Alexander VI. and a Leo X. not quite fit for the calendar, something short of being saints! And, further, though we have no desire to extenuate the faults of rulers, civil or ecclesiastical, in Constantinople and the regions round about before its fall in the middle of the fifteenth century, yet the student of history who shall peruse these Lectures will do well to bear in mind, that there is a Greek, as well as a Latin, account of the transactions of that memorable era; and that the two should be diligently compared by him who would form a correct judgment upon the entire case. A single instance may suffice for illustration.

Among the kingdoms which were attacked by the conquering Ottomans at the period of which we speak, was that of Bosnia. Its rude mountains, and the strong castles which crowned their summits, fitted the country to become a very rampart of Western Christendom. The Bosnians, however, were accused, and we fear not unjustly, of being tainted with Manichean heresy. Being a somewhat ignorant and barbarous race, they do not seem to have possessed very distinct and settled convictions; and, under a sense of alarm at the impending danger, they sought to form alliance with the Christians of the West.

Their king, Stephen Thomas, in A. D. 1445, actually conformed to the Church of Rome. But as he declined to punish those among his subjects who retained their opinions, the Latins remained doubtful of his orthodoxy, and regarded the misfortunes which fell upon his country as a direct chastisement from Heaven. In the year 1462 (i.e. nine years after Constantinople had fallen), Stephen, son and successor of this Stephen

Thomas, addressed Pope Pius II. upon the same subject. The Turks had been treating the Bosnian peasants with such favour as to win a majority to their side; unless the Venetians, the Pope, or some of the Latin people lent assistance, the country would pass, without a blow, to the foes of Christendom. Bosnia would in that case prove a safe harbour to the Turks, whence they might, in their turn, oppress Italy or Germany. At present, a few good troops would be enough to restore courage, and induce all the warlike Bosnians to imperil their lives for the defence of their country, and remove the scourge of the barbarians from Christendom. But if Bosnia were suffered to fall, the most powerful armies would hardly avail to keep the Turks out of Italy and Germany. In conclusion, Stephen reminded the Pope that his father had announced to Nicholas V. the coming capture of Constantinople early enough for a few thousand Latin soldiers to have saved it-the letter, remarks the historian, still exists, and is full of just and generous sentiments -and entreated Pius II. not to permit the Latins to fall a second time into the same mistake.

Pope Pius II. refused the wished-for aid; Bosnia fell; the predictions of King Stephen proved but too correct. Our authority for this narrative is Sismondi, in his Histoire des Républiques Italiennes; and if that great historian be as extreme in one direction as any Papal writer can be in the opposite; if his reflections are but too frequently prompted (as one of his compatriots once remarked to us) par la haine des rois, et la

Chap. lxxix.

haine des prêtres; yet his honesty has throughout prevented him from anything like misstatement of facts. Moreover, we are writing with the Italian translation, by Signor L. Toccagni, before us, published but a few years since at Milan.1 In this version the editors have added notes to such portions of Sismondi's work as appeared unfair to the Roman Church; but the portion referred to in the present instance has no such note. Whatever inferences may be fairly drawn from it (and the narrative tells against the Bosnians as well as the Italians), we leave to the judgment of our readers, simply observing that the very existence of such facts is but barely alluded to in Dr. Newman's Lectures.2

But having freely pointed out what we consider blemishes in this volume, we may be permitted to speak with equal freedom of its manifold beauties and attractions. Although bearing some slight marks of haste, and of being got up for the occasion, although at times almost over-charged with facts, this little production will impart to most readers a far clearer and more connected view of Turkish history than can be derived from many books of far greater pretensions. Despite its partisanship (nay, perhaps in consequence of it, for it is open and avowed) it may be safely read, we should imagine, by any one. And in its skilful use of very varied and diverse materials, in its

1 Milano, Borroni e Scotti, 1851.

2 The advice and exhortations of Pope Pius II. to the heroic Scanderbeg (A. D. 1463) to break a solemn treaty which had been most rigidly observed by the Turkish Sultan, were as imprudent as they were morally indefensible. Scanderbeg had great scruples, but at length, to his cost, gave way.—Sismondi, chap. lxxix.

harmonious reconciliation of apparently conflicting statements, in its fine discrimination, in the magic of its style,—now pausing in philosophic thoughtfulness, now hurrying onward with a vigorous flow of narrative, and breaking forth at moments into bursts of eloquence,-in its winning apostrophes, in its fulness alike of denunciation and of praise, some, at least, will recognise once more the workings of those marvellous gifts of head and heart, which erst held them as if spell-bound and enthralled, imparted to them fresh views of life, taught them much concerning themselves, much concerning the world around them, still more concerning the world unseen,—knowledge that cannot perish, thoughts that must abide with them their whole life long, lessons, of whose teacher they cannot but think, when, with good Bishop Andrewes, they thank their Maker for all who have benefitted them by their writings.

The works thus enumerated will be our principal, though not our sole, sources of information. We would fain employ them as the Roman philosopher professes to have used the writings of the Stoics: Sequimur, . . . non ut interpretes, sed . . . è fontibus eorum, judicio arbitrioque nostro, quantum quoque modo videbitur, hauriemus.'1

...

Among the characteristics of the nation and of the land where Mahometanism first arose, there are some which exercised no inconsiderable influence upon the reception and promulgation of that creed. Of these it will be well to make some mention.

1 Cicero, de Officiis, lib. i. cap. ii. § 6.

And firstly, if for freedom of thought there be needed a long previous training of civil and social freedom, it may safely be asserted that in few countries could there have existed a safer asylum than in Arabia. Protected upon one side by deserts, which few foreign enemies would venture to traverse; seldom spoken of by the Egyptians, who desired to keep all Indian as well as African commerce in their own hands, it was little known to either Greeks or Romans: and although the fame of the fertility and wealth of at least one district (that of Yemen) had given the country at large some celebrity as early as the time of Herodotus,' it was reserved for the Macedonian conqueror to conceive the idea of subduing it, and making it a seat of empire. That design, however, Alexander did not live to realize; nor do we find any account of a conquest of Arabia before the Christian era. About a century after Christ, the all-absorbing influence of Rome had indeed cast its shadow upon the land, and medals were being struck by Trajan in honour of this addition to the empire. But the vaunted conquest only extended to a province; so that of this and of other later foreign dominations Gibbon is obliged to admit that they have been only temporary or local; that the body of the nation has escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies; that neither Sesostris nor Cyrus, Pompey nor Trajan, had ever really become its master.

The Arab is considered by good judges to be a fine specimen of the human race, both in his

1 Herod iii. 107.