century to the year 1110, has come down in two redactions: (1) the Laurentian Ms., written by Laurence of Souzdal in 1377, and (2) the Hypatian, written in the monastery of St. Hypatius at Kostroma in the 15th century. All other Mss. can be traced back to either of these two. In neither of them does the old chronicle stand alone; it is augmented by continuations which are independent.

The work was compiled apparently in the year 1114-1115,10 and it can be divided into two parts.11 (1) Caps. 1-12, without chronological arrangement. It is to this part alone that the title refers: "History of old times by the monk of the monastery of Theodosius Peshtcherski, of the making of Russia, and who reigned first at Kiev (cp. c. 6), and of the origin of the Russian land". (2) The rest of the works, chaps. 13-89, is arranged in the form of annals. It falls into three parts, indicated by the compiler in cap. 13. (a) Caps. 14-36, from the year 852 to death of Sviatoslav, 972; (b) caps. 37-58, to the death of Jaroslav, 1054; (c) caps. 59-89, to the death of Sviatopolk, 1114.12

Sources of the chronicle: 18 (1) George the monk, in an old Bulgarian translation of 10th century (cp. chap. 11; see also chaps. 24, 65). (2) A work ascribed to Methodius of Patara (3rd cent.): "On the things which happened from the creation and the things which will happen in the future "-also doubtless through a Slavonic translation.14 (3) Lives of the apostles of the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius. (4) The Bible. (5) The Palaia (collection of Bible-stories), in Slavonic form. (6) The Symbolum Fidei of Michael Syncellus in Slavonic version (c. 42). (7) Oral infor mation indicated by the chronicler; communications of (a) the monk Jeremiah who was old enough to remember the conversion of the Russians, c. 68; (b) Gurata Rogovich of Novgorod, c. 80; (c) John, an old man of ninety, from whose mouth the chronicler received many notices. (8) A relation of the murder of Boris and Gleb by their brother Sviatopolk; an account which does not agree with the biography of these saints by the monk Nestor, but does agree with the relation of the monk Jacob.15 (9) A Paschal calendar in which there were a few notices entered opposite to some of the years. (10) Written and dated notices preserved at Kiev, beginning with A.D. 882, the year in which the centre of the Russian realm was transferred from Novgorod to Kiev. Srkulj conjectures that these notices were drawn up in the Norse language by a Norman who had learned to write in England or Gaul, and perhaps in Runic characters. (11) Local chronicles, cp. a chronicle of Novgorod, of the existence of which we are otherwise certified. (12) Possibly a relation of the story of Vasilko, c. 82.

The traditional view that the monk Nestor, who wrote the biography of Boris and Gleb, and a life of Theodosius of Peshtcherski (see above, p. 173), was the author of the chronicle is generally rejected. Nestor lived in the latter part of the 11th century, and, as we do not know the date of his death, so far as chronology is concerned, he might have compiled the chronicle in 1115. But not only does the account of Boris and Gleb (as noticed above) not agree with Nestor's biography of those sainted princes, but there are striking discrepancies between the chronicler's and Nestor's accounts of Theodosius. And, while the chronicler expressly says that he was an eye-witness, Nestor expressly says that he derived his information from others. It is very hard to get over this. There are two other candidates for the authorship: (1) Sylvester, abbot of St. Michael, who states, at the end of the Chronicle in the Laurentian Ms., that he "wrote these books of annals" in

10 Sreznevski, Drevnije pamjatniky russk. pisima i jazyka, p. 47.

11 Cp. Bestuzhev-Riumin, Ŏ sostavie russkich Lietopisei (in the Lietopisi ganiati archeogr. Kommissii 1865-6), p. 19-35.

12 There is a question as to the end of the chronicle. M. Leger thinks it reached down to 1113; but in the Laurentian Ms. it stops in 1110.

13 See a good Summary in Stjepan Srkulj, Die Entstehung der ältesten russischem sogenannten Nestorchronik (1896), p. 7 sqq.; Leger, Introduction to his translation, p xiv.-xvii.; Pogodin, Nestor, eine hist.-crit. Untersuchung, tr, Loewe (1844); BesturheyRiumin, op. cit.

14 Suhomlinov ascribes the work to the Patriarch Methodius of the 9th century. See Srkulj, op. cit., p. 10.

15 Sreznevski, Skazanie o sv. Borisie i Gliebie, 1860, Some think that Jacob vse the account in the Chronicle, c. 47.

A.D. 1116; as long as Nestor was regarded as the author, the word for wrote was interpreted as copied (though a different compound is usually employed in that sense), but Golubinski and Kostomarov have proposed to regard the abbot as the author and not a mere copyist; (2) the monk Basil who is mentioned in the story of Vasilko (c. 82), and speaks there in the first person: "I went to find Vasilko". But this may be explained by supposing that the compiler of the chronicle has mechanically copied, without making the necessary change of person, a relation of the episode of Vasilko written by this Basil. The authorship of the chronicle is not solved; we can only say that the compiler was a monk of the Peshtcherski monastery of Kiev.

[For a minute study of Nestor the editions of the Laurentian (1846 and 1872) and the Hypatian (1846 and 1871) Mss. published by the Archæographical Commission must be used. For ordinary purposes the text of Miklosich (1860) is still convenient. Excellent French translation by L. Leger, Chronique dite de Nestor, 1884, with an index 16 which is half a commentary.]

LATIN AND OTHER WESTERN SOURCES

AMATUS of Salerno, monk of Monte Cassino and bishop of an unknown see, wrote about A.D. 1080 a history of the Norman conquest of southern Italy, taking as a model the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon. We do not possess the work in its original shape, but only in a faulty French translation, made perhaps c. 1300 A.D., which has survived in a single Ms. It was edited for the first time, and not well, by Champollion-Figeac in 1835 (L'Ystoire de li Normant et la Chronique de Robert Viscart, par Aimé, moine de Mont-Cassin), but has been recently edited by O. Delarc, 1892. The work is divided into 8 Books, and embraces the history of the Normans, from their first appearance in Italy to A.D. 1078. "It is," says Giesebrecht, "no dry monosyllabic annalistic account, but a full narrative of the conquest with most attractive details, told with charming naïveté. Yet Amatus does not overlook the significance of the events which he relates, in their ecumenical context. His view grasps the contemporary Norman conquest of England, the valiant feats of the French knights against the Saracens of Spain, and the influence of Norman mercenaries in the Byzantine empire. In beginning his work (which he dedicates to the Abbot Desiderius, Robert Guiscard's intimate friend) he is conscious that a red thread runs through all these undertakings of the knight-errants and that God has some special purpose in His dealings with this victorious race." [For criticism of the work, see F. Hirsch in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, 8, p. 205 sqq. (1868).]

Amatus was unknown to Gibbon, but he was a source of the most important works which Gibbon used. He was one of the sources of the poem of WILLIAM OF APULIA (begun c. A.D. 1099, finished by A.D. 1111), who also utilised the Annals of Bari. Now that we have Amatus (as well as the Annals of Bari) the value of William lies in the circumstance that he used also a lost biography of Robert Guiscard. [New ed. by Wilmans, in Pertz, Mon. ix. p. 239 sqq.]

Amatus was also a source of GEOFFREY MALATERRA, who wrote the history of the Normans in Sicily (up to 1099) at the instance of Count Roger (see above, Gibbon's notes in chap. lvi.). [For the relation of this to the Anonymi Vaticani Historia Sicula, see A. Heskel, Die Hist. Sic. des Anon. Vat. und des Gaufredus Malaterra, 1891.]

LEO, monk and librarian of Monte Cassino, afterwards Cardinal-bishop of Ostia (died 1115), wrote a chronicle of his monastery, which he carried down to A.D. 1075. It is a laudable work, for which ample material (discreetly used by Leo) lay in the library of the monastery. [Ed. by Wattenbach in Pertz, Mon. vii. p. 574 sqq. Cp. Balzani, Le cronache Italiane nel medio evo, p. 150 sqq. (1884).] The work was continued (c. 1140) by the Deacon PETER, who belonged to the family of the Counts of Tusculum, as far as the year 1137. [Ed. Wattenbach, ib. p. 727 sqq.]

16 There are unfortunately many mistakes in the references to the numbers of the chapters.

VOL. VI.-35

Other sources (Annales Barenses, Chron. breve Nortmannicum, &c.) are mentioned in the notes of chap. lvi. It should be observed that there is no good authority for the name "Lupus protospatharius," under which name one of the Bari chronicles is always cited. Contemporary Beneventane annals are preserved in (1 Annales Beneventani, in Pertz, Mon. iii. p. 173 sqq., and (2) the incomplete Chronicon of the Beneventane Falco (in Del Re's Cronisti, vol. i. p. 161 sqq.); both of which up to 1112 have a common origin. Op. Giesebrecht, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit, iii. 1069.

The credibility of the history of HUGO FALCANDUS has been exhibited in some detail by F. Hillger (Das Verhältniss des Hugo Falcandus zu Romuald von Salerno, 1878), and Gibbon's high estimate seems to be justified. Gibbon is also right in rejecting the guess of Clément the Benedictine that the historian is to be identified with Hugo Foucault, Abbot of St. Denis (from 1186-1197). In the first place Foucault would never be Latinised as Falcandus. In the second place, the only plausible evidence for the identification does not bear examination. It is a letter of Peter of Blois to an abbot H. of St. Denys (Opera, ed. Giles, ep. 116, i. p. 178), in which Peter asks his correspondent to send him a tractatus quem de statu aut potius de casu vestro in Sicilia descripsistis. But this description does not apply to the Historia Sicula of Falcandus; and it has been shown by Schröter that the correspondent of Peter is probably not Hugo Foucault, but his successor in the abbacy, Hugo of Mediolanum. Schröter has fully refuted this particular identification, and has also refuted the view (held by Amari, Freeman, and others) that Falcandus was a Norman or Frank. On the contrary Falcandus was probably born in Sicily, which he knew well, especially Palermo, and when he wrote his history, he was living not north of the Alps (for he speaks of the Franks, &c., as transalpini, transmontani) but in southern Italy. He wrote his Historia Sicula, which reaches from 1154 to 1169, later than 1169, probably (in part at least) after 1181, for he speaks (p. 272, ed. Muratori) of Alexander III. as qui tunc Romanae praesidebat ecclesiae, and Alexander died in 1181 (F. Schröter, Uber die Heimath des Hugo Falcandus, 1880). The letter to Peter of Palermo which is prefixed to the History as a sort of dedication seems to have been a perfectly independent composition, written immediately after the death of William the Good in November, 1189, and before the election of Tancred two months later. [Opera cit. of Schröter and Hillger; Freeman, Historical Essays, 3rd ser.; and op. Holzach, op. cit. above, p. 228, note 145; Del Re, preface to his edition (cp. above, p. 228, note 145).]

Compared with Falcandus, ROMUALD, Archbishop of Salerno, is by no means so ingenuous. Although he does not directly falsify facts, his deliberate omis sions have the effect of falsifying history; and these omissions were due to the desire of placing the Sicilian court in a favourable light. He is in fact a court historian, and his Annals clearly betray it. The tendency is shown in his cautions reserve touching the deeds and policy of the cruel and ambitious Chancellor Majo. Romuald was related to the royal family and was often entrusted with confidential and important missions. He was a strong supporter of the papacy, but it has been remarked that he entertained" national" ideas-Italy for the Italians, not for the trans-Alpines. He was a learned man and skilled in medicine. [Cp. above, p. 216, n. 111; p. 217, n. 116.]

On the diplomatic documents of the Norman kings, see K. A. Kehr, Die Urkunden der normannisch-Sizilischen Könige, 1902.

The name of the author of the GESTA FRANCORUM was unknown even to those contemporary writers who made use of the work. Whatever his name was, he seems to have been a native of Southern Italy; he accompanied the Norman crusaders who were led by Boemund, across the Illyric peninsula, and shared their fortunes till the end of 1098, when he separated from them at Antioch and attached himself to the Provençals, with whom he went on to Jerusalem. Hr was not an ecclesiastic like most authors of the age, but a knight. He wrote his history from time to time, during the crusade, according as he had leisure. It falls into eight divisions, each concluded by Amen; and these divisions seem

to mark the various stages of the composition; they do not correspond to any artistic or logical distribution of the work. Having finished his book at Jerusalem, the author deposited it there-perhaps in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre-where it could be, and was, consulted or copied by pilgrims of an inquiring turn of mind. The author was a pious and enthusiastic crusader, genuinely interested in the religious object of the enterprise; he entirely sinks his own individuality, and identifies himself with the whole company of his fellows. Up to the autumn of 1098 he is devoted to his own leader Boemund; but after c. 29 it has been noticed that the laudatory epithets which have hitherto attended Boemund's name disappear, and, although no criticism is passed, the author thus, almost unintentionally, shows his dissatisfaction with the selfish quarrels between Boemund and Raymond, and has clearly ceased to regard Boemund as a disinterested leader. No written sources were used by the author of the Gesta except the Bible and Sibylline Oracles. [See the edition by H. Hagenmeyer, 1889, with full introduction and exegetical notes.]

TUDEBOD of Sivrai, who himself took part in the First Crusade, incorporated (before A.D. 1111) almost the whole of the Gesta in his Historia de Hierosolymitano itinere; and it used to be thought that the Gesta was merely an abridged copy of his work. The true relation of the two works was shown by H. von Sybel.

The HISTORIA BELLI SACRI, an anonymous work, was compiled after A.D. 1131, from the Gesta and Tudebod. The works of Raymond of Agiles and Radulf of Caen were also used. [Ed. in the Recueil, iii. p. 169 sqq.] The EXPEDITIO CONTRA TURCOS, c. 1094, is also for the most part an excerpt from the Gesta.

RAYMOND of Agiles, in his Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Jerusalem, gives the history of the First Crusade from the Provençal side. It has been shown by Hagenmeyer (Gesta Francorum, p. 50 sqq.) that he made use of the Gesta; and Sybel, who held that the two works were entirely independent, remarks on the harmony of the narratives. Raymond is impulsive and gushing, he is superstitious in the most vulgar sense; but his good faith is undoubted, and he reproduces truly his impressions of events. In details he seems to be very accurate. (See the criticism of Sybel, Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzuges, ed. 2, p. 15 sqq.; C. Klein, Raimund von Aguilers, 1892.)

FULCHER of Chartres accompanied the host of Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois through Apulia and Bulgaria to Nicaea. At Marash he went off with Baldwin against Edessa, and for events in Edessa he is the only eye-witness among the western historians; but from the moment when he begins to be of unique value for Edessa, he becomes of minor importance for the general course of the Crusade. After Godfrey's death he accompanied Baldwin, the new king, to Jerusalem, and remained at his court. His work, which seems to have been written down as a sort of diary, from day to day or month to month, is of the highest importance for the kingdom of Jerusalem from the accession of Baldwin down to 1127 where it ends. Fulcher consulted the Gesta for the events of the First Crusade, of which he was not an eye-witness. (Cp. Sybel, op. cit. p. 46 sqq. Hagenmeyer, op. cit. p. 58 sqq.)

GUIBERT (born A.D. 1153), of good family, became abbot of Nogent in 1104. In his Historia quae dicitur Gesta per Francos, he has thrown the Gesta Francorum into a literary form and added a good deal from other sources. The history of the First Crusade ceases with Bk. 6, and in Bk. 7 he has cast together a variety of notices connected with the kingdom of Jerusalem up to 1104. He had been present at the Council of Clermont, he was personally acquainted with Count Robert of Flanders, from whom he derived some pieces of information, and he had various connexions throughout France which were useful to him in the composition of his book. He is conscious of his own importance, and proud of his literary style; he writes with the air of a well-read dignitary of the Church. (Cp. Sybel, op. cit. p. 33-4.)

BALDRIC, who became Archbishop of Dol in 1107, was of a very different character and temper from Guibert, and has been taken under the special protection of Sybel,

who is pleased "to meet such a pure, peaceful, and cheerful nature in times so stern and warlike". Baldric was opposed to the fashionable asceticism; he lived in literary retirement, enjoying his books and garden, taking as little a part as he could in the ecclesiastical strife which raged around, and exercising as mildly as possible his archiepiscopal powers. He died in 1130. His Historia Jerusalem, composed in 1108, is entirely founded on the Gesta,-the work, as he says, of nescio quis compilator (in the Prologue). See Sybel, op. cit. p. 35 sqq.

Of little value is the compilation of ROBERT the Monk of Reims, who (sometime in the first two decades of the 12th century) undertook the task of translating the Gesta into a better Latin style and adding a notice on the Council of Clermont. It has been shown by Sybel that there is no foundation for the opinion that Robert took part in the Crusade or visited the Holy Land; had he done so, he would certainly have stated the circumstance in his Prologue. (Sybel, op. cit. p. 44-6.)

Of FULCO, who wrote an account in hexameters of the events of the First Crusade up to the siege of Nicea, we know nothing more than that he was a contemporary and was acquainted with Gilo who continued the work. His account has no historical value; he used the Gesta, but did not rifle that source in such a wholesale manner as GILO of Toucy, his collaborator, who took up the subject at the siege of Nica. Gilo, who calls himself:

o nomine Parisiensis

incola Tuciaci non inficiandus alumnus,

was appointed in 1121 bishop of Tusculum, and composed his Libellus de vis Hierosolymitana between 1118 and 1121. For the first four Books he used Robert the Monk and Albert of Aachen as well as the Gesta; for Bks. 5 and 6 he simply paraphrased the Gesta. (Cp. Hagenmeyer, op. cit. p. 74-6.) [Complete ed. in

Migne, P. L. vol. 155.]

RADULF of Caen took no part in the Crusade, but he went to Palestine soon afterwards and stood in intimate relations with Tancred. After Tancred's death he determined to write an account of that leader's exploits, Gesta Tancredi in expeditione Hierosolymitana, which he dedicated to Arnulf, Patriarch of Jerusalem. For all that concerns Tancred personally his statements are of great value, but otherwise he has the position merely of a second-hand writer in regard to the general history of the First Crusade. The importance of his information about the capture of Antioch has been pointed out by Sybel. Hagenmeyer has made it probable that he used the Gesta. [Ed. in Muratori, Scr. rer. It., vol. 5, p. 285 sqq.; Recueil, iii. p. 603 sqq.]

The chronicle of ALBERT of Aachen contains one of the most remarkable of the narratives of the First Crusade. From this book, says Sybel, we hear the voice not of a single person, but of regiments speaking with a thousand tongues; we get a picture of western Europe as it was shaken and affected by that ecumenical event. The story is told vividly, uninterrupted by any reflections on the part of the author; who is profoundly impressed by the marvellous character of the tale which he has to tell; has no scruple in reporting inconsistent statements; and does not trouble himself much about chronology and topography. But the canon of Aachen, who compiled the work as we have it, in the third decade of the 12th century, is not responsible for the swing of the story. He was little more than the copyist of the history of an unknown writer, who belonged to the Lotharingian crusaders and settled in the kingdom of Jerusalem after the First Crusade. Thus we have, in Albert of Aachen, the history of the Crusade from the Lotharingian side. The unknown author probably composed his history some time after the events; Hagenmeyer has shown that he has made use of the Gesta. [The most important contribution to the criticism of Albert is the monograph of Kugler, Albert von Aachen, 1885, which is to be supplemented by Kühn's article in the Neues Archiv, 12, p. 545 sqq., 1887.]