[1] In modern use we speak of Spain as only one part, though much the larger part, of the peninsula, and of Portugal as another part. But this simply comes from the accident that, for some centuries past, all the other Spanish kingdoms have been joined under one government, while Portugal has remained separate. In speaking of any time till near the end of the fifteenth century of our æra, the word Spain must always be used in the geographical sense, as the name of the whole peninsula.
[2] See the first chapter of his eighth book (vol. ii. p. 139 of the Tauchnitz edition). He makes four peninsulas within peninsulas, beginning from the south with Peloponnêsos, and he enlarges on the general character of the country as made up of gulfs and promontories.
[3] Ἤπειρος is simply the mainland, and came only gradually to mean a particular country. We may compare the use of ‘terra firma’ in South America. In the catalogue (Iliad, ii. 620-635), after the island subjects of Odysseus have been reckoned up, we read: οἵ τ᾽ Ἤπειρον ἔχον, ἠδ᾽ ἀντιπέραι᾽ ἐνέμοντο. This must mean the land afterwards called Akarnania. It was remarked at a later time that the Akarnanians were the only people of Greece who did not appear in the catalogue.
[4] We shall come as we go on to two uses of the name in which Italy, oddly enough, meant only the northern part of the land commonly so called. But in both these cases the name had a purely political and technical meaning, and it never came into common use in this sense.
[5] Some may think that the Cisalpine Gauls ought to be excepted, as the common Roman story represents them as having crossed the Alps from Transalpine Gaul at a time which almost comes within the range of contemporary history. But this is a point about which there is no real certainty; and it seems quite as likely that the Gaulish settlements on the Italian side of the Alps were as old as those on the other side.
[6] In a more minute study of the history it will be found that Latin Africa held out against the Saracens very much longer than Syria and Egypt. But for our purpose the two may be classed together in opposition to those lands in Europe and Asia which always remained Roman or Greek.
[7] The geographical extent of the Frankish dominion before and after the conquest of Charles is most fully marked by Einhard, Vita Karoli, c. 15.
[8] While I was revising this chapter, I became acquainted with C. J. Jireček’s Geschichte der Bulgaren (Prag, 1876), the third chapter of which is devoted to an examination of the early settlements of the Slaves in the Eastern peninsula. He makes it probable that they were there earlier than is generally thought. They seem, exactly like the Teutons, to have first entered the Empire as captives and colonists, a process which may have begun as early as the second and third centuries. He shows also that the march of Theodoric into Italy had the effect of laying a large region open to their settlements. But he leaves my general propositions untouched. It is not till the sixth century that those Slavonic movements began which are of real importance to historical geography.
[9] The best account of the various names by which the East-Frankish kings and their people are described is given by Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, v. 121 et seqq.
[10] So Wippo (2) describes the gathering of the men of the kingdom: ‘Cis et circa Rhenum castra locabant. Qui dum Galliam a Germanis dividat, ex parte Germaniæ Saxones cum sibi adjacentibus Sclavis, Franci orientales, Norici, Alamanni, convenere. De Gallia vero Franci qui super Rhenum habitant, Ribuarii, Liutharingi, coadunati sunt.’ The two sets of Franks are again distinguished from the Latin or French ‘Franci.’
[11] See special treatise on the Themes in the third volume of the Bonn edition. The Treatise which follows, ‘de Administrando Imperio,’ is also full of geographical matter.
[12] Unless we except the small part of Flanders held by the Confederation.
[13] On the marks, see Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichten, vii. 62, et seq.
[14] No influence was more powerful for this end than the Zollverein or customs union, which gradually united most of the German states for certain purposes. But as it did not affect the boundaries or the governments of sovereign states, it hardly concerns geography. Neither do the strivings after more perfect union in 1848 and the following years.
[15] Compare the mention of Rudolf in the letter of Cnut, on his Roman Pilgrimage, in Florence of Worcester, 1031. He is there ‘Rodulphus rex, qui maxime ipsarum clausurarum dominatur.’
[16] That Aosta was strictly Burgundian appears from the ‘Divisio Imperii, 806’ (Pertz, Leges, i. 141), where Italy is granted whole to Pippin, Burgundy is divided between Charles and Lewis; but it is provided that both Charles and Lewis shall have success to Italy, ‘Karolus per vallem Augustanam quæ ad regnum ejus pertinet.’ The Divisio Imperii of 839 is still plainer (Pertz, Leges, i. 373, Scriptores, i. 434). There the one share takes in ‘Regnum Italiæ partemque Burgundiæ, id est, vallem Augustanam,’ and certain other districts. So Einhard (Vita Karoli, 15) excludes Aosta from Italy. ‘Italia tota, quæ ab Augusta Prætoria usque in Calabriam inferiorem, in qua Græcorum et Beneventanorum constat esse confinia, porrigitur.’ As Calabria was not part of Italy in this sense, so neither was Aosta.
[17] See Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, iv. 73.
[24] Unless we except the momentary existence of the first Septinsular Republic, to be spoken of below.
[25] The longer form Λογγιβαρδία clave to this theme, while the Greeks learned to apply the contracted form Λαμπαρδοί to the Lombards of Northern Italy.
[26] A temporary Bulgarian occupation seems clear from Einhard, Annals, 827, 828. But on the supposed existence of a Bulgarian duchy in the present Hungary see Roesler, Romänische Studien, 201.
[27] It must be remembered that δεσπότης was and is a common Byzantine title, with no worse meaning than dominus or any of the words which translate it.
[28] On this very singular, but very obscure, little state see our own Benedict (ii. 199) and Roger of Howden (iii. 161, 269), and the Ghibeline Annals of Placentia, Pertz, xix. 468. See also Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands, vi. 161.
[30] It is well to see this familiar title in Greek. The Duke (δοὺξ Βενετίας) was δεσποτικῷ ἀξιώματι τιμηθεὶς, ἔχειν τε ἐξ ὅλου πρὸς τὸ ὅλον ὃ τὸ τῶν Φράγκων ἐκτήσατο γένος τὸ τέταρτον καὶ τοῦ τετάρτου τὸ ἥμισυ. George Akropolitês, 15. ed. Bonn.
[31] If this is what is really meant by Laza or Lacta in the Act of Partition. Muratori, xii. 357.
[32] See the Venetian Chronicle in Pertz, viii. 29, 32. After the Venetian conquest the Duke’s name is placed after that of the Emperor in religious ceremonies. But we see how slight was the real hold of the Empire on these distant dependencies, when we find that, on the submission of Croatia and Dalmatia to Basil the Macedonian, the tribute of the cities was assigned to the Croatian prince.
[33] Negroponte—a wild corruption of Euripos—is strictly the name of one of the Latin baronies in Euboia, and has been carelessly transferred to the whole island, as Crete used often to be called Candia.
[34] Ἄσπρη θάλασσα, as distinguished from the Euxine, the μαύρη θάλασσα.
[35] Fallmerayer gives the name a Slavonic origin; Hopf and Hertzberg make Μωραία a transposition of Ῥὡμαία. Neither derivation is satisfactory; but either is better than the mulberry-leaf.
[36] Grand Sire, Megaskyr, = μέγας κύριος. See Nikêphoros Grêgoras, vii. 5, vol. i. p. 239.
[40] See p. 141. It was Thessaly, less Neopatra attached to Athens, Pteleon held by Venice, Zeitouni by the Empire.
[41] ‘Basilissa Romæorum’ = Ῥωμαίων βασίλισσα. ‘Romæi’ is not uncommonly used for the Ῥωμαῐωι of the East, as distinguished from the ‘Romanorum Imperator’ of the West.
[44] He claimed (see Jireček, Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 351) to rule over the Greek, the Albanian, and the Servian lands, from Hadrianople to Durazzo.
[45] The history of George Akropolitês gives a narrative of these wars which is worth studying, if only for its close bearing on the most recent events.
[48] On the origin of the name, see Roesler, Romänische Studien, 159, 218, 260. There is something strange in Constantine calling the Finnish Magyars Τοῠρκοι, in opposition to the really Turkish Patzinaks. His Τουρκία and Φραγγία are of course Hungary and Germany. De Adm. Imp. 13, 40. pp. 81, 173. ed. Bonn.
[49] Also called Siebenbürgen, a corruption of the name of the fortress of Cibin, which has many spellings.
[50] I must have given far more faith to it than I do now when I wrote p. 71. Roesler’s book, Romänische Studien, has since put the whole matter in a clear light; nor can I think that his arguments are at all set aside by the answer of Jung, Römer und Romanen in den Donauländern. Innsbruck, 1877.
[51] See above, pp. 160-162.
[53] A common name for these closely allied nations is sometimes needed. Lettic is the most convenient; Lett, with the adjective Lettish, is the special name of one of the obscurer members of the family.
[55] See Einhard, Annals A. 815, where we read, ‘trans Ægidoram fluvium in terram Nordmannorum ... perveniunt.’ So Vita Karoli 12: ‘Dani ac Sueones quos Nortmannos vocamus,’ and 14, ‘Nortmanni qui Dani vocantur.’ But Adam of Bremen (ii. 3) speaks of ‘mare novissimum, quod Nortmannos a Danis dirimit.’ But the name includes the Swedes: as in i. 63 he says, ‘Sueones et Gothi, vel, si ita melius dicuntur, Nortmanni,’ and i. 16, ‘Dani et ceteri qui trans Daniam sunt populi ab historicis Francorum omnes Nordmanni vocantur.’
[57] See Adam of Bremen, iv. 16.
[58] The origin of Samo and the chief seat of his dominion, whether Bohemia or Carinthia, is discussed by Professor Fasching of Marburg (Austria) in the Zweiter Jahresbericht der kk. Staats-Oberrealschule in Marburg, 1872.
[59] See Schafarik, Slawische Alterthümer, ii. 503.
[61] The Poles claim Boleslaf the First as the first king. But Lambert (1067), who strongly insists on the tributary condition of Poland, makes Boleslaf the Second the first king. The royal dignity was certainly forfeited after his death.
[62] There can be no doubt that the Russian name strictly belongs to the Scandinavian rulers, and not to the Slavonic people. See Schafarik, i. 65; Historical Essays, iii. 386. The case is parallel to that of the Bulgarians and the Franks, save that the name Rus is said to be, not a Scandinavian name, but a name applied to the Swedes by the Fins.
[64] This document, granted at Metz in 1214, will be found in Bréholles’ Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, i. 347. It reads like a complete surrender of all Imperial rights in both the German and the Slavonic conquests of Waldemar. It may be that it seems to have that meaning only because the retreating of Terminus was deemed inconceivable.
[65] Vratislaf, who reigned from 1061 to 1092, is called the first king of Bohemia, but his royal dignity was only personal. The succession of kings begins only with Ottocar the First, who reigned from 1197 to 1230.
[68] Conquered by Sweden 1643, restored to Denmark 1645. Ceded to Sweden 1658, but recovered the same year.
[70] There is no doubt that the title of Czar, or rather Tzar, borne by the Russian princes, as by those of Servia and Bulgaria in earlier times, is simply a contraction of Cæsar. In the Treaty of Carlowitz Peter the Great appears as Tzar of endless countries, but he is not called Imperator, though the Sultan is.
[73] It is however to be regretted that, in bringing back the old names into these regions, they have been so often applied to wrong places. Thus the new Sebastopol answers to the old Cherson, while the new Cherson is elsewhere. The new Odessa has nothing to do with the old Odêssos, and so in other cases.
[85] Conquered by England 1708. Ceded 1713. Recovered 1756. Ceded to England 1763. Recovered 1782. Conquered by England 1798. Recovered 1802.
[87] See Norman Conquest, vol. i. p. 564.
[89] The Tudor kings were doubtless of British descent; but they did not reign by virtue of that descent, and they did not come in till ages after the English kingdom was completely formed.
[90] See Norman Conquest, vol. i. p. 580.
[91] It should be remembered that the principality became the appanage of the eldest son only by accident. The first English prince, afterwards Edward the Second, was not his father’s eldest son at the time of his creation. The title moreover is newly created each time.
[92] See Norman Conquest, vol. i. p. 48; and Macmillan’s Magazine, April, 1880.
[93] The Latin colonia certainly does not imply independence; but, the word colony, in our use of it, rather answers to the Greek ἀποικία which does.
[94] It may be well to give the dates in order:—
| Plymouth | 1620 |
| Massachusetts | 1628 |
| New Hampshire | 1629 |
| Connecticut | 1635 |
| Newhaven | 1638 |
| Providence | 1644 |
| Rhode Island | 1634 |
| Maine | 1638 |
| New Hampshire annexed by Massachusetts | 1641 |
| Rhode Island and Providence united | 1644 |
| Connecticut and Newhaven united | 1664 |
| New Hampshire separated from Massachusetts | 1671 |
| Maine purchased by Massachusetts | 1677 |
| Plymouth and Massachusetts united | 1691 |
[Transcriber’s note: The following changes have been made to this text: