empire against the Seljūq Turks. In the twelfth century,
at the time of the Popes' struggle with the Germanic Emperors, John and
Manuel Comnenus had entertained the fond hope of reconquering Italy
by means of the union, and assuming at Rome the Western imperial
crown. After the conquest of 1204, at the time of the decadence of the
Latin Empire, Theodore I Lascaris, John Vatatzes, and Theodore II saw
in the union the means of re-entering Constantinople. Michael Palaeo-
logus, master of the capital in 1261, made full use of the union to check
the ambitious projects of Charles of Anjou. Finally, in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries the preliminary negotiations for the union were
more or less actively prosecuted according to the advance or the retreat
of the Ottomans, and it was not until the danger from them was pressing
that this union was finally realised at Florence in 1439.
The Popes, on their side, saw in the union primarily a means of saving
Eastern Christendom from the Musulman invasion. Such was the point
of view of Gregory VII and of Urban II. Then the Popes of the
twelfth century, Paschal II, Calixtus II, Honorius II, Hadrian IV, Alex-
ander III, thought to employ the union to secure for themselves at Con-
stantinople a protector against the schemes of the Germanic Emperors.
The series of Popes which starts with Innocent III saw, on the contrary,
that the sole chance of success in the Crusades lay in the union, and
pursued the policy of making Constantinople a base of operations against
the infidels. Finally, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Ot-
toman peril which threatened all Europe constituted the chief reason why
they sought the union.
The policy of the union, voluntarily adopted, was opposed by that
of conquest which was intended to bring about a union by force. The
Kings of Sicily-Roger II, William I, William II—being desirous of
founding a mighty Mediterranean empire, initiated this policy, which
was adopted by such men as St Bernard and Suger. The Hohenstaufen,
who were masters of Sicily by inheritance, dreamed of realising this
ambition of the Norman kings, and the conquest of 1204 was prepared
by an agreement between Philip of Swabia and Venice. The union had
been forcibly imposed on the Greek Church, and then, when some years
later the collapse of the Latin Empire was apparent, Charles of Anjou
and his heirs revived against Constantinople the plans of their prede-
cessors in Sicily.
Such are the different points of view which by their continuous
opposition add to the complication of this period of history, but they
all have the common characteristic of regarding the union merely as a
means of political profit, and this lack of sincerity and altruism on both
sides is the ultimate cause of the final failure of all these efforts.
We know that the solidarity, which united the interests of the Pope
to that of the Emperor in common cause against the Normans in Italy,


## p. 597 (#639) ############################################

Last attempts at alliance against the Normans
597
was
had been the principal obstacle to the schism of 10541. It is not sur-
prising then that the first efforts to resume relations were made in that
sphere. After 1055 the trusty emissary of the alliance between Pope and
Emperor, the Lombard Argyrus, comes once more on the scene. In order
to save Byzantine Italy he has recourse to Henry III, to whom he sends
an embassy. He himself, taking advantage of the semi-disgrace into
which Michael Cerularius fell in the reign of Theodora, went to Con-
stantinople to ask for fresh powers.