See generally Count Lützow,Bohemia, a Historical Sketch(London, 1896). The valuable collection of historical documents entitledFontes Rerum Bohemicarum, published at Prague in the latter part of the 19th century, has superseded earlier ones such as Freherus (Marquard Freher),Rerum Bohemicarum Antiqui Scriptores. Similarly, the earlier historical works of Pubitschka, Pelzl and De Florgy are superseded by Frantisek Palacký’sGeschichte von Bohmen(Prague, 1844-1867), which, however, ends with the year 1526. Rezek, Gindely and others have dealt with the history of Bohemia posterior to the year 1526. Professor Adolf Bachmann published (vol. i. in 1899, vol. ii. 1905) aGeschichte Bohmensup to 1526, which has a strongly marked German tendency. Of French works Professor Ernest Denis’sJean Hus, et la guerre des Hussites(Paris, 1878),Fin de l’independance bohème(2 vols., 1890), andLa Bohême depuis la Montagne Blanche(2 vols., 1903), give a continuous account of Bohemian history from the beginning of the 15th century.
See generally Count Lützow,Bohemia, a Historical Sketch(London, 1896). The valuable collection of historical documents entitledFontes Rerum Bohemicarum, published at Prague in the latter part of the 19th century, has superseded earlier ones such as Freherus (Marquard Freher),Rerum Bohemicarum Antiqui Scriptores. Similarly, the earlier historical works of Pubitschka, Pelzl and De Florgy are superseded by Frantisek Palacký’sGeschichte von Bohmen(Prague, 1844-1867), which, however, ends with the year 1526. Rezek, Gindely and others have dealt with the history of Bohemia posterior to the year 1526. Professor Adolf Bachmann published (vol. i. in 1899, vol. ii. 1905) aGeschichte Bohmensup to 1526, which has a strongly marked German tendency. Of French works Professor Ernest Denis’sJean Hus, et la guerre des Hussites(Paris, 1878),Fin de l’independance bohème(2 vols., 1890), andLa Bohême depuis la Montagne Blanche(2 vols., 1903), give a continuous account of Bohemian history from the beginning of the 15th century.
(L.)
Literature
The earliest records of the Bohemian or Čzech language are very ancient, though the so-called MSS. of Zelena Hora (Grüneberg) and Kralodvur (Königinhof) are almost certainly forgeries of the early part of the 19th century. The earliest genuine documents of the Bohemian language comprise several hymns and legends; of the latter the legend of St Catherine and that of St Dorothy have the greatest value. Several ancient epic fragments have also been preserved, such as theAlexandreisandTandarias a Floribella. These and other early Bohemian writings have been printed since the revival of Bohemian literature in the 19th century. Of considerable historical value is the rhymed chronicle generally though wrongly known as the chronicle of Dalimil. The author, who probably lived during the reign of King John (1310-1346), records the events of Bohemian history from the earliest period to the reign of King Henry of Carinthia, the immediate predecessor of John. A strong feeling of racial antipathy to the Germans pervades the chronicle.
It is undoubtedly to be attributed to the high intellectual level which Bohemia attained in the 14th century that at that period we already find writers on religious and philosophical subjects who used the national language.Old Czech literature.Of these the most important is Thomas of Štitný (c.1331-1401). Of his works, which contain many ideas similar to those of his contemporary Wycliffe, those entitledO obecnych vecech Krestanskych(on general Christian matters) andBesedni reči(in a rough translation “learned entertainments”) have most value. Štitný and some of his contemporaries whose Bohemian writings have perished are known as the forerunners of Huss. Huss, like many of his contemporaries in Bohemia, wrote both in Bohemian and in Latin. Of the Bohemian writings of Huss, who contributed greatly to the development of his native language, the most important is hisVýklad viry, desatera Boziho prikazani, a patere(exposition of the creed, the ten commandments and the Lord’s Prayer) written in 1412. Of his numerous other Bohemian works we may mention thePostilla(collection of sermons), the treatisesO poznani cesty prave k spaseni(the true road to salvation) andO svatokupectvi(on simony), and a large collection of letters; those written in prison are very touching.
The years that followed the death of Huss formed in Bohemia a period of incessant theological strife. The anti-Roman or Hussite movement was largely a democratic one, and it is therefore natural that the national language rather than Latin should have been used in the writings that belong to this period. Unfortunately in consequence of the systematic destruction of all Bohemian writings which took place through the agency of the Jesuits, after the battle of the White Hill (1620), a large part of this controversial literature has perished. Thus the writings of the members of the extreme Hussite party, the so-called Taborites, have been entirely destroyed. Of the writings of the more moderate Hussites, known as the Calixtines or Utraquists, some have been preserved. Such are the books entitledOf the Great Torment of the Holy Churchand theLives of the Priests of Tabor, written in a sense violently hostile to that community. A Bohemian work by Archbishop John of Rokycan has also been preserved; it is entitledPostillaand is similar though inferior to the work of Huss that bears the same name.
A quite independent religious writer who belongs to the period of the Hussite wars is Peter Chelcicky (born in the last years of the 14th century, died 1460), who may be called the Tolstoy of the 15th. His dominant ideas were horror of bloodshed and the determination to accept unresistingly all, even unjust, decrees of the worldly authorities. Though a strenuous enemy of the Church of Rome, Chelcicky joined none of the Hussite parties. His masterpiece is theSít viry(the net of faith). Among his other works hisPostillaand polemical writings in the form of letters to Archbishop John of Rokycan and Bishop Nicolas of Pelhrimov deserve mention.
The Hussite period is rather poor in historical works written in the language of the country. We should, however, mention some chroniclers who were contemporaries and sometimes eye-witnesses of the events of the Hussite wars. Their writings have been collected and published by Frantisek Palacký under the title ofStare česke letopisy.
In the 16th century when Bohemia was in a state of comparative tranquillity, the native literature was largely developed. Besides the writers of the community of the Bohemian Brethren, we meet at this period with three historians of merit. Of these far the best-known is Wenceslas Hajek of Libočan. The year of his birth is uncertain, but we read of him as a priest in 1524; he died in 1553. His great workKronika českawas dedicated to the emperor Ferdinand I., king of Bohemia, and appeared under the auspices of government officials. It has therefore a strong dynastic and Romanist tendency, and its circulation was permitted even at the time when most Bohemian books were prohibited and many totally destroyed. Hajek’s book was translated into several languages and frequently quoted. Wefind such second-hand quotations even in the works of many writers who had probably never heard of Hajek. His book is, however, inaccurate and grossly partial. Very little known on the other hand are the works of Bartoš, surnamed “pisár” (the writer), as he was for many years employed as secretary by the city of Prague, and those of Sixt of Ottersdorf. The work of Bartoš (or Bartholomew) entitled theChronicle of Praguehas great historical value. He describes the troubles that befell Prague and Bohemia generally during the reign of the weak and absentee sovereign King Louis. The year of the birth of Bartos is uncertain, but it is known that he died in 1539. The somewhat later work of Sixt of Ottersdorf (1500-1583) deals with a short but very important episode in the history of Bohemia. It is entitledMemorials of the Troubled Years 1546 and 1547. The book describes the unsuccessful rising of the Bohemians against Ferdinand I. of Austria. Sixt took a considerable part in this movement, a fact that greatly enhances the value of his book.
Though the life of Chelĉicky, who has already been mentioned, was an isolated one, he is undoubtedly the indirect founder of the community of the “Bohemian Brethren,” who greatly influenced Bohemian literature. Almost all their historical and theological works were written in the national language, which through their influence became far more refined and polished. Before referring to some of the writings of members of the community we should mention the famed translation of the Scriptures known as theBible of Kralice. It was the joint work of several divines of the brotherhood, and was first printed at Kralice in Moravia in 1593. Brother Gregory, surnamed the patriarch of the brotherhood, has left a large number of writings dealing mainly with theological matters. Most important are theLetters to Archbishop Rokycanand the bookOn good and evil priests. After the death of Brother Gregory in 1480 discord broke out in the community, and it resulted in very great literary activity. Brothers Lucas, Blahoslav and Jaffet, as well as Augusta, a bishop of the community, have left us numerous controversial works. Very interesting is the account of the captivity of Bishop Augusta, written by his companion the young priest Jan Bilek. We have evidence that numerous historical works written by members of the brotherhood existed, but most of them perished in the 17th century when nearly all anti-Roman books written in Bohemia were destroyed. Thus only fragments of Blahoslav’sHistory of the Unity(i.e.the brotherhood) have been preserved. One of the historians of the brotherhood, Wenceslas Brezan, wrote aHistory of the House of Rosenberg, of which only the biographies of William and Peter of Rosenberg have been preserved. The greatest writer of the brotherhood is John Amos Komensky or Comenius (1592-1670). Of his many works written in his native language the most important is hisLabyrinth of the World, an allegorical tale which is perhaps the most famous work written in Bohemian.4Many of the numerous devotional and educational writings of Comenius,—his works number 142,—are also written in his native tongue.
The year 1620, which witnessed the downfall of Bohemian independence, also marks the beginning of a period of decline of the national tongue, which indeed later, in the 18th century, was almost extinct as a written language. Yet we must notice besides Comenius two other writers, both historians, whose works belong to a date later than 1620. Of these one was an adherent of the nationalist, the other of the imperialist party. Paul Skála ze Zhoře (1582-c. 1640) was an official in the service of the “winter king” Frederick of the Palatinate. He for a time followed his sovereign into exile, and spent the last years of his life at Freiberg in Saxony. It was at this period of his life, after his political activity had ceased, that he wrote his historical works. His first work was a short book which is a mere series of chronological tables. Somewhat later he undertook a vast work entitledHistoire cirkevni(history of the church). In spite of its title the book, which consists of ten enormous MS. volumes, deals as much with political as with ecclesiastical matters. The most valuable part, that dealing with events of 1602 to 1623, of which Skála writes as a contemporary and often as an eye-witness, has been edited and published by Prof. Tieftrunk. A contemporary and a political opponent of Skála was William Count Slavata (1572-1652). He was a faithful servant of the house of Habsburg, and one of the government officials who were thrown from the windows of the Hradĉany palace in 1618, at the beginning of the Bohemian uprising. In 1637 Slavata published hisPamety(memoirs) which deal exclusively with the events of the years 1618 and 1619, in which he had played so great a part. During the leisure of the last years of his long life Slavata composed a vast work entitledHistorické Spisovani(historical works). It consists of fourteen large MS. volumes, two of which contain the previously-written memoirs. These two volumes have recently been edited and published by Dr Jos. Jirěcek.
After the deaths of Skála, Slavata and Comenius, no works of any importance were written in the Bohemian language for a considerable period, and the new Austrian government endeavoured in every way to discourage the19th-century revival.use of that language. A change took place when the romantic movement started at the beginning of the 19th century. The early revival of the Bohemian language was very modest, and at first almost exclusively translations from foreign languages were published. The first writer who again drew attention to the then almost forgotten Bohemian language was Joseph Dobrovský (1753-1829). His works, which include a grammar of the Bohemian language and a history of Bohemian literature, were mostly written in German or Latin, and his only Bohemian works are some essays which he contributed to the early numbers of theČasopis Musea Království CČeského(Journal of the Bohemian Museum) and a collection of letters.
It is, however, to four men belonging to a time somewhat subsequent to that of Dobrovský that the revival of the language and literature of Bohemia is mainly due. They are Jungmann, Kolar, Šafařik and Palacký. Joseph Jungmann (1773-1847) published early in life numerous Bohemian translations of German and English writers. His most important works are hisDejepes literatury česka(history of Bohemian literature), and his monumental German and Bohemian dictionary, which largely contributed to the development of the Bohemian language. John Kolar (1793-1852) was the greatest poet of the Bohemian revival, and it is only in quite recent days that Bohemian poetry has risen to a higher level. Kolar’s principal poem is theSlavy dcera(daughter of Slavia), a personification of the Slavic race. Its principal importance at the present time consists rather in the part it played in the revival of Bohemian literature than in its artistic value. Kolar’s other works are mostly philological studies. Paul Joseph Šafařik (1795-1861) was a very fruitful writer. HisStarožitnosti Slovanské(Slavic antiquities), an attempt to record the then almost unknown history and literature of the early Slavs, has still considerable value. Francis Palacký (1798-1876) is undoubtedly the greatest of Bohemian historians. Among his many works his history of Bohemia from the earliest period to the year 1526 is the most important.
Other Bohemian writers whose work belongs mainly to the earlier part of the 19th century are the poets Francis Ladislav Čelakovský, author of theRůže stolistova(the hundred-leaved rose), Erben, Macha, Tyl, to mention but a few of the most famous writers. The talented writer Karel Havlicek, the founder of Bohemian journalism, deserves special notice.
During the latter part of the 19th century, and particularly after the foundation of the national university in 1882, Bohemian literature has developed to an extent that few perhaps foresaw. Of older writers Božena Němceva, whoseBabičkahas been translated into many languages, and Benes Trebizky, author of many historical novels, should be named. John Neruda (1834-1891) was a very fruitful and talented writer both of poetry and of prose. Perhaps the most valuable of his many works is his philosophical epic entitledKosmicke basne(cosmic poems). Julius Zeyer (1841-1901) also wrote much both in prose and in verse. His epic poem entitledVysehrad, whichcelebrates the ancient glory of the acropolis of Prague, has great value, and of his many novelsJan Maria Plojharhas had the greatest success. Of later Bohemian poets the best are Adolf Heyduk, Svatopluk Čech and Jaroslav Vrchlický (b. 1853). Of Svatopluk Cech’s many poems, which are all inspired by national enthusiasm,Václav z Michalovic, Lesetinsky Kovar(the smith of Lesetin) andBasne otroka(the songs of a slave) are the most notable. While Vrchlický (pseudonym of Emil Frida) has no less strong patriotic feelings, he has been more catholic in the choice of the subjects of his many works, both in poetry and in prose. Of his many collections of lyric poemsRok na jihu(a year in the south),Poute k Eldoradu(pilgrimages to Eldorado) andSonety Samotare(sonnets of a recluse) have particular value. Vrchlický is also a very brilliant dramatist. Bohemian novelists have become very numerous. Mention should be made of Alois Jirásek, also a distinguished dramatic author; Jacob Arbes, whoseRomanettahave great merit; and Václav Hladík, whoseEvzen Voldanis a very striking representation of the life of modern Prague. Like so many Bohemian authors, Hladík also is a copious dramatic author.
Bohemia has been very fruitful in historic writers. Wenceslas Tomek (1818-1905) left many historical works, of which hisDějepis miěsta Prahy(history of the town of Prague) is the most important. Jaroslav Goll (b. 1846) is the author of many historical works, especially on the community of the Bohemian Brethren. Professor Joseph Kalousek has written much on the early history of Bohemia, and is also the author of a very valuable study of the ancient constitution (Statni pravo) of Bohemia. Dr Anton Rezek is the author of important historical studies, many of which appeared in the Journal of the Bohemian Museum and in theČesky Časopis Historický(Bohemian Historical Review), which he founded in 1895 jointly with Professor Jaroslav Goll. More recently Dr Václav Flajshans has published some excellent studies on the life and writings of John Huss, and Professors Pic and Niederle have published learned archaeological studies on the earliest period of Bohemian history.
See Count Lützow,A History of Bohemian Literature(London, 1899); W.R. Morfill,Slavonic Literature(1883); A.N. Pypin and V.D. Spasovič,History of Slavonic Literature(written in Russian, translated into German by Trangott Pech,Gesch. der slav. Literaturen, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1884). There are modern histories of Bohemian literature written in the national language by Dr Karel Tieftrunk, Dr Václav Flajšhans and Mr Jaroslav Vlaek.
See Count Lützow,A History of Bohemian Literature(London, 1899); W.R. Morfill,Slavonic Literature(1883); A.N. Pypin and V.D. Spasovič,History of Slavonic Literature(written in Russian, translated into German by Trangott Pech,Gesch. der slav. Literaturen, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1884). There are modern histories of Bohemian literature written in the national language by Dr Karel Tieftrunk, Dr Václav Flajšhans and Mr Jaroslav Vlaek.
(L.)
1As a guide to the English-speaking reader, the following notes on the pronunciation of Bohemian names are appended. The Czech (Čech) alphabet is the same as the English, with the omission of the letters q, w and x. Certain letters, however, vary in pronunciation, and are distinguished by diacritical marks, a device orginated by John Huss. The vowels a, e, i, (y), o, u, are pronounced as in Italian; but ě = Eng. yě in “yet,” and ů = Eng. oo.The consonants, b, d, f, k, l, m, n, p, r, v, z, are as in English; g = Eng. g in “gone”; s = Eng. initial s. But ň = Span. ñ (incañon); ř = rsh; š = sh; ž = zh (i.e.the French j); k before d = g; v before k, p, s, t = f. Of the other consonants c = Eng. ts; č = ch; ch = Germ. ch; j = Eng. y, but is not pronounced before d, m, s. Accents on vowels lengthen them; on d and t they are softening marks. H is always pronounced in Czech. At the end of words and before k and t it = Germ, ch; in other places, as inbahno(morass) its pronunciation is somewhat softer.2Protestatio Bohemorum, frequently printed in English and German, as well as in the Latin original.3Laurence of Brezova’s (contemporary)Kronika Husitská.4This work has been translated into English by Count Lützow for the “Temple Classics.”
1As a guide to the English-speaking reader, the following notes on the pronunciation of Bohemian names are appended. The Czech (Čech) alphabet is the same as the English, with the omission of the letters q, w and x. Certain letters, however, vary in pronunciation, and are distinguished by diacritical marks, a device orginated by John Huss. The vowels a, e, i, (y), o, u, are pronounced as in Italian; but ě = Eng. yě in “yet,” and ů = Eng. oo.
The consonants, b, d, f, k, l, m, n, p, r, v, z, are as in English; g = Eng. g in “gone”; s = Eng. initial s. But ň = Span. ñ (incañon); ř = rsh; š = sh; ž = zh (i.e.the French j); k before d = g; v before k, p, s, t = f. Of the other consonants c = Eng. ts; č = ch; ch = Germ. ch; j = Eng. y, but is not pronounced before d, m, s. Accents on vowels lengthen them; on d and t they are softening marks. H is always pronounced in Czech. At the end of words and before k and t it = Germ, ch; in other places, as inbahno(morass) its pronunciation is somewhat softer.
2Protestatio Bohemorum, frequently printed in English and German, as well as in the Latin original.
3Laurence of Brezova’s (contemporary)Kronika Husitská.
4This work has been translated into English by Count Lützow for the “Temple Classics.”
BOHEMUND,the name of a series of princes of Antioch, afterwards counts of Tripoli. Their connexion is shown in the following table:—
Bohemund I.(c.A.D.1058-1111), prince of Otranto and afterwards of Antioch, whose first name was Marc, was the eldest son of Robert Guiscard,dux Apuliae et Calabriae, by an early marriage contracted before 1059. He served under his father in the great attack on the East Roman empire (1080-1085), and commanded the Normans during Guiscard’s absence (1082-1084), penetrating into Thessaly as far as Larissa, but being repulsed by Alexius Comnenus. This early hostility to Alexius had a great influence in determining the course of his future career, and thereby helped to determine the history of the First Crusade, of which Bohemund may be regarded as the leader. On the death of Guiscard in 1085, his younger son Roger, born “in the purple” of a Lombard princess Sicelgaeta, succeeded to the duchy of Apulia and Calabria, and a war arose between Bohemund (whom his father had destined for the throne of Constantinople) and Duke Roger. The war was finally composed by the mediation of Urban II. and the award of Otranto and other possessions to Bohemund. In 1096 Bohemund, along with his uncle the great count of Sicily, was attacking Amalfi, which had revolted against Duke Roger, when bands of crusaders began to pass, on their way through Italy to Constantinople. The zeal of the crusader came upon Bohemund: it is possible, too, that he saw in the First Crusade a chance of realizing his father’s policy (which was also an old Norse instinct) of theDrang nach Osten, and hoped from the first to carve for himself an eastern principality. He gathered a fine Norman army (perhaps the finest division in the crusading host), at the head of which he crossed the Adriatic, and penetrated to Constantinople along the route he had tried to follow in 1082-1084. He was careful to observe a “correct” attitude towards Alexius, and when he arrived at Constantinople in April 1097 he did homage to the emperor. He may have negotiated with Alexius about a principality at Antioch; if he did so, he had little encouragement. From Constantinople to Antioch Bohemund was the real leader of the First Crusade; and it says much for his leading that the First Crusade succeeded in crossing Asia Minor, which the Crusades of 1101, 1147 and 1189 failed to accomplish. Apolitique, Bohemund was resolved to engineer the enthusiasm of the crusaders to his own ends; and when his nephew Tancred left the main army at Heraclea, and attempted to establish a footing in Cilicia, the movement may have been already intended as a preparation for Bohemund’s eastern principality. Bohemund was the first to get into position before Antioch (October 1097), and he took a great part in the siege, beating off the Mahommedan attempts at relief from the east, and connecting the besiegers on the west with the port of St Simeon and the Italian ships which lay there. The capture of Antioch was due to his connexion with Firuz, one of the commanders in the city; but he would not bring matters to an issue until the possession of the city was assured him (May 1098), under the terror of the approach of Kerbogha with a great army of relief, and with a reservation in favour of Alexius, if Alexius should fulfil his promise to aid the crusaders. But Bohemund was not secure in the possession of Antioch, even after its surrender and the defeat of Kerbogha; he had to make good his claims against Raymund of Toulouse, who championed the rights of Alexius. He obtained full possession in January 1099, and stayed in the neighbourhood of Antioch to secure his position, while the other crusaders moved southward to the capture of Jerusalem. He came to Jerusalem at Christmas 1099, and had Dagobert of Pisa elected as patriarch, perhaps in order to check the growth of a strong Lotharingian power in the city. It might seem in 1100 that Bohemund was destined to found a great principality in Antioch, which would dwarf Jerusalem; he had a fine territory, a good strategical position and a strong army. But he had to face two great forces—the East Roman empire, which claimed the whole of his territories and was supported in its claim by Raymund of Toulouse, and the strong Mahommedan principalities in the north-east of Syria. Against these two forces he failed. In 1100 he was captured by Danishmend of Sivas, and he languished in prison till 1103. Tancred took his place; but meanwhile Raymund established himself with the aid of Alexius in Tripoli, and was able to check theexpansion of Antioch to the south. Ransomed in 1103 by the generosity of an Armenian prince, Bohemund made it his first object to attack the neighbouring Mahommedan powers in order to gain supplies. But in heading an attack on Harran, in 1104, he was severely defeated at Balich, near Rakka on the Euphrates. The defeat was decisive; it made impossible the great eastern principality which Bohemund had contemplated. It was followed by a Greek attack on Cilicia; and despairing of his own resources, Bohemund returned to Europe for reinforcements in order to defend his position. His attractive personality won him the hand of Constance, the daughter of the French king, Philip I., and he collected a large army. Dazzled by his success, he resolved to use his army not to defend Antioch against the Greeks, but to attack Alexius. He did so; but Alexius, aided by the Venetians, proved too strong, and Bohemund had to submit to a humiliating peace (1108), by which he became the vassal of Alexius, consented to receive his pay, with the title ofSebastos, and promised to cede disputed territories and to admit a Greek patriarch into Antioch. Henceforth Bohemund was a broken man. He died without returning to the East, and was buried at Canossa in Apulia, in 1111.
Literature.—The anonymousGesta Francorum(edited by H. Hagenmeyer) is written by one of Bohemund’s followers; and theAlexiadof Anna Comnena is a primary authority for the whole of his life. His career is discussed by B. von Kügler,Bohemund und Tancred(Tübingen, 1862); while L. von Heinemann,Geschichte der Normannen in Sicilien und Unteritalien(Leipzig, 1894), and R. Röhricht,Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges(Innsbruck, 1901), andGeschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem(Innsbruck, 1898), may also be consulted for his history.
Literature.—The anonymousGesta Francorum(edited by H. Hagenmeyer) is written by one of Bohemund’s followers; and theAlexiadof Anna Comnena is a primary authority for the whole of his life. His career is discussed by B. von Kügler,Bohemund und Tancred(Tübingen, 1862); while L. von Heinemann,Geschichte der Normannen in Sicilien und Unteritalien(Leipzig, 1894), and R. Röhricht,Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges(Innsbruck, 1901), andGeschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem(Innsbruck, 1898), may also be consulted for his history.
Bohemund II.(1108-1131), son of the great Bohemund by his marriage with Constance of France, was born in 1108, the year of his father’s defeat at Durazzo. In 1126 he came from Apulia to Antioch (which, since the fall of Roger, the successor of Tancred, in 1119, had been under the regency of Baldwin II.); and in 1127 he married Alice, the younger daughter of Baldwin. After some trouble with Joscelin of Edessa, and after joining with Baldwin II. in an attack on Damascus (1127), he was defeated and slain on his northern frontier by a Mahommedan army from Aleppo (1131). He had shown that he had his father’s courage: if time had sufficed, he might have shown that he had the other qualities of the first Bohemund.
Bohemund III.was the son of Constance, daughter of Bohemund II., by her first husband, Raymund of Antioch. He succeeded his mother in the principality of Antioch in 1163, and first appears prominently in 1164, as regent of the kingdom of Jerusalem during the expedition of Amalric I. to Egypt. During the absence of Amalric, he was defeated and captured by Nureddin (August 1164) at Harenc, to the east of Antioch. He was at once ransomed by his brother-in-law, the emperor Manuel, and went to Constantinople, whence he returned with a Greek patriarch. In 1180 he deserted his second wife, the princess Orguilleuse, for a certain Sibylla, and he was in consequence excommunicated. By Orguilleuse he had had two sons, Raymund and Bohemund (the future Bohemund IV.), whose relations and actions determined the rest of his life. Raymund married Alice, a daughter of the Armenian prince Rhupen (Rupin), brother of Leo of Armenia, and died in 1197, leaving behind him a son, Raymund Rhupen. Bohemund, the younger brother of Raymund, had succeeded the last count of Tripoli in the possession of that county, 1187; and the problem which occupied the last years of Bohemund III. was to determine whether his grandson, Raymund Rhupen, or his younger son, Bohemund, should succeed him in Antioch. Leo of Armenia was naturally the champion of his great-nephew, Raymund Rhupen; indeed he had already claimed Antioch in his own right, before the marriage of his niece to Raymund, in 1194, when he had captured Bohemund III. at Gastin, and attempted without success to force him to cede Antioch.1Bohemund the younger, however, prosecuted his claim with vigour, and even evicted his father from Antioch about 1199: but he was ousted by Leo (now king of Armenia by the grace of the emperor, Henry VI.), and Bohemund III. died in possession of his principality (1201).
Bohemund IV., younger son of Bohemund III. by his second wife Orguilleuse, became count of Tripoli in 1187, and succeeded his father in the principality of Antioch, to the exclusion of Raymund Rhupen, in 1201. But the dispute lasted for many years (Leo of Armenia continuing to champion the cause of his great-nephew), and long occupied the attention of Innocent III. Bohemund IV. enjoyed the support of the Templars (who, like the Knights of St John, had estates in Tripoli) and of the Greek inhabitants of Antioch, to whom he granted their own patriarch in 1207, while Leo appealed (1210-1211) both to Innocent III. and the emperor Otto IV., and was supported by the Hospitallers. In 1216 Leo captured Antioch, and established Raymund Rhupen as its prince; but he lost it again in less than four years, and it was once more in the possession of Bohemund IV. when Leo died in 1220. Raymund Rhupen died in 1221; and after the event Bohemund reigned in Antioch and Tripoli till his death, proving himself a determined enemy of the Hospitallers, and thereby incurring excommunication in 1230. He first joined, and then deserted, the emperor Frederick II., during the crusade of 1228-29; and he was excluded from the operation of the treaty of 1229. When he died in 1233, he had just concluded peace with the Hospitallers, and Gregory IX. had released him from the excommunication of 1230.
Bohemund V., son of Bohemund IV. by his wife Plaisance (daughter of Hugh of Gibelet), succeeded his father in 1233. He was prince of Antioch and count of Tripoli, like his father; and like him he enjoyed the alliance of the Templars and experienced the hostility of Armenia, which was not appeased till 1251, when the mediation of St Louis, and the marriage of the future Bohemund VI. to the sister of the Armenian king, finally brought peace. By his first marriage in 1225 with Alice, the widow of Hugh I. of Cyprus, Bohemund V. connected the history of Antioch for a time with that of Cyprus. He died in 1251. He had resided chiefly at Tripoli, and under him Antioch was left to be governed by its bailiff and commune.
Bohemund VI.was the son of Bohemund V. by Luciana, a daughter of the count of Segni, nephew of Innocent III. Born in 1237, Bohemund VI. succeeded his father in 1251, and was knighted by St Louis in 1252. His sister Plaisance had married in 1250 Henry I. of Cyprus, the son of Hugh I.; and the Cypriot connexion of Antioch, originally formed by the marriage of Bohemund V. and Alice, the widow of Hugh I., was thus maintained. In 1252 Bohemund VI. established himself in Antioch, leaving Tripoli to itself, and in 1257 he procured the recognition of his nephew, Hugh II., the son of Henry I. by Plaisance, as king of Jerusalem. He allied himself to the Mongols against the advance of the Egyptian sultan; but in 1268 he lost Antioch to Bibars, and when he died in 1275 he was only count of Tripoli.
Bohemund VII., son of Bohemund VI. by Sibylla, sister of Leo III. of Armenia, succeeded to the county of Tripoli in 1275, with his mother as regent. In his short and troubled reign he had trouble with the Templars who were established in Tripoli; and in the very year of his death (1287) he lost Laodicea to the sultan of Egypt. He died without issue; and as, within two years of his death, Tripoli was captured, the county of Tripoli may be said to have become extinct with him.
Literature.—The history of the Bohemunds is the history of the principality of Antioch, and, after Bohemund IV., of the county of Tripoli also. For Antioch, we possess itsAssises(Venice, 1876); and two articles on its history have appeared in theRevue de l’Orient Latin(Paris, 1893, fol.), both by E. Rey (“Resumé chronologique de l’histpire des princes d’Antioche,” vol. iv., and “Les dignitaires de la principauté d’Antioche,” vol. viii.). R. Röhricht,Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem(Innsbruck, 1898), gives practically all that is known about the history of Antioch and Tripoli.
Literature.—The history of the Bohemunds is the history of the principality of Antioch, and, after Bohemund IV., of the county of Tripoli also. For Antioch, we possess itsAssises(Venice, 1876); and two articles on its history have appeared in theRevue de l’Orient Latin(Paris, 1893, fol.), both by E. Rey (“Resumé chronologique de l’histpire des princes d’Antioche,” vol. iv., and “Les dignitaires de la principauté d’Antioche,” vol. viii.). R. Röhricht,Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem(Innsbruck, 1898), gives practically all that is known about the history of Antioch and Tripoli.
(E. Br.)
1During the captivity of Bohemund III. the patriarch of Antioch helped to found a commune, which persisted, with its mayor andjurats, during the 13th century.
1During the captivity of Bohemund III. the patriarch of Antioch helped to found a commune, which persisted, with its mayor andjurats, during the 13th century.
BÖHMER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH(1795-1863), German historian, son of Karl Ludwig Böhmer (d. 1817), was born at Frankfort-on-Main on the 22nd of April 1795. Educated at the universities of Heidelberg and Göttingen, he showed an interest in art and visited Italy; but returning to Frankfort he turned his attention to the study of history, and becamesecretary of theGesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde. He was also archivist and then librarian of the city of Frankfort. Böhmer had a great dislike of Prussia and the Protestant faith, and a corresponding affection for Austria and the Roman Catholic Church, to which, however, he did not belong. His critical sense was, perhaps, somewhat warped; but his researches are of great value to students. He died unmarried, at Frankfort, on the 22nd of October 1863. Böhmer’s historical work was chiefly concerned with collecting and tabulating charters and other imperial documents of the middle ages. First appeared an abstract, theRegesta chronologico-diplomatica regum atque imperatorum Romanorum 911-1313(Frankfort, 1831), which was followed by theRegesta chronologico-diplomatica Karolorum. Die Urkunden sämtlicher Karolinger in kurzen Auszügen(Frankfort, 1833), and a series ofRegesta imperii. For the period 1314-1347 (Frankfort, 1839) theRegestawas followed by three, and for the period 1246-1313 (Frankfort, 1844) by two supplementary volumes. The remaining period of theRegesta, as edited by Böhmer, is 1198-1254 (Stuttgart, 1849). These collections contain introductions and explanatory passages by the author. Very valuable also is theFontes rerum Germanicarum(Stuttgart, 1843-1868), a collection of original authorities for German history during the 13th and 14th centuries. The fourth and last volume of this work was edited by A. Huber after the author’s death. Other collections edited by Böhmer are:Die Reichsgesetze 900-1400(Frankfort, 1832);Wittelsbachische Regesten von der Erwerbung des Herzogtums Bayern bis zu 1340(Stuttgart, 1854); andCodex diplomaticus Moeno-Francofurtanus. Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt(Frankfort, 1836; new edition by F. Law, 1901). Other volumes and editions of theRegesta imperii, edited by J. Ficker, E. Mühlbacher, E. Winkelmann and others, are largely based on Böhmer’s work. Böhmer left a great amount of unpublished material, and after his death two other works were published from his papers:Acta imperii selecta, edited by J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1870); andRegesta archiepiscoporum Maguntinensium, edited by C. Will (Innsbruck, 1877-1886).
See J. Janssen,J.F. Böhmers Leben, Briefe und kleinere Schriften(Freiburg, 1868).
See J. Janssen,J.F. Böhmers Leben, Briefe und kleinere Schriften(Freiburg, 1868).
BOHN, HENRY GEORGE(1796-1884), British publisher, son of a German bookbinder settled in England, was born in London on the 4th of January 1796. In 1831 he started as a dealer in rare books and “remainders.” In 1841 he issued his “Guinea” Catalogue of books, a monumental work containing 23,208 items. Bohn was noted for his book auction sales: one held in 1848 lasted four days, the catalogue comprising twenty folio pages. Printed on this catalogue was the information: “Dinner at 2 o’clock, dessert at 4, tea at 5, and supper at 10.” The name of Bohn is principally remembered by the importantLibrarieswhich he inaugurated: these were begun in 1846 and comprised editions of standard works and translations, dealing with history, science, classics, theology and archaeology, consisting in all of 766 volumes. One of Bohn’s most useful and laborious undertakings was his revision (6 vols. 1864) ofThe Bibliographer’s Manual of English Literature(1834) of W.T. Lowndes. The plan includes bibliographical and critical notices, particulars of prices, &c., and a considerable addition to the original work. It had been one of Bohn’s ambitions to found a great publishing house, but, finding that his sons had no taste for the trade, he sold theLibrariesin 1864 to Messrs. Bell and Daldy, afterwards G. Bell & Sons. Bohn was a man of wide culture and many interests. He himself made considerable contributions to hisLibraries: he collected pictures, china and ivories, and was a famous rose-grower. He died at Twickenham on the 22nd of August 1884.
BÖHTLINGK, OTTO VON(1815-1004) German Sanskrit scholar, was born on the 30th of May (11th of June O.S.) 1815 at St Petersburg. Having studied (1833-1835) Oriental languages, particularly Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, at the university of St Petersburg, he continued his studies in Germany, first in Berlin and then (1839-1842) in Bonn. Returning to St Petersburg in 1842, he was attached to the Royal Academy of Sciences, and was elected an ordinary member of that society in 1855. In 1860 he was made “Russian state councillor,” and later “privy councillor” with a title of nobility. In 1868 he settled at Jena, and in 1885 removed to Leipzig, where he resided until his death there on the 1st of April 1904. Böhtlingk was one of the most distinguished scholars of the 19th century, and his works are of pre-eminent value in the field of Indian and comparative philology. His first great work was an edition of Panini’sAcht Bücher grammatischer Regeln(Bonn, 1839-1840), which was in reality a criticism of Franz Bopp’s philological methods. This book Böhtlingk again took up forty-seven years later, when he republished it with a complete translation under the titlePaninis Grammatik mit Übersetzung(Leipzig, 1887). The earlier edition was followed byVopadevas Grammatik(St Petersburg, 1847);Über die Sprache der Jakuten(St Petersburg, 1851);Indische Spruche(2nd ed. in 3 parts, St Petersburg, 1870-1873, to which an index was published by Blau, Leipzig, 1893); a critical examination and translation ofChhandogya-upanishad (St Petersburg, 1889) and a translation of Brihadaranyaka-upanishad(St Petersburg, 1889). In addition to these he published several smaller treatises, notably one on the Sanskrit accents,Über den Accent im Sanskrit(1843). But hismagnum opusis his great Sanskrit dictionary,Sanskrit-Wörterbuch(7 vols., St Petersburg, 1853-1875; new ed. 7 vols., St Petersburg, 1879-1889), which with the assistance of his two friends, Rudolf Roth (1821-1895) and Albrecht Weber (b. 1825), was completed in twenty-three years.
BOHUN,the name of a family which plays an important part in English history during the 13th and 14th centuries; it was taken from a village situated in the Cotentin between Coutances and the estuary of the Vire. The Bohuns came into England at, or shortly after, the Norman Conquest; but their early history there is obscure. The founder of their greatness was Humphrey III., who in the latter years of Henry I., makes his appearance as adapifer, or steward, in the royal household. He married the daughter of Milo of Gloucester, and played an ambiguous part in Stephen’s reign, siding at first with the king and afterwards with the empress. Humphrey III. lived until 1187, but his history is uneventful. He remained loyal to Henry II. through all changes, and fought in 1173 at Farnham against the rebels of East Anglia. Outliving his eldest son, Humphrey IV., he was succeeded in the family estates by his grandson Henry. Henry was connected with the royal house of Scotland through his mother Margaret, a sister of William the Lion; an alliance which no doubt assisted him to obtain the earldom of Hereford from John (1199). The lands of the family lay chiefly on the Welsh Marches, and from this date the Bohuns take a foremost place among the Marcher barons. Henry de Bohun figures with the earls of Clare and Gloucester among the twenty-five barons who were elected by their fellows to enforce the terms of the Great Charter. In the subsequent civil war he fought on the side of Louis, and was captured at the battle of Lincoln (1217). He took the cross in the same year and died on his pilgrimage (June 1, 1220). Humphrey V., his son and heir, returned to the path of loyalty, and was permitted, some time before 1239, to inherit the earldom of Essex from his maternal uncle, William de Mandeville. But in 1258 this Humphrey fell away, like his father, from the royal to the baronial cause. He served as a nominee of the opposition on the committee of twenty-four which was appointed, in the Oxford parliament of that year, to reform the administration. It was only the alliance of Montfort with Llewelyn of North Wales that brought the earl of Hereford back to his allegiance. Humphrey V. headed the first secession of the Welsh Marchers from the party of the opposition (1263), and was amongst the captives whom the Montfortians took at Lewes. The earl’s son and namesake was on the victorious side, and shared in the defeat of Evesham, which he did not long survive. Humphrey V. was, therefore, naturally selected as one of the twelve arbitrators to draw up the ban of Kenilworth (1266), by which the disinherited rebels were allowed to make their peace. Dying in 1275, he was succeeded by his grandson Humphrey VII. This Bohun lives in history as one of the recalcitrant barons of the year 1297, who extorted from Edward I. theConfirmatio Cartarum.The motives of the earl’s defiance were not altogether disinterested. He had suffered twice from the chicanery of Edward’s lawyers; in 1284 when a dispute between himself and the royal favourite, John Giffard, was decided in the latter’s favour; and again in 1292 when he was punished with temporary imprisonment and sequestration for a technical, and apparently unwitting, contempt of the king’s court. In company, therefore, with the earl of Norfolk he refused to render foreign service in Gascony, on the plea that they were only bound to serve with the king, who was himself bound for Flanders. Their attitude brought to a head the general discontent which Edward had excited by his arbitrary taxation; and Edward was obliged to make a surrender on all the subjects of complaint. At Falkirk (1298) Humphrey VII. redeemed his character for loyalty. His son, Humphrey VIII., who succeeded him in the same year, was allowed to marry one of the king’s daughters, Eleanor, the widowed countess of Holland (1302). This close connexion with the royal house did not prevent him, as it did not prevent Earl Thomas of Lancaster, from joining the opposition to the feeble Edward II. In 1310 Humphrey VIII. figured among the Lords Ordainers; though, with more patriotism than some of his fellow-commissioners, he afterwards followed the king to Bannockburn. He was taken captive in the battle, but exchanged for the wife of Robert Bruce. Subsequently he returned to the cause of his order, and fell on the side of Earl Thomas at the field of Boroughbridge (1322). With him, as with his father, the politics of the Marches had been the main consideration; his final change of side was due to jealousy of the younger Despenser, whose lordship of Glamorgan was too great for the comfort of the Bohuns in Brecon. With the death of Humphrey VIII. the fortunes of the family enter on a more peaceful stage. Earl John (d. 1335) was inconspicuous; Humphrey IX. (d. 1361) merely distinguished himself as a captain in the Breton campaigns of the Hundred Years’ War, winning the victories of Morlaix (1342) and La Roche Derrien (1347). His nephew and heir, Humphrey X., who inherited the earldom of Northampton from his father, was territorially the most important representative of the Bohuns. But the male line was extinguished by his death (1373). The three earldoms and the broad lands of the Bohuns were divided between two co-heiresses. Both married members of the royal house. The elder, Eleanor, was given in 1374 to Thomas of Woodstock, seventh son of Edward III.; the younger, Mary, to Henry, earl of Derby, son of John of Gaunt and afterwards Henry IV., in 1380 or 1381. From these two marriages sprang the houses of Lancaster and Stafford.
See J.E. Doyle’sOfficial Baronage of England(1886), theComplete Peerageof G. E. C(okayne), (1867-1898); T.F. Tout’s “Wales and the March during the Barons’ War,” in Owens College Historical Essays, pp. 87-136 (1902); J.E. Morris’Welsh Wars of King Edward I., chs. vi., viii. (1901).
See J.E. Doyle’sOfficial Baronage of England(1886), theComplete Peerageof G. E. C(okayne), (1867-1898); T.F. Tout’s “Wales and the March during the Barons’ War,” in Owens College Historical Essays, pp. 87-136 (1902); J.E. Morris’Welsh Wars of King Edward I., chs. vi., viii. (1901).
(H. W. C. D.)
BOIARDO, MATTEO MARIA,Count(1434-1404), Italian poet, who came of a noble and illustrious house established at Ferrara, but originally from Reggio, was born at Scandiano, one of the seignorial estates of his family, near Reggio di Modena, about the year 1434, according to Tiraboschi, or 1420 according to Mazzuchelli. At an early age he entered the university of Ferrara, where he acquired a good knowledge of Greek and Latin, and even of the Oriental languages, and was in due time admitted doctor in philosophy and in law. At the court of Ferrara, where he enjoyed the favour of Duke Borso d’Este and his successor Hercules, he was entrusted with several honourable employments, and in particular was named governor of Reggio, an appointment which he held in the year 1478. Three years afterwards he was elected captain of Modena, and reappointed governor of the town and citadel of Reggio, where he died in the year 1494, though in what month is uncertain.
Almost all Boiardo’s works, and especially his great poem of theOrlando Inamorato, were composed for the amusement of Duke Hercules and his court, though not written within its precincts. His practice, it is said, was to retire to Scandiano or some other of his estates, and there to devote himself to composition; and Castelvetro, Vallisnieri, Mazzuchelli and Tiraboschi all unite in stating that he took care to insert in the descriptions of his poem those of the agreeable environs of his chateau, and that the greater part of the names of his heroes, as Mandricardo, Gradasse, Sacripant, Agramant and others, were merely the names of some of his peasants, which, from their uncouthness, appeared to him proper to be given to Saracen warriors. Be this as it may, theOrlando Inamoratodeserves to be considered as one of the most important poems in Italian literature, since it forms the first example of the romantic epic worthy to serve as a model, and, as such, undoubtedly produced Ariosto’sOrlando Furioso. Gravina and Mazzuchell have said, and succeeding writers have repeated on their authority, that Boiardo proposed to himself as his model theIliadof Homer; that Paris is besieged like the city of Troy; that Angelica holds the place of Helen; and that, in short, the one poem is a sort of reflex image of the other. In point of fact, however, the subject-matter of the poem is derived from theFabulous Chronicleof the pseudo-Turpin; though, with the exception of the names of Charlemagne, Roland, Oliver, and some other principal warriors, who necessarily figure as important characters in the various scenes, there is little resemblance between the detailed plot of the one and that of the other. The poem, which Boiardo did not live to finish, was printed at Scandiano the year after his death, under the superintendence of his son Count Camillo. The title of the book is without date; but a Latin letter from Antonia Caraffa di Reggio, prefixed to the poem, is dated the kalends of June 1495. A second edition, also without date, but which must have been printed before the year 1500, appeared at Venice; and the poem was twice reprinted there during the first twenty years of the 16th century. These editions are the more curious and valuable since they contain nothing but the text of the author, which is comprised in three books, divided into cantos, the third book being incomplete. But Niccolo degli Agostini, an indifferent poet, had the courage to continue the work commenced by Boiardo, adding to it three books, which were printed at Venice in 1526-1531, in 4to; and since that time no edition of theOrlandohas been printed without the continuation of Agostini, wretched as it unquestionably is. Boiardo’s poem suffers from the incurable defect of a laboured and heavy style. His story is skilfully constructed, the characters are well drawn and sustained throughout; many of the incidents show a power and fertility of imagination not inferior to that of Ariosto, but the perfect workmanship indispensable for a great work of art is wanting. The poem in its original shape was not popular, and has been completely superseded by theRifacimentoof Francesco Berni (q.v.).
The other works of Boiardo are—(1)Il Timone, a comedy, Scandiano, 1500, 4to; (2)Sonnetti e Canzoni, Reggio, 1499, 4to; (3)Carmen Bucolicon, Reggio, 1500, 4to; (4)Cinque Capitoli in terza rima, Venice, 1523 or 1533; (5)Apulejo dell’ Asino d’Oro, Venice, 1516, 1518; (6)Asino d’Oro de Luciano tradolto in volgare, Venice, 1523, 8vo; (7)Erodoto Alicarnasseo istorico, tradotto di Greco in Lingua Italiana, Venice, 1533 and 1538, 8vo; (8)Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.