[239]Schafarik, CVII.[240]The expression ‘la terre que les Turcs tiennent’ is always used to designate Asia Minor in the opinion which the council of the French King Philippe de Valois gave concerning the route to be followed in the abortive crusade of 1332. See Archives Nationales, Paris, P. 2289, pp. 711-12.[241]See p. 97, and notes 3 and 4 on that page.[242]Quoted from the Cancelleria Secreta by Romanin, iv. 232.[243]This letter is reproduced by Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 309.[244]Greg., XXXVII. 52, p. 558; 59-63, pp. 561-3; 67-9, pp. 565-6; XXXVI. 6-8, pp. 504-9; Cant., IV. 44, p. 320.[245]The generally accepted date of Orkhan’s death is 1359 or 1360, following Ottoman sources. But Jireček, a careful and able scholar, p. 321, n. 10, is inclined to accept March 1362. There is great confusion about this period. I think that the Ottoman date is undoubtedly correct here.[246]‘Der eigentliche Begründer der osmanischen Macht war Orchan’, Fessler,Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 151.[247]Col. Djevad bey, p. 254.[248]Seadeddin, i. 80.[249]Seadeddin, i. 82; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 19.[250]But Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 672, who is followed by Leunclavius, says that Demotika was abandoned to Orkhan in November 1361.[251]Cf. marginal note in Barberini MS. of Pachymeres, cited by Muralt, ii. 663, No. 9.[252]Seadeddin, i. 84-5; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 22.[253]All the Ottoman historians.[254]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 25; Leunclavius,Annales, p. 30; Seadeddin, i. 85.[255]Muklis Abderrahman Efendy, quoted by Schéfer, in his edition of Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 170,n.3.[256]Seadeddin, i. 89; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 52.[257]Villani tells of its terrible ravages in 1360 ‘ricominciata in diversi paesi del mondo’, Muratori, xiv. 653, 688-90, 727.[258]Ibid., pp. 649-50. He declares that Murad had been ‘molte volte tentato di vincere Constantinopoli’.[259]Cf. Finlay, iv. 45, 169.[260]Seadeddin, i. 42. Hammer, i. 384-5, n. viii, says that Ottoman historians are unanimous in this assertion as against Byzantine sources. Col. Djevad bey, the modern Ottoman authority on military history, is disappointing and unconvincing in his discussion of this question. On p. 25 he gives 726 (1326) for the date, and on p. 78 730 (1329). He cites no sources, for there are none, and has to admit, p. 54, that Murad I made the laws for the janissaries. Among early European historians there is much divergency. Spandugino, p. 185, attributes their origin to Osman, and the name from the village of Sar: they are ‘the young men of Sar’. Ricaut, ed. 1682, p. 357, also attributes to Osman. Reineccius, influencing the Latin editor of Chalcocondylas (see ed. Migne, p. 26,n.11), makes Osman the founder, and derives the name from ‘Januae’: they are thecustodes corporis. Leuncl.,Pandectes, p. 129, discusses these theories without coming to any conclusion. Giovio, Geuffraeus, and Nicolay, p. 83, attribute origin to Murad II. Certainly it was not earlier than his day that the janissaries attracted attention in Europe. D’Ohsson, vii. 311, asserts that there was no definite organization until Mohammed II. Mignot, i. 119-20, is in favour of the theory that Murad I created this corps.[261]Seignobos, inHist. générale, ii. 334.[262]Col. Djevad bey, p. 251, says that Anatolian Christians were exempt to give time to recuperate ‘after the exhausting struggles of generations’. But exhausting struggles had been no less frequent and no less severe in the Balkan peninsula. Gibbon’s suggestion, that the levies were made in Europe because Moslem and Christian Anatolians were not apt for war, shows how completely the great English historian missed theraison d’êtreof the janissaries.[263]Hammer, i. 126.[264]Col. Djevad bey, p. 90.[265]Ibid.[266]Ibid., pp. 55-6; Ducas, p. 16; Leunel.,Annales, p. 34; Ricaut, pp. 358-9.[267]Lavallée, i. 190-1.[268]Phr., I. 26, p. 86; Chalc., I, p. 25. Cf. Michaud,Hist. des Croisades, v. 275.[269]Seadeddin, i. 91.[270]This colony was at Bigha. See Appendix B, p. 301.[271]Phr., I. 26, p. 80.[272]Katona, x. 393.[273]Chale., I, p. 30, and the chronicle of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240, confuse this battle with that of Cernomen, near the same place and with the same result, in 1370. But there were certainly two distinct battles. Louis of Hungary took part in the first, as is shown by the date recorded at Mariazell and by a diploma in Fejér,Cod. Dipl. Hung., 9epartie, vii. 212. Cf. Aschbach,Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds, I. 87. The account in Vambéry’sHungary, Story of Nations Series, p. 171, is wholly wrong.[274]Seadeddin, i. 94.[275]Miltitz, ii. Ièrepartie, 166.[276]Col. Djevad bey, p. 97,n.1; Engel,Geschichte Rag., p. 141; Hammer, i. 231, 405. But this was also Timur’s ordinary method of signing ordinances: cf. Shereffeddin, iv. 55. The document, with the marks of Murad’s hand, is preserved in the museum of the Communal Palace at Ragusa.[277]Villani, x. 30.[278]Cf. Hazlitt, iii. 216.[279]Urban V,Epp. secr.iv. 114.[280]‘Il le print por prisonnyer, et le destint a cause de ce que le roy de Bourgarye sy sestoit accorde et alyez secrettement avecques le turc’:Chronicques de Savoye, col. 300.[281]Cf. Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 325.[282]Cibrario,Storia di Savoya, iii. 193. But I have followed closely the account of the expedition as given in the anonymous French chronicle, cols. 299-319, inMonumenta Historiae Patriae, Turin, 1840, vol. i. There is a modern book by Datta. Cf. also Delaville le Roulx, i. 148 f.[283]Urban V,Epp. secr.iv. 124.[284]Ibid., iv. 240.[285]Greg., XXV. 17, p. 41.[286]Urban V,Epp. secr.ii. 230; Petrarch,Senilia, iv. 2.[287]‘Nescio enim an peius sit amisisse Hierusalem an ita Bizantion possidere. Ibi enim non agnoscitur Christus, hic neglegitur dum sic colitur.Illi(Turcae)hostes, hi scismatici peiores hostibus: illi aperte nostrum Imperium detractant: hi verbo Romanam ecclesiam matrem dicunt: cui quam devoti filii sint, quam humiliter Romani pontificis iussa suscipiant, tuus a te ille datus patriarcha testabitur.Illi minus nos oderunt quam minus metuunt. Isti autem totis nos visceribus et metuunt et oderunt.’Senilia, vol. vii.[288]In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and in the Church of the Holy Nativity, Bethlehem, anarchy—even bloodshed—is prevented only by the constant vigilance of the Ottoman military authorities. If one asks the Latin and Greek priests in Jerusalem, they will admit without shame that this statement is true.[289]Miklositch-Müller,Acta et diplomata graeca, CLXXXIV.[290]Epistolae secretae, vi. 1-10.[291]Ibid., vi. 3.[292]The date of this visit is certain from the formal act of abjuration, which is given in full in Raynaldus, ann. 1369, XI. Ducas, c. 11, and Chalc., I, p. 25, are in error in placing this voyage later. Berger de Xivrey,Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, xix, 2epartie, p. 35, suggests that the Byzantine historians have confused this voyage with that of Manuel, thirty years later.[293]Epp. secr., viii. 37, 38, 80.[294]By an encyclical:Epp. secr., viii. 4. Cf. also his letters to the doges of Venice and Genoa, ibid., p. 24.[295]Ibid., viii. 55.[296]Phr., I. 22, pp. 52-3; Chalc., I, pp. 50-1; Morosini, p. 13.[297]Phr., I. 11, p. 46.[298]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.iii. 36, 58.[299]Chalc., I, pp. 51-2.[300]Raynaldus, ann. 1371, VIII.[301]Epp. secr., ii. 32, 87. Similar letter to Louis in December 1375, ibid. v. 46. Other letters reprinted in Fejér, 9epartie, iv. 583 4; v. 54-6; vi. 155-6.[302]Bernino, pp. 15-20.[303]Fejér, 9epartie, iv. 427-8.[304]Ibid., v. 52-3.[305]Rymer,Acta Publica, III, part 3, pp. 38-40.[306]On December 12, 1374, Gregory XI wrote to John from Avignon, predicting that his ‘alliance with Murad’ would bring about the destruction of the empire:Epistolae secretae, iv. 68.[307]Raynaldus, ann. 1378, XIX.[308]Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 317.[309]Cant. IV, 50, pp. 362-3.[310]Although Engel says 1353, others 1356, and the Rumanian chronicle 1371, there can be no question that 1365 is the correct date; for both Byzantine and Ottoman historians speak of Alexander as Bulgarian Czar in 1364, and do not mention him later, while Sisman and his brothers come immediately into prominence.[311]Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 93.[312]Orbini, pp. 472-3.[313]Bonfinius, II. 10.[314]Fessler,Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 152.[315]Wadding,Annales minorum, ann. 1369, XI.[316]Epp. secr., VI. 131, 136.[317]Called Ishebol by the Ottoman historians.[318]By the second division of the Ottoman army under Timurtash. Murad himself had captured Sozopolis. Cf. Jireček, p. 326.[319]Seadeddin, i. 104. He does not give the name of the Serbian kral.[320]The peasantry around Samakov will point out to you the ridge, south-east of the modern town, over which he vanished. They believe that Sisman haunts the foothills of the Rhodope mountains, and rides headless in the night down into the plain. This tradition, and the statement of Ducange, viii. 289, that Sisman died in 1373 in Naples, makes possible the theory that there were three successive Sismans connected with the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.[321]Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 38.[322]von Kállay,Geschichte der Serben, i. 152.[323]Ibid., i. 152-9; Jireček, op. cit., 319-20; Ljubić,Monumenta spect. ad hist. Slav. merid., iv. 189.[324]Cant. IV., 50, pp. 360-2; Müller,Chron. Byz., under 1364.[325]Miklositch,Acta Serbica, CLIII.[326]Ibid., CLX.[327]Sons of a poor Dalmatian nobleman: Ducange,Familiae Byz.viii. 294.[328]At Ipek, with an independent patriarch: Engel,Geschichte von Serbien, p. 279.[329]Miklositch-Müller,Acta gr., CLXII; MS. Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., No. 47, fol. 290.[330]Ibid., CLX; ibid., fol. 286.[331]Orbini, p. 275.[332]Engel, op. cit., pp. 321 f. For documented details, Müller, ed.Byz. Analekten, pp. 359-64, 405-6, based on Vienna MS. referred to above.[333]Now called Cermen or Tchirman.[334]Svilengrad, now the frontier station of Bulgaria, was known from 1361 to 1913 as Mustapha Pasha. Before the recent Balkan war, it was the frontier railway station of Turkey.[335]But there were certainly two distinct battles here, in 1363 and in 1371. See p. 124,n.2, above.[336]Ducange, op. cit., p. 294; Bialloblotszky’s translation of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240; Klaić, p. 199; Jireček, pp. 329-30. Zinkeisen, i. 224, confuses this battle with the one fought in 1363.[337]In Miklositch,Chrestomathia palaeoslav., p. 77.[338]Phr., I. 26, p. 80, gives the capture of these cities in the same campaign as that in which Monastir was acquired, with 1386 as date. But the Serbian chronicles are so explicit here that we can follow them without hesitation, especially as they are seconded by the Ottoman historians. Cf. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 229.[339]Pope Gregory XI, writing to Louis of Hungary, May 14, 1372, informed him that the Osmanlis had conquered some parts of Greece, ‘subactis quibusdam magnatibus Rasciae, tum in eis dominantibus’. Rascia was Servia. Theiner,Monumenta Hungarica, ii. 115.[340]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.ii. 32-3.[341]According to Amilhau and Jireček, who rely on Reynaldus, ann. 1364, XXVIII, this first invasion of the Greek peninsula took place in 1363. But the Turks referred to in that year, probably of the perennial corsair type, could not have been Osmanlis. They were from Aïdin or Sarukhan.[342]Klaić,Geschichte Bosniens, p. 200.[343]Hammer, i. 242, 409, places the first relations of Lazar with Murad after the fall of Nish, which he erroneously puts in 1376. See below, p. 161,n.3.[344]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.iii. 42.[345]June 15, 1373: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 176.[346]Ducas, 12, pp. 43-4; Phr., I. 11, pp. 49-50.[347]Chalc., I, pp. 42-3. But Murad, according to the Collection of Feridun, when he wrote to the Prince of Karamania, stated that Saoudji had been conquered in a pitched battle: MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 30.[348]Letter just cited; Chalc., I, pp. 44-5; Phr., I. 12, p. 51. Saoudji is called Kontouz by Ducas, Mosis by Phrantzes, and Saouzis by Chalcocondylas. I cannot find the reading Siaous which Hammer, i. 412, andn.lix, attributes to Chalcocondylas.[349]Chalc., I, p. 46; II, p. 69; Phr., I. 12, p. 51; Duc., 12, p. 44.[350]Canale, ii. 16.[351]Clavijo de Gonzáles, 15 vº and 16 rº.[352]So Phrantzes thinks, I. 12, p. 51: ταύτην ὠμότητα καὶ ἀπανθρωπίαν ὁ ’Αμουράτης ἐποίησεν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ πάντα καλῶς πολιτευόμενος.[353]Chalc., I, pp. 46-7; Phr., I. 11, pp. 47-9.[354]Romanin, iii. 255. This project, according to Cicogna,Istoria di Venezia, vi. 95, was first broached to John at the time of his visit to Venice in 1370.[355]Raynaldus, ann. 1376, XXIII.[356]Epp. secr., vi. 236.[357]Ducas, 12, p. 45.[358]Caresino, in Muratori, xii.[359]Ducas, 12, p. 45; Chalc., II, p. 63; and Phr., I. 13, p. 54, say that Bayezid had given him 1,000 men, and had often advised him to have his father and brothers assassinated. Cf. Muralt, ii. 706.[360]Sauli, ii. 57.[361]Quirino,Vita di Zeno, cited by Muralt, ii. 707, Nos. 6-9.[362]Ducas, 12, p. 45.[363]The fortunes of Salonika at this period are obscure. See p. 231, below.[364]Chalc., II, p. 63; Phr., I. 13, pp. 55-6.[365]Chalc., II, p. 64. But Ducas, 4, p. 19, says that Bayezid captured this city.[366]Bonlinius, II. 10; Sanudo,Vite de’ Duchi, in Muratori, xxii, col. 680.[367]An excellent brief account of this war is found in Wiel’sStory of Venice, pp. 227-37.[368]The Genoese forced John V to make peace with Andronicus in November 1382: Sauli, ii. 260.[369]Cicogna, op. cit., vi. 97; Romanin, iii. 301.[370]Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, fol. 1852; Evliya effendi, ii. 229.[371]The testimony of Ibn Batutah, who travelled extensively among the Turks in Anatolia, southern Russia, and elsewhere between 1325 and 1340, is conclusive on this point. ‘Whenever we stopped in a house of this country (Anatolia), our neighbours of both sexes took care of us:the women were not veiled...’: ii. 256. ‘I was witness of a remarkable thing, that is, of the consideration which the women enjoy among the Turks: they hold, in fact, a rank more elevated than that of the men.... As for the women of the lower classes, I have seen them also. One of them will be, for example, in a cart drawn by horses. Near her will be three or four young girls.... The windows of the cart will be open and you can see the women’s faces:for the women of the Turks are not veiled.... Often the woman is accompanied by her husband, whom whoever sees him takes for one of her servants’: ii. 377-9. No student can have any doubt whatever upon the position of Turkish women during the fourteenth century. As among all vigorous peoples, the women of the Osmanlis held a high place, and were never secluded. It was not until Murad II that even the sovereign had a harem. The Moslem conception of the inferiority of women was not prevalent among the Osmanlis until after the reign of Soleiman the Magnificent. Immediately it became prevalent, the race began its decline.So universal did veiling become in the seventeenth century that it was adopted by Christian and Jewish women in Turkey as well. See Père Febre,Théâtre de la Turquie(1682), pp. 164-5. Père Febre spoke from personal experience ‘dans la plupart des lieux de la Turquie’.[372]Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 96.[373]Historia epirotica, Bonn ed., p. 228.[374]Ibid., pp. 230-1.[375]Ducange, viii. 292.[376]Jireček, op. cit., 340.[377]Misti, XL. 154.[378]See below, p. 203.[379]Silvestre de Sacy, inMém. de l’Acad. des Inscript., vii. 327-34. But the commandant could hardly have been carried by his falconer in such a fashion as far as Philippopolis. The Ottoman historians probably forgot that Ishtiman, at the mouth of the pass, on the road to Philippopolis from Sofia, contained an Ottoman garrison.
[239]Schafarik, CVII.
[239]Schafarik, CVII.
[240]The expression ‘la terre que les Turcs tiennent’ is always used to designate Asia Minor in the opinion which the council of the French King Philippe de Valois gave concerning the route to be followed in the abortive crusade of 1332. See Archives Nationales, Paris, P. 2289, pp. 711-12.
[240]The expression ‘la terre que les Turcs tiennent’ is always used to designate Asia Minor in the opinion which the council of the French King Philippe de Valois gave concerning the route to be followed in the abortive crusade of 1332. See Archives Nationales, Paris, P. 2289, pp. 711-12.
[241]See p. 97, and notes 3 and 4 on that page.
[241]See p. 97, and notes 3 and 4 on that page.
[242]Quoted from the Cancelleria Secreta by Romanin, iv. 232.
[242]Quoted from the Cancelleria Secreta by Romanin, iv. 232.
[243]This letter is reproduced by Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 309.
[243]This letter is reproduced by Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 309.
[244]Greg., XXXVII. 52, p. 558; 59-63, pp. 561-3; 67-9, pp. 565-6; XXXVI. 6-8, pp. 504-9; Cant., IV. 44, p. 320.
[244]Greg., XXXVII. 52, p. 558; 59-63, pp. 561-3; 67-9, pp. 565-6; XXXVI. 6-8, pp. 504-9; Cant., IV. 44, p. 320.
[245]The generally accepted date of Orkhan’s death is 1359 or 1360, following Ottoman sources. But Jireček, a careful and able scholar, p. 321, n. 10, is inclined to accept March 1362. There is great confusion about this period. I think that the Ottoman date is undoubtedly correct here.
[245]The generally accepted date of Orkhan’s death is 1359 or 1360, following Ottoman sources. But Jireček, a careful and able scholar, p. 321, n. 10, is inclined to accept March 1362. There is great confusion about this period. I think that the Ottoman date is undoubtedly correct here.
[246]‘Der eigentliche Begründer der osmanischen Macht war Orchan’, Fessler,Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 151.
[246]‘Der eigentliche Begründer der osmanischen Macht war Orchan’, Fessler,Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 151.
[247]Col. Djevad bey, p. 254.
[247]Col. Djevad bey, p. 254.
[248]Seadeddin, i. 80.
[248]Seadeddin, i. 80.
[249]Seadeddin, i. 82; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 19.
[249]Seadeddin, i. 82; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 19.
[250]But Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 672, who is followed by Leunclavius, says that Demotika was abandoned to Orkhan in November 1361.
[250]But Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 672, who is followed by Leunclavius, says that Demotika was abandoned to Orkhan in November 1361.
[251]Cf. marginal note in Barberini MS. of Pachymeres, cited by Muralt, ii. 663, No. 9.
[251]Cf. marginal note in Barberini MS. of Pachymeres, cited by Muralt, ii. 663, No. 9.
[252]Seadeddin, i. 84-5; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 22.
[252]Seadeddin, i. 84-5; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 22.
[253]All the Ottoman historians.
[253]All the Ottoman historians.
[254]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 25; Leunclavius,Annales, p. 30; Seadeddin, i. 85.
[254]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 25; Leunclavius,Annales, p. 30; Seadeddin, i. 85.
[255]Muklis Abderrahman Efendy, quoted by Schéfer, in his edition of Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 170,n.3.
[255]Muklis Abderrahman Efendy, quoted by Schéfer, in his edition of Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 170,n.3.
[256]Seadeddin, i. 89; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 52.
[256]Seadeddin, i. 89; Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 52.
[257]Villani tells of its terrible ravages in 1360 ‘ricominciata in diversi paesi del mondo’, Muratori, xiv. 653, 688-90, 727.
[257]Villani tells of its terrible ravages in 1360 ‘ricominciata in diversi paesi del mondo’, Muratori, xiv. 653, 688-90, 727.
[258]Ibid., pp. 649-50. He declares that Murad had been ‘molte volte tentato di vincere Constantinopoli’.
[258]Ibid., pp. 649-50. He declares that Murad had been ‘molte volte tentato di vincere Constantinopoli’.
[259]Cf. Finlay, iv. 45, 169.
[259]Cf. Finlay, iv. 45, 169.
[260]Seadeddin, i. 42. Hammer, i. 384-5, n. viii, says that Ottoman historians are unanimous in this assertion as against Byzantine sources. Col. Djevad bey, the modern Ottoman authority on military history, is disappointing and unconvincing in his discussion of this question. On p. 25 he gives 726 (1326) for the date, and on p. 78 730 (1329). He cites no sources, for there are none, and has to admit, p. 54, that Murad I made the laws for the janissaries. Among early European historians there is much divergency. Spandugino, p. 185, attributes their origin to Osman, and the name from the village of Sar: they are ‘the young men of Sar’. Ricaut, ed. 1682, p. 357, also attributes to Osman. Reineccius, influencing the Latin editor of Chalcocondylas (see ed. Migne, p. 26,n.11), makes Osman the founder, and derives the name from ‘Januae’: they are thecustodes corporis. Leuncl.,Pandectes, p. 129, discusses these theories without coming to any conclusion. Giovio, Geuffraeus, and Nicolay, p. 83, attribute origin to Murad II. Certainly it was not earlier than his day that the janissaries attracted attention in Europe. D’Ohsson, vii. 311, asserts that there was no definite organization until Mohammed II. Mignot, i. 119-20, is in favour of the theory that Murad I created this corps.
[260]Seadeddin, i. 42. Hammer, i. 384-5, n. viii, says that Ottoman historians are unanimous in this assertion as against Byzantine sources. Col. Djevad bey, the modern Ottoman authority on military history, is disappointing and unconvincing in his discussion of this question. On p. 25 he gives 726 (1326) for the date, and on p. 78 730 (1329). He cites no sources, for there are none, and has to admit, p. 54, that Murad I made the laws for the janissaries. Among early European historians there is much divergency. Spandugino, p. 185, attributes their origin to Osman, and the name from the village of Sar: they are ‘the young men of Sar’. Ricaut, ed. 1682, p. 357, also attributes to Osman. Reineccius, influencing the Latin editor of Chalcocondylas (see ed. Migne, p. 26,n.11), makes Osman the founder, and derives the name from ‘Januae’: they are thecustodes corporis. Leuncl.,Pandectes, p. 129, discusses these theories without coming to any conclusion. Giovio, Geuffraeus, and Nicolay, p. 83, attribute origin to Murad II. Certainly it was not earlier than his day that the janissaries attracted attention in Europe. D’Ohsson, vii. 311, asserts that there was no definite organization until Mohammed II. Mignot, i. 119-20, is in favour of the theory that Murad I created this corps.
[261]Seignobos, inHist. générale, ii. 334.
[261]Seignobos, inHist. générale, ii. 334.
[262]Col. Djevad bey, p. 251, says that Anatolian Christians were exempt to give time to recuperate ‘after the exhausting struggles of generations’. But exhausting struggles had been no less frequent and no less severe in the Balkan peninsula. Gibbon’s suggestion, that the levies were made in Europe because Moslem and Christian Anatolians were not apt for war, shows how completely the great English historian missed theraison d’êtreof the janissaries.
[262]Col. Djevad bey, p. 251, says that Anatolian Christians were exempt to give time to recuperate ‘after the exhausting struggles of generations’. But exhausting struggles had been no less frequent and no less severe in the Balkan peninsula. Gibbon’s suggestion, that the levies were made in Europe because Moslem and Christian Anatolians were not apt for war, shows how completely the great English historian missed theraison d’êtreof the janissaries.
[263]Hammer, i. 126.
[263]Hammer, i. 126.
[264]Col. Djevad bey, p. 90.
[264]Col. Djevad bey, p. 90.
[265]Ibid.
[265]Ibid.
[266]Ibid., pp. 55-6; Ducas, p. 16; Leunel.,Annales, p. 34; Ricaut, pp. 358-9.
[266]Ibid., pp. 55-6; Ducas, p. 16; Leunel.,Annales, p. 34; Ricaut, pp. 358-9.
[267]Lavallée, i. 190-1.
[267]Lavallée, i. 190-1.
[268]Phr., I. 26, p. 86; Chalc., I, p. 25. Cf. Michaud,Hist. des Croisades, v. 275.
[268]Phr., I. 26, p. 86; Chalc., I, p. 25. Cf. Michaud,Hist. des Croisades, v. 275.
[269]Seadeddin, i. 91.
[269]Seadeddin, i. 91.
[270]This colony was at Bigha. See Appendix B, p. 301.
[270]This colony was at Bigha. See Appendix B, p. 301.
[271]Phr., I. 26, p. 80.
[271]Phr., I. 26, p. 80.
[272]Katona, x. 393.
[272]Katona, x. 393.
[273]Chale., I, p. 30, and the chronicle of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240, confuse this battle with that of Cernomen, near the same place and with the same result, in 1370. But there were certainly two distinct battles. Louis of Hungary took part in the first, as is shown by the date recorded at Mariazell and by a diploma in Fejér,Cod. Dipl. Hung., 9epartie, vii. 212. Cf. Aschbach,Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds, I. 87. The account in Vambéry’sHungary, Story of Nations Series, p. 171, is wholly wrong.
[273]Chale., I, p. 30, and the chronicle of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240, confuse this battle with that of Cernomen, near the same place and with the same result, in 1370. But there were certainly two distinct battles. Louis of Hungary took part in the first, as is shown by the date recorded at Mariazell and by a diploma in Fejér,Cod. Dipl. Hung., 9epartie, vii. 212. Cf. Aschbach,Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds, I. 87. The account in Vambéry’sHungary, Story of Nations Series, p. 171, is wholly wrong.
[274]Seadeddin, i. 94.
[274]Seadeddin, i. 94.
[275]Miltitz, ii. Ièrepartie, 166.
[275]Miltitz, ii. Ièrepartie, 166.
[276]Col. Djevad bey, p. 97,n.1; Engel,Geschichte Rag., p. 141; Hammer, i. 231, 405. But this was also Timur’s ordinary method of signing ordinances: cf. Shereffeddin, iv. 55. The document, with the marks of Murad’s hand, is preserved in the museum of the Communal Palace at Ragusa.
[276]Col. Djevad bey, p. 97,n.1; Engel,Geschichte Rag., p. 141; Hammer, i. 231, 405. But this was also Timur’s ordinary method of signing ordinances: cf. Shereffeddin, iv. 55. The document, with the marks of Murad’s hand, is preserved in the museum of the Communal Palace at Ragusa.
[277]Villani, x. 30.
[277]Villani, x. 30.
[278]Cf. Hazlitt, iii. 216.
[278]Cf. Hazlitt, iii. 216.
[279]Urban V,Epp. secr.iv. 114.
[279]Urban V,Epp. secr.iv. 114.
[280]‘Il le print por prisonnyer, et le destint a cause de ce que le roy de Bourgarye sy sestoit accorde et alyez secrettement avecques le turc’:Chronicques de Savoye, col. 300.
[280]‘Il le print por prisonnyer, et le destint a cause de ce que le roy de Bourgarye sy sestoit accorde et alyez secrettement avecques le turc’:Chronicques de Savoye, col. 300.
[281]Cf. Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 325.
[281]Cf. Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 325.
[282]Cibrario,Storia di Savoya, iii. 193. But I have followed closely the account of the expedition as given in the anonymous French chronicle, cols. 299-319, inMonumenta Historiae Patriae, Turin, 1840, vol. i. There is a modern book by Datta. Cf. also Delaville le Roulx, i. 148 f.
[282]Cibrario,Storia di Savoya, iii. 193. But I have followed closely the account of the expedition as given in the anonymous French chronicle, cols. 299-319, inMonumenta Historiae Patriae, Turin, 1840, vol. i. There is a modern book by Datta. Cf. also Delaville le Roulx, i. 148 f.
[283]Urban V,Epp. secr.iv. 124.
[283]Urban V,Epp. secr.iv. 124.
[284]Ibid., iv. 240.
[284]Ibid., iv. 240.
[285]Greg., XXV. 17, p. 41.
[285]Greg., XXV. 17, p. 41.
[286]Urban V,Epp. secr.ii. 230; Petrarch,Senilia, iv. 2.
[286]Urban V,Epp. secr.ii. 230; Petrarch,Senilia, iv. 2.
[287]‘Nescio enim an peius sit amisisse Hierusalem an ita Bizantion possidere. Ibi enim non agnoscitur Christus, hic neglegitur dum sic colitur.Illi(Turcae)hostes, hi scismatici peiores hostibus: illi aperte nostrum Imperium detractant: hi verbo Romanam ecclesiam matrem dicunt: cui quam devoti filii sint, quam humiliter Romani pontificis iussa suscipiant, tuus a te ille datus patriarcha testabitur.Illi minus nos oderunt quam minus metuunt. Isti autem totis nos visceribus et metuunt et oderunt.’Senilia, vol. vii.
[287]‘Nescio enim an peius sit amisisse Hierusalem an ita Bizantion possidere. Ibi enim non agnoscitur Christus, hic neglegitur dum sic colitur.Illi(Turcae)hostes, hi scismatici peiores hostibus: illi aperte nostrum Imperium detractant: hi verbo Romanam ecclesiam matrem dicunt: cui quam devoti filii sint, quam humiliter Romani pontificis iussa suscipiant, tuus a te ille datus patriarcha testabitur.Illi minus nos oderunt quam minus metuunt. Isti autem totis nos visceribus et metuunt et oderunt.’Senilia, vol. vii.
[288]In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and in the Church of the Holy Nativity, Bethlehem, anarchy—even bloodshed—is prevented only by the constant vigilance of the Ottoman military authorities. If one asks the Latin and Greek priests in Jerusalem, they will admit without shame that this statement is true.
[288]In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and in the Church of the Holy Nativity, Bethlehem, anarchy—even bloodshed—is prevented only by the constant vigilance of the Ottoman military authorities. If one asks the Latin and Greek priests in Jerusalem, they will admit without shame that this statement is true.
[289]Miklositch-Müller,Acta et diplomata graeca, CLXXXIV.
[289]Miklositch-Müller,Acta et diplomata graeca, CLXXXIV.
[290]Epistolae secretae, vi. 1-10.
[290]Epistolae secretae, vi. 1-10.
[291]Ibid., vi. 3.
[291]Ibid., vi. 3.
[292]The date of this visit is certain from the formal act of abjuration, which is given in full in Raynaldus, ann. 1369, XI. Ducas, c. 11, and Chalc., I, p. 25, are in error in placing this voyage later. Berger de Xivrey,Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, xix, 2epartie, p. 35, suggests that the Byzantine historians have confused this voyage with that of Manuel, thirty years later.
[292]The date of this visit is certain from the formal act of abjuration, which is given in full in Raynaldus, ann. 1369, XI. Ducas, c. 11, and Chalc., I, p. 25, are in error in placing this voyage later. Berger de Xivrey,Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, xix, 2epartie, p. 35, suggests that the Byzantine historians have confused this voyage with that of Manuel, thirty years later.
[293]Epp. secr., viii. 37, 38, 80.
[293]Epp. secr., viii. 37, 38, 80.
[294]By an encyclical:Epp. secr., viii. 4. Cf. also his letters to the doges of Venice and Genoa, ibid., p. 24.
[294]By an encyclical:Epp. secr., viii. 4. Cf. also his letters to the doges of Venice and Genoa, ibid., p. 24.
[295]Ibid., viii. 55.
[295]Ibid., viii. 55.
[296]Phr., I. 22, pp. 52-3; Chalc., I, pp. 50-1; Morosini, p. 13.
[296]Phr., I. 22, pp. 52-3; Chalc., I, pp. 50-1; Morosini, p. 13.
[297]Phr., I. 11, p. 46.
[297]Phr., I. 11, p. 46.
[298]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.iii. 36, 58.
[298]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.iii. 36, 58.
[299]Chalc., I, pp. 51-2.
[299]Chalc., I, pp. 51-2.
[300]Raynaldus, ann. 1371, VIII.
[300]Raynaldus, ann. 1371, VIII.
[301]Epp. secr., ii. 32, 87. Similar letter to Louis in December 1375, ibid. v. 46. Other letters reprinted in Fejér, 9epartie, iv. 583 4; v. 54-6; vi. 155-6.
[301]Epp. secr., ii. 32, 87. Similar letter to Louis in December 1375, ibid. v. 46. Other letters reprinted in Fejér, 9epartie, iv. 583 4; v. 54-6; vi. 155-6.
[302]Bernino, pp. 15-20.
[302]Bernino, pp. 15-20.
[303]Fejér, 9epartie, iv. 427-8.
[303]Fejér, 9epartie, iv. 427-8.
[304]Ibid., v. 52-3.
[304]Ibid., v. 52-3.
[305]Rymer,Acta Publica, III, part 3, pp. 38-40.
[305]Rymer,Acta Publica, III, part 3, pp. 38-40.
[306]On December 12, 1374, Gregory XI wrote to John from Avignon, predicting that his ‘alliance with Murad’ would bring about the destruction of the empire:Epistolae secretae, iv. 68.
[306]On December 12, 1374, Gregory XI wrote to John from Avignon, predicting that his ‘alliance with Murad’ would bring about the destruction of the empire:Epistolae secretae, iv. 68.
[307]Raynaldus, ann. 1378, XIX.
[307]Raynaldus, ann. 1378, XIX.
[308]Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 317.
[308]Jireček,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 317.
[309]Cant. IV, 50, pp. 362-3.
[309]Cant. IV, 50, pp. 362-3.
[310]Although Engel says 1353, others 1356, and the Rumanian chronicle 1371, there can be no question that 1365 is the correct date; for both Byzantine and Ottoman historians speak of Alexander as Bulgarian Czar in 1364, and do not mention him later, while Sisman and his brothers come immediately into prominence.
[310]Although Engel says 1353, others 1356, and the Rumanian chronicle 1371, there can be no question that 1365 is the correct date; for both Byzantine and Ottoman historians speak of Alexander as Bulgarian Czar in 1364, and do not mention him later, while Sisman and his brothers come immediately into prominence.
[311]Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 93.
[311]Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 93.
[312]Orbini, pp. 472-3.
[312]Orbini, pp. 472-3.
[313]Bonfinius, II. 10.
[313]Bonfinius, II. 10.
[314]Fessler,Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 152.
[314]Fessler,Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 152.
[315]Wadding,Annales minorum, ann. 1369, XI.
[315]Wadding,Annales minorum, ann. 1369, XI.
[316]Epp. secr., VI. 131, 136.
[316]Epp. secr., VI. 131, 136.
[317]Called Ishebol by the Ottoman historians.
[317]Called Ishebol by the Ottoman historians.
[318]By the second division of the Ottoman army under Timurtash. Murad himself had captured Sozopolis. Cf. Jireček, p. 326.
[318]By the second division of the Ottoman army under Timurtash. Murad himself had captured Sozopolis. Cf. Jireček, p. 326.
[319]Seadeddin, i. 104. He does not give the name of the Serbian kral.
[319]Seadeddin, i. 104. He does not give the name of the Serbian kral.
[320]The peasantry around Samakov will point out to you the ridge, south-east of the modern town, over which he vanished. They believe that Sisman haunts the foothills of the Rhodope mountains, and rides headless in the night down into the plain. This tradition, and the statement of Ducange, viii. 289, that Sisman died in 1373 in Naples, makes possible the theory that there were three successive Sismans connected with the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.
[320]The peasantry around Samakov will point out to you the ridge, south-east of the modern town, over which he vanished. They believe that Sisman haunts the foothills of the Rhodope mountains, and rides headless in the night down into the plain. This tradition, and the statement of Ducange, viii. 289, that Sisman died in 1373 in Naples, makes possible the theory that there were three successive Sismans connected with the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.
[321]Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 38.
[321]Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 38.
[322]von Kállay,Geschichte der Serben, i. 152.
[322]von Kállay,Geschichte der Serben, i. 152.
[323]Ibid., i. 152-9; Jireček, op. cit., 319-20; Ljubić,Monumenta spect. ad hist. Slav. merid., iv. 189.
[323]Ibid., i. 152-9; Jireček, op. cit., 319-20; Ljubić,Monumenta spect. ad hist. Slav. merid., iv. 189.
[324]Cant. IV., 50, pp. 360-2; Müller,Chron. Byz., under 1364.
[324]Cant. IV., 50, pp. 360-2; Müller,Chron. Byz., under 1364.
[325]Miklositch,Acta Serbica, CLIII.
[325]Miklositch,Acta Serbica, CLIII.
[326]Ibid., CLX.
[326]Ibid., CLX.
[327]Sons of a poor Dalmatian nobleman: Ducange,Familiae Byz.viii. 294.
[327]Sons of a poor Dalmatian nobleman: Ducange,Familiae Byz.viii. 294.
[328]At Ipek, with an independent patriarch: Engel,Geschichte von Serbien, p. 279.
[328]At Ipek, with an independent patriarch: Engel,Geschichte von Serbien, p. 279.
[329]Miklositch-Müller,Acta gr., CLXII; MS. Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., No. 47, fol. 290.
[329]Miklositch-Müller,Acta gr., CLXII; MS. Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., No. 47, fol. 290.
[330]Ibid., CLX; ibid., fol. 286.
[330]Ibid., CLX; ibid., fol. 286.
[331]Orbini, p. 275.
[331]Orbini, p. 275.
[332]Engel, op. cit., pp. 321 f. For documented details, Müller, ed.Byz. Analekten, pp. 359-64, 405-6, based on Vienna MS. referred to above.
[332]Engel, op. cit., pp. 321 f. For documented details, Müller, ed.Byz. Analekten, pp. 359-64, 405-6, based on Vienna MS. referred to above.
[333]Now called Cermen or Tchirman.
[333]Now called Cermen or Tchirman.
[334]Svilengrad, now the frontier station of Bulgaria, was known from 1361 to 1913 as Mustapha Pasha. Before the recent Balkan war, it was the frontier railway station of Turkey.
[334]Svilengrad, now the frontier station of Bulgaria, was known from 1361 to 1913 as Mustapha Pasha. Before the recent Balkan war, it was the frontier railway station of Turkey.
[335]But there were certainly two distinct battles here, in 1363 and in 1371. See p. 124,n.2, above.
[335]But there were certainly two distinct battles here, in 1363 and in 1371. See p. 124,n.2, above.
[336]Ducange, op. cit., p. 294; Bialloblotszky’s translation of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240; Klaić, p. 199; Jireček, pp. 329-30. Zinkeisen, i. 224, confuses this battle with the one fought in 1363.
[336]Ducange, op. cit., p. 294; Bialloblotszky’s translation of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240; Klaić, p. 199; Jireček, pp. 329-30. Zinkeisen, i. 224, confuses this battle with the one fought in 1363.
[337]In Miklositch,Chrestomathia palaeoslav., p. 77.
[337]In Miklositch,Chrestomathia palaeoslav., p. 77.
[338]Phr., I. 26, p. 80, gives the capture of these cities in the same campaign as that in which Monastir was acquired, with 1386 as date. But the Serbian chronicles are so explicit here that we can follow them without hesitation, especially as they are seconded by the Ottoman historians. Cf. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 229.
[338]Phr., I. 26, p. 80, gives the capture of these cities in the same campaign as that in which Monastir was acquired, with 1386 as date. But the Serbian chronicles are so explicit here that we can follow them without hesitation, especially as they are seconded by the Ottoman historians. Cf. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 229.
[339]Pope Gregory XI, writing to Louis of Hungary, May 14, 1372, informed him that the Osmanlis had conquered some parts of Greece, ‘subactis quibusdam magnatibus Rasciae, tum in eis dominantibus’. Rascia was Servia. Theiner,Monumenta Hungarica, ii. 115.
[339]Pope Gregory XI, writing to Louis of Hungary, May 14, 1372, informed him that the Osmanlis had conquered some parts of Greece, ‘subactis quibusdam magnatibus Rasciae, tum in eis dominantibus’. Rascia was Servia. Theiner,Monumenta Hungarica, ii. 115.
[340]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.ii. 32-3.
[340]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.ii. 32-3.
[341]According to Amilhau and Jireček, who rely on Reynaldus, ann. 1364, XXVIII, this first invasion of the Greek peninsula took place in 1363. But the Turks referred to in that year, probably of the perennial corsair type, could not have been Osmanlis. They were from Aïdin or Sarukhan.
[341]According to Amilhau and Jireček, who rely on Reynaldus, ann. 1364, XXVIII, this first invasion of the Greek peninsula took place in 1363. But the Turks referred to in that year, probably of the perennial corsair type, could not have been Osmanlis. They were from Aïdin or Sarukhan.
[342]Klaić,Geschichte Bosniens, p. 200.
[342]Klaić,Geschichte Bosniens, p. 200.
[343]Hammer, i. 242, 409, places the first relations of Lazar with Murad after the fall of Nish, which he erroneously puts in 1376. See below, p. 161,n.3.
[343]Hammer, i. 242, 409, places the first relations of Lazar with Murad after the fall of Nish, which he erroneously puts in 1376. See below, p. 161,n.3.
[344]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.iii. 42.
[344]Gregory XI,Epp. secr.iii. 42.
[345]June 15, 1373: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 176.
[345]June 15, 1373: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 176.
[346]Ducas, 12, pp. 43-4; Phr., I. 11, pp. 49-50.
[346]Ducas, 12, pp. 43-4; Phr., I. 11, pp. 49-50.
[347]Chalc., I, pp. 42-3. But Murad, according to the Collection of Feridun, when he wrote to the Prince of Karamania, stated that Saoudji had been conquered in a pitched battle: MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 30.
[347]Chalc., I, pp. 42-3. But Murad, according to the Collection of Feridun, when he wrote to the Prince of Karamania, stated that Saoudji had been conquered in a pitched battle: MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 30.
[348]Letter just cited; Chalc., I, pp. 44-5; Phr., I. 12, p. 51. Saoudji is called Kontouz by Ducas, Mosis by Phrantzes, and Saouzis by Chalcocondylas. I cannot find the reading Siaous which Hammer, i. 412, andn.lix, attributes to Chalcocondylas.
[348]Letter just cited; Chalc., I, pp. 44-5; Phr., I. 12, p. 51. Saoudji is called Kontouz by Ducas, Mosis by Phrantzes, and Saouzis by Chalcocondylas. I cannot find the reading Siaous which Hammer, i. 412, andn.lix, attributes to Chalcocondylas.
[349]Chalc., I, p. 46; II, p. 69; Phr., I. 12, p. 51; Duc., 12, p. 44.
[349]Chalc., I, p. 46; II, p. 69; Phr., I. 12, p. 51; Duc., 12, p. 44.
[350]Canale, ii. 16.
[350]Canale, ii. 16.
[351]Clavijo de Gonzáles, 15 vº and 16 rº.
[351]Clavijo de Gonzáles, 15 vº and 16 rº.
[352]So Phrantzes thinks, I. 12, p. 51: ταύτην ὠμότητα καὶ ἀπανθρωπίαν ὁ ’Αμουράτης ἐποίησεν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ πάντα καλῶς πολιτευόμενος.
[352]So Phrantzes thinks, I. 12, p. 51: ταύτην ὠμότητα καὶ ἀπανθρωπίαν ὁ ’Αμουράτης ἐποίησεν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ πάντα καλῶς πολιτευόμενος.
[353]Chalc., I, pp. 46-7; Phr., I. 11, pp. 47-9.
[353]Chalc., I, pp. 46-7; Phr., I. 11, pp. 47-9.
[354]Romanin, iii. 255. This project, according to Cicogna,Istoria di Venezia, vi. 95, was first broached to John at the time of his visit to Venice in 1370.
[354]Romanin, iii. 255. This project, according to Cicogna,Istoria di Venezia, vi. 95, was first broached to John at the time of his visit to Venice in 1370.
[355]Raynaldus, ann. 1376, XXIII.
[355]Raynaldus, ann. 1376, XXIII.
[356]Epp. secr., vi. 236.
[356]Epp. secr., vi. 236.
[357]Ducas, 12, p. 45.
[357]Ducas, 12, p. 45.
[358]Caresino, in Muratori, xii.
[358]Caresino, in Muratori, xii.
[359]Ducas, 12, p. 45; Chalc., II, p. 63; and Phr., I. 13, p. 54, say that Bayezid had given him 1,000 men, and had often advised him to have his father and brothers assassinated. Cf. Muralt, ii. 706.
[359]Ducas, 12, p. 45; Chalc., II, p. 63; and Phr., I. 13, p. 54, say that Bayezid had given him 1,000 men, and had often advised him to have his father and brothers assassinated. Cf. Muralt, ii. 706.
[360]Sauli, ii. 57.
[360]Sauli, ii. 57.
[361]Quirino,Vita di Zeno, cited by Muralt, ii. 707, Nos. 6-9.
[361]Quirino,Vita di Zeno, cited by Muralt, ii. 707, Nos. 6-9.
[362]Ducas, 12, p. 45.
[362]Ducas, 12, p. 45.
[363]The fortunes of Salonika at this period are obscure. See p. 231, below.
[363]The fortunes of Salonika at this period are obscure. See p. 231, below.
[364]Chalc., II, p. 63; Phr., I. 13, pp. 55-6.
[364]Chalc., II, p. 63; Phr., I. 13, pp. 55-6.
[365]Chalc., II, p. 64. But Ducas, 4, p. 19, says that Bayezid captured this city.
[365]Chalc., II, p. 64. But Ducas, 4, p. 19, says that Bayezid captured this city.
[366]Bonlinius, II. 10; Sanudo,Vite de’ Duchi, in Muratori, xxii, col. 680.
[366]Bonlinius, II. 10; Sanudo,Vite de’ Duchi, in Muratori, xxii, col. 680.
[367]An excellent brief account of this war is found in Wiel’sStory of Venice, pp. 227-37.
[367]An excellent brief account of this war is found in Wiel’sStory of Venice, pp. 227-37.
[368]The Genoese forced John V to make peace with Andronicus in November 1382: Sauli, ii. 260.
[368]The Genoese forced John V to make peace with Andronicus in November 1382: Sauli, ii. 260.
[369]Cicogna, op. cit., vi. 97; Romanin, iii. 301.
[369]Cicogna, op. cit., vi. 97; Romanin, iii. 301.
[370]Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, fol. 1852; Evliya effendi, ii. 229.
[370]Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, fol. 1852; Evliya effendi, ii. 229.
[371]The testimony of Ibn Batutah, who travelled extensively among the Turks in Anatolia, southern Russia, and elsewhere between 1325 and 1340, is conclusive on this point. ‘Whenever we stopped in a house of this country (Anatolia), our neighbours of both sexes took care of us:the women were not veiled...’: ii. 256. ‘I was witness of a remarkable thing, that is, of the consideration which the women enjoy among the Turks: they hold, in fact, a rank more elevated than that of the men.... As for the women of the lower classes, I have seen them also. One of them will be, for example, in a cart drawn by horses. Near her will be three or four young girls.... The windows of the cart will be open and you can see the women’s faces:for the women of the Turks are not veiled.... Often the woman is accompanied by her husband, whom whoever sees him takes for one of her servants’: ii. 377-9. No student can have any doubt whatever upon the position of Turkish women during the fourteenth century. As among all vigorous peoples, the women of the Osmanlis held a high place, and were never secluded. It was not until Murad II that even the sovereign had a harem. The Moslem conception of the inferiority of women was not prevalent among the Osmanlis until after the reign of Soleiman the Magnificent. Immediately it became prevalent, the race began its decline.So universal did veiling become in the seventeenth century that it was adopted by Christian and Jewish women in Turkey as well. See Père Febre,Théâtre de la Turquie(1682), pp. 164-5. Père Febre spoke from personal experience ‘dans la plupart des lieux de la Turquie’.
[371]The testimony of Ibn Batutah, who travelled extensively among the Turks in Anatolia, southern Russia, and elsewhere between 1325 and 1340, is conclusive on this point. ‘Whenever we stopped in a house of this country (Anatolia), our neighbours of both sexes took care of us:the women were not veiled...’: ii. 256. ‘I was witness of a remarkable thing, that is, of the consideration which the women enjoy among the Turks: they hold, in fact, a rank more elevated than that of the men.... As for the women of the lower classes, I have seen them also. One of them will be, for example, in a cart drawn by horses. Near her will be three or four young girls.... The windows of the cart will be open and you can see the women’s faces:for the women of the Turks are not veiled.... Often the woman is accompanied by her husband, whom whoever sees him takes for one of her servants’: ii. 377-9. No student can have any doubt whatever upon the position of Turkish women during the fourteenth century. As among all vigorous peoples, the women of the Osmanlis held a high place, and were never secluded. It was not until Murad II that even the sovereign had a harem. The Moslem conception of the inferiority of women was not prevalent among the Osmanlis until after the reign of Soleiman the Magnificent. Immediately it became prevalent, the race began its decline.
So universal did veiling become in the seventeenth century that it was adopted by Christian and Jewish women in Turkey as well. See Père Febre,Théâtre de la Turquie(1682), pp. 164-5. Père Febre spoke from personal experience ‘dans la plupart des lieux de la Turquie’.
[372]Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 96.
[372]Hadji Khalfa,Rumeli, p. 96.
[373]Historia epirotica, Bonn ed., p. 228.
[373]Historia epirotica, Bonn ed., p. 228.
[374]Ibid., pp. 230-1.
[374]Ibid., pp. 230-1.
[375]Ducange, viii. 292.
[375]Ducange, viii. 292.
[376]Jireček, op. cit., 340.
[376]Jireček, op. cit., 340.
[377]Misti, XL. 154.
[377]Misti, XL. 154.
[378]See below, p. 203.
[378]See below, p. 203.
[379]Silvestre de Sacy, inMém. de l’Acad. des Inscript., vii. 327-34. But the commandant could hardly have been carried by his falconer in such a fashion as far as Philippopolis. The Ottoman historians probably forgot that Ishtiman, at the mouth of the pass, on the road to Philippopolis from Sofia, contained an Ottoman garrison.
[379]Silvestre de Sacy, inMém. de l’Acad. des Inscript., vii. 327-34. But the commandant could hardly have been carried by his falconer in such a fashion as far as Philippopolis. The Ottoman historians probably forgot that Ishtiman, at the mouth of the pass, on the road to Philippopolis from Sofia, contained an Ottoman garrison.