It is to the Hungarians as they were when they lived in Atelkuzu, and not to the contemporary Hungarians who were already settled in their final home, that the description of Ibn Rusta (taken from some earlier writer) applies. He describes their land as between the Patzinaks and the Esegel tribe of the Bulgarians (clearly a tribe north of the Danube, in Walachia or Bessarabia). Ibn Rasta further mentions two rivers in the land of the Hungarians, one of them greater than the Oxus. Probably the Dnieper and the Bug are meant." He says that Kende is the title of their king, but there is another dignitary whom all obey in matters connected with attack or defence, and he is entitled jila. The kende clearly corresponds to the prince or apxwv of Constantine Porphyrogennetos (c. 40); Arpad, for example, was a kende. The jila is also mentioned by Constantine, as yuxas; to whom, however, he ascribes the function of a judge. It seems that the title kende was adopted by the Hungarians from the Chazars; for the title of the Chazar viceroy was kenderchagan.

Ibn Rusta says that the Hungarians rule over the Slavs, whom they oppres with heavy burdens; that they worship fire; that they trade in the slaves whom they capture, with Greek merchants at Kerch.8

A word may be said about the name Magyar. It was doubtless the name of a single tribe before it became the name of the whole people; and the third of the 8 tribes enumerated by Constantine (c. 40 ad init.) was that of Megerê (Toû Meyéon). In another place (c. 37) Constantine mentions the Mácapoi as dwelling in the 9th century near the river Ural, where they were neighbours of the Patzinaks; but without any suggestion that they are identical with the Hungarians, whom he always calls Turks. I suspect that the Bashkirs are really meant. Hungarian scholars find other traces of the Magyar name between the Black Sea and the Caspian: thus there are two villages called Mājār in the neighbourhood of Derbend; and K. Szabo wished to detect the word in Muager (Movayépny), whom Theophanes mentions sa the brother of Gordas, king of the Huns near the Cimmerian Bosporus. It has also been proposed to connect the name of a fortress, 7 Mar (ápwv (mentioned by Theophy lactus Simocatta, ii. 18, 7). It was on the confines of the Roman and Persian dominions, but its exact position is unknown.

14. ORIGIN OF RUSSIA-(P. 154 sqq.)

No competent critic now doubts that the Russians, who founded states at Novgorod and Kiev, subdued the Slavonic tribes and organized them into a political power, who, in short, made Russia,-were of Scandinavian or Norse origin. It is therefore unnecessary to treat this matter any longer as a disputed question; it wil be enough to state briefly the most important evidence. The evidence is indeed insuperable, except to insuperable prejudice.

(1) The early writers, who mention the Russians, attest their identity with the Scandinavians or Normans. The first notice is in the Annales Bertiniani ad ann. 839 (Pertz, Mon. i. 484), Rhos vocari dicebant . . . comperit eos gentis esse Sueonum. Liutprand (Antapodosis, v. 15) says that they were Normans (nos vero a positione loci nominamus Nordmannos). The chronicle of "Nestor" identifies them with the Varangians, or regards them as belonging to the Varangian stock; and for the Scandinavian origin of the Varangians see above, p. 155, note 58. The Continuation of George the Monk (Symeon Magister) states more generally and less accurately their German origin (= Theoph. Contin. p. 423, ed. B., éx #pdyywe γένους).

6Cp. Kuun, op. cit. vol. i. p. 184.

7 Constantine mentions a third dignitary, inferior to the yuxas, and entitled harshne 8 The notice of Ibn Rusta will be found in some shape in all recent works on the early Hungarians, e.g. in Kuun's work cited above, vol. i. p. 165-6, and in the Hungarian of lection mentioned in the first paragraph of this Appendix. Ibn Rusta used to be called Ibn Dasta.

9 Kuun, op. cit. p. 93.

1 Yakubi, writing before the end of the 9th cent., calls the heathen who attacked Seville in 844 Rus.

(2) The Russians spoke Norse, not Slavonic. This is proved by the 9th chapter of Constantine's de Administratione, where the Russian and Slavonic languages are distinguished (Ρωσιστί and Σκλαβινιστί), and the Russian names of the waterfalls are unmistakably Scandinavian. See below, Appendix 15.

(3) The names of the first Russian princes and the names of the signatories of the first Russian treaties are Norse. Riurik is the old Norse Hraerikr; Oleg is Helgi; Olga, Helga; Igor (Iyywp; Inger in Liutprand) is Ingvarr. The boyars who are named in the treaty of A.D. 912 (Nestor, c. 22) are Kary (Swedish, Kari), Ingeld (O. Norse, Ingialdr), Farlof (Swedish), Vermud (O. Norse, Vermunde), Rulaf (O. Norse, Hrodleifr), Ruald (O. Norse, Hroaldr), Goud (ep. Runic Kudi), Karn (Scandinavian), Frelal (O. N., Fridleifr), Rouar (O. N., Hroarr), Trouan (O. N., Droandr), Lidouf (O. N., Lidufr ?), Fost (Swedish). There remain two uncertain names, Aktevou and Stemid. Similarly the large proportion of the names in the treaty of 945 (c. 27) are Scandinavian.

(4) The Finnish name for Sweden is Ruotsi, the Esthonian is Róts; and we can hardly hesitate to identify this with the name of Russia; Old Slavonic Rous', Greek Pús. The name (neither Finnish nor Slavonic) is derived by Thomsen from the Scandinavian rods (rods-menn = rowers, oarsmen); the difficulty is the dropping out of the dental in Rous, 'Pas.

Thus the current opinion which prevailed when the Russians first appeared on the stage of history; the evidence of their language; the evidence of their names; and the survival of the ancient meaning of the Russian name in Finnic, concur in establishing the Scandinavian origin of the Russians.

For a development of these arguments and other minor evidence see V. Thomsen's work, The Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia, and the Origin of the Russian State (Ilchester Lectures), 1877; E. Kunik, Die Berufung der Schwedischen Rodsen durch die Finnen und Slaven, 1844; and see Mémoires of the Imperial Academy of Russia, vii. sér. 22, p. 279 sqq. and 409 sqq.; BestuzhevRiumin, Russkaia Istoriia (vol. i.), 1872; Pogodin, O proizkhozhdenii Rusi, 1825, Drevniaia Russkaia Istoriia, 1871, and other works. The two most eminent opposition advocates were: Ilovaiski, Razyskaniia o nachalie Rusi, 1876, and Istoriia Rossii (Part 1, Kiev period), 1876; and Gedeonov, Izsliedovaniia o variazhskom voprosie, 1862, Variagi i Rus', 1876.

15. THE WATERFALLS OF THE DNIEPER (P. 159)

In the 9th chapter of his Treatise on the Administration of the Empire, Constantine Porphyrogennetos gives a most interesting description of the route of Russian merchants from Novgorod (NeBoyapdás) to Constantinople, by way of Kiev and the Dnieper, and enumerates the rapids of this river, giving in each case both its Russian and its Slavonic name. This passage is of high importance, for it shows that the language which Constantine meant by Russian ('Pwotori) was Scandinavian and not Slavonic. Vilhelm Thomsen of Copenhagen in his Ilchester lectures on "Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia, and the Origin of the Russian State" (1877) has supplied an excellent commentary.

1st waterfall is called Essupê ('Eσσov) in both languages, with the meaning sleepless (un koμãσbai). It follows that the two names sounded nearly alike to Constantine. The Slavonic for "do not sleep" would be ne spi (and perhaps Εσσουπῆ in an error for Νεσσουπή); and Professor Thomsen says that the corresponding phrase in Old Norse would be sofeigi or sofattu. This is not quite satisfactory.

2nd waterfall is (a) in Russian, Ulvorsi (OůλBopæí), and (b) in Slavonic, Ostrovuniprach ('OorpoBouvirpax), with the meaning, the islet of the fall; (a) holm-fors; (b) ostrov' nii prag (islet-fall).

3rd waterfall is called Gelandri (гeλavôpí), which in Slavonic means noise of the fall. Only one name is given, and it is said to be Slavonic. But it

2'Pas is the exact equivalent of Nestor's Rous', which is a collective tribe name= the Russians". 'Paola, Russia, was formed from 'Pús, and the Russian name Rossiia was a later formation on Greek analogy.

obviously represents the Norse participle gellandi, “the echoing"; so that the Slavonic name (probably nearly the same as the modern name zvonets with the same meaning) is omitted. Constantine's usual formula is Ῥωσιστιμὲν . Exλaßavior) dè; but in this place he changes it: τὸν λεγόμενον Γελανδρί, ὁ ἑρμηνεύεται Σκλαβινιστὶ ἦχος φραγμού. 1 would suggest that (Birs or oẞiviTs or something of the kind fell out after Σκλαβινιστί. 4th waterfall is Aeifor ('Aeipóp, so in Paris Ms. 2009) in Russian, and Neasit (Neaghr) in Slavonic, so called, Constantine says, because pelicans make their nests in the stones. The old Slavonic for pelican closely resembles Nearhт, but the fall cannot have been called pelican; this must have been a misinterpretation. Thomsen very ingeniously suggests that the true name corresponded to the modern Nenasytets and meant insatiable (a name appropriate to the nature of this rapid); while Aeifor (eiforr) meant ever-forward, ever-precipitate.

5th waterfall is Varuforos (Bapovpópos) in Russian, Vulne prach (Bovλrnapéx) in Slavonic; "because it forms a great lake," or, if we read dívny for λίμνην, "because it forms a great vortex". Both words can be recognised at once as meaning "wave-fall ".

6th waterfall is Leanti (Aeár) in Russian, Verutze (Bepoúr(n) in Slavonic, meaning "the seething of water" (Вpáσua vepoû). Verutze is obviously from v'rieti, to boil. Thomsen explains Leanti as the participle hlajandi, laughing. In this case the meanings of the two names are not identical. 7th waterfall is Strukun (троÚкOυv, so in Paris Ms. 2009) in Russis Napreze (Naπpe(h) in Slavonic, meaning a small waterfall. Thomsen identifies Strukun with Norse strok, Swedish struk, a rapid current (especially where narrow-as in the case of this rapid); and suggests that the Slavonic name might be connected with brz, quick. I suspect that (Na-) pech represents a diminutive of porog, prag (waterfall).

16. THE ASSISES OF JERUSALEM-(P. 330)

It is agreed by most competent critics of the present century that Godfrey of Bouillon neither drew up the Assises of Jerusalem as they have come down to us nor put into writing any code of law whatever. This is the opinion of such special students of the Crusades as Wilken, Sybel, Stubbs, Kugler, and Prutz; and it has been very forcibly put by Gaston Dodu in his Histoire des Institutions monarchiques dans le royaume Latin de Jérusalem 1099-1291 (1894). In the first place, we find no mention of such a code in contemporary sources; the earliest authorities who mention it are Ibelin and Philip of Novara in the 13th century. Then, supposing such a code had been compiled, it is hard to understand why it should have been placed in the Holy Sepulchre and why the presence of nine persons should have been necessary to consult it. For the parpose of a code is that it should be referred to without difficulty. Thirdly, the remark of William of Tyre as to the experience of Baldwin III. in judicial matters makes distinctly against the existence of a code. He says: juris consuetudinarii quo regnum regebatur Orientale, plenam habens experientiam: ita ut in rebus dubiis etiam seniores regni principes eius consulerent experientiam et consulti pectoris eruditionem mirarentur (xvi. 2, cp. on Amalric i. xix. 2). The expression "the customary law by which the kingdom was governed" suggests that no code existed.

Fourthly, if the code existed, what became of it? Ibelin and Philip of Novars say that it was lost when Jerusalem was taken by Saladin in 1187. But the circumstances of that capture are inconsistent with the probability of such a loss. There were no military excesses and Saladin allowed the inhabitants a delay of forty days to sell or save their property before he entered the city (Ernoul, c. 18: cp. Dodu, p. 45). It is highly unlikely that the Christians would have failed to rescue a possession so valuable and portable as their Code. The Patriarch could not have overlooked it when he carried forth the treasures of the churches (as

Ibn al-Athir mentions). And, if it were unaccountably forgotten, we should have to suppose that Saladin caused it to be destroyed afterwards when it was found. And had he done so, it is highly unlikely that the act would not have been mentioned by some of the Frank chroniclers.

The conclusion is that the kings of Jerusalem in the twelfth century did not give decisions according to a code drawn up at the time of the foundation of the kingdom, but themselves helped to build up a structure of Customary Law, which in the following century was collected and compiled in the book of the Assises by John Ibelin, a.d. 1255.

This book of Ibelin has not come down to us in its original form. There were two redactions: (1) at Nicosia in Cyprus in 1368 under the direction of an assembly of Cypriote lords, and (2) in the same place in 1531, by a commission appointed by the Venetian government. Both these rehandlings introduced a number of corrections into the Assise de la haute cour.

The Assises de la cour des bourgeois stands on a different footing. This work seems to have existed perhaps from the end of the twelfth century. It was not supposed to have been destroyed in 1187; it was not, so far as we know, edited by Ibelin; nor was it revised at Nicosia in 1368. (Cp. Dodu, p. 54, 55.)

The study of the Assises of Jerusalem may now be supplemented by the Assises of Antioch, preserved in an Armenian version, which has been translated into French (published by the Mekhitarist Society, Venice, 1876).

How far is the policy of Godfrey of Bouillon represented in the Assises? In answer to this question, the observations of Stubbs may be quoted :—1

"We trace his hand in the prescribing constant military service (not definite or merely for a certain period of each year), in the non-recognition of representation in inheritance, in the rules designed to prevent the accumulation of fiefs in a single hand, in the stringent regulations for the marriages of widows and heiresses. These features all belonged to an earlier age, to a time when every knight represented a knight's fee, and when no fee could be suffered to neglect its duty; when the maintenance of the conquered country was deemed more important than the inheritances of minors or the will of widows and heiresses. That these provisions were wise is proved by the fact that it was in these very points that the hazard of the Frank kingdom lay.... Other portions of the Assises are to be ascribed to the necessities of the state of things that followed the recovery of Palestine by the Saracens; such, for instance, as the decision how far deforcement by the Turks defeats seisin; and were of importance only in the event of a reconquest."

17. THE ACCIAJOLI—(P. 506)

If Gibbon had been more fully acquainted with the history of the family of the Acciajoli, he would have probably devoted some pages to the rise of their fortunes. They rose to such power and influence in Greece in the 14th century that the subjoined account, taken from Finlay (vol. iv. p. 157 sqq.)--with a few additions in square brackets-will not be out of place.

"Several members of the family of Acciajoli, which formed a distinguished commercial company at Florence in the thirteenth century, settled in the Peloponnesus about the middle of the fourteenth, under the protection of Robert, king of Naples. Nicholas Acciajoli was invested, in the year 334, with the administration of the lands which the company had acquired in payment or in security of the loans it had made to the royal House of Anjou; and he acquired additional possessions in the principality of Achaia, both by purchase and grant, from Catherine of Valois, titular empress of Romania and regent of Achaia for her son prince Robert. [It is disputed whether he was her lover.] The encroachments of the mercantile spirit on the feudal system are displayed in the concessions obtained by Nicholas Acciajoli in the grants he received from Catherine of Valois. He was invested with the power of mortgaging, exchanging, and selling his fiefs,

1Itinerarium Regis Ricardi (Rolls series), Introduction, p. xc., xci. VOL. VI.-37.

without any previous authorisation from his suzerain. Nicholas acted as principal minister of Catherine during a residence of three years in the Morea; and he made use of his position, like a prudent banker, to obtain considerable grants of territory. He returned to Italy in 1341 and never again visited Greece; but his estates in Achaia were administered by his relations and other members of the banking house at Florence, many of whom obtained considerable fiefs for themselves through his influence.

"Nicholas Acciajoli was appointed hereditary grand seneschal of the kingdom of Naples by queen Jeanne, whom he accompanied in her flight to Provence when she was driven from her kingdom by Louis of Hungary. On her return he received the rich country of Amalfi, as a reward for his fidelity, and subsequently Malta was added to his possessions. He was an able statesman and a keen political intriguer; and he was almost the first example of the superior position the purse of the moneyed citizen was destined to assume over the sword of the feudal baron and the learning of the politic churchman. Nicholas Acciajoli was the first of that banking aristocracy which has since held an important position in European history. Be was the type of a class destined at times to decide the fate of kingdoms and at times to arrest the progress of armies. He certainly deserved to have his life written by a man of genius, but his superciliousness and assumption of princely state, even in his intercourse with the friends of his youth, disgusted Boccaccio, who alone of Florentine contemporaries could have left a vivid sketch of the career which mised him from the partner of a banking-house to the rank of a great feudal baron and to live in the companionship of kings. Boccaccio, offended by his insolence, seems not to have appreciated his true importance as the type of a coming age and a new state of society; and the indignant and satirical record he has left of the pride and presumption of the mercantile noble is by no means a correct portrait of the Neapolitan minister. Yet even Boccaccio records in his usual truthful manner that Nicholas had dispersed powerful armies, though he unjustly depreciates the merit of the success, because the victory was gained by combinations effected by gold, and not by the headlong charge of a line of lances. [Boccaccio dedicated his Donne illustri to Niccolo's sister Andrea, the countess of Monte Oderisio.]

"Nicholas Acciajoli obtained a grant of the barony and hereditary governorship of the fortress of Corinth in the year 1358. He was already in possession of the castles of Vulcano [at Ithome], Piadha near Epidauros, and large estates in other parts of the Peloponnesus. He died in 1365; and his sons Angelo and Robert succeeded in turn to the barony and government of Corinth. Angein mortgaged Corinth to his relative [second cousin], Nerio Acciajoli, who airesay possessed fiefs in Achaia, and who took up his residence at Corinth on account of the political and military importance of the fortress as well as to enable him to administer the revenues of the barony in the most profitable manner.

"Nerio Acciajoli, though he held the governorship of Corinth only as the deputy of his relation, and the barony only in security of a debt, was nevertheless, from his ability, enterprising character, great wealth, and extensive connexions, one of the most influential barons of Achaia; and, from the disorderly state of the principality he was enabled to act as an independent prince."

"The Catalans were the constant rivals of the Franks of Achaia, and Neno Acciajoli, as governor of Corinth, was the guardian of the principality against their hostile projects. The marriage of the young countess of Salona [whose faiber Count Lewis died 1382] involved the two parties in war. The mother of the bride was a Greek lady; she betrothed her daughter to Simeon [Stephen Ducas], son of the prince of Vallachian Thessaly; and the Catalans, with the two Laurias at their head, supported this arrangement. But the barons of Achaia, headed by Nene Acciajoli, pretended that the Prince of Achaia as feudal suzerain of Athens was entitled to dispose of the hand of the countess. Nerio was determined to bestow

1[There is great memorial of Niccolo at Florence, the Gothic Certosa San Loren Gregorovius calls it "the first monument of historical relations between Florence Greece"; for just as Pisa used her revenue from Constantinople to build her cathedral Niccolo devoted moneys from Greece to build San Lorenzo. His tomb is to be seen is a subterranean chapel.]