what earlier period, has given a singularly vivid and impartial sketch of the dealings of Innocent the Third with the Eastern Empire, perhaps the more remarkable that he was himself a Protestant pastor. The labours of Charles Hopf and of Tafel and Thomas have thrown light on much which was obscure in the dealings of Venice with the New Rome. Krause's examination of Byzantine manners, customs, court and domestic history, gives a useful and interesting account of the social life of Constantinople. The valuable histories of Finlay were written before most of the works to which I allude in this Preface appeared, but still show considerable insight into Byzantine history. On the influence of the Saracens and the Turks invaluable suggestions are found in Professor Freeman's ' History and Conquest of the Saracens,' his History of the Ottoman Power in Europe,' and in his 'Historical Essays.'

The labours of a considerable number of other writers to whom I allude have been mainly occupied in elucidating the story of the Fourth Crusade, to which the second part of this volume is exclusively devoted. Contemporary authors have been carefully edited. The great work of Nicetas and those of other Greek authors have been diligently compared with the narratives of Villehardouin and others belonging to the West. Forgotten manuscripts have been brought to light. Incidental references in charters, bulls, and other documents, have been carefully collected to control, confirm, or condemn the statements in the usually accepted narratives of this portion of my subject. I am indebted for many valuable suggestions to Klimke's essay on the 'Sources of the History of the Fourth Crusade,'' to Krause's History, and

'Histoire du Pape Innocent III. et de ses Contemporains. Par Frédéric Hurter. Paris, 1867.

2 Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters in ihrem Staats-, Hof- und Privatleben. By Professor Dr. Johann Heinrich Krause. Halle, 1869.

3 Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Vierten Kreuzzuges. Von Dr. C. Klimke. Breslau, 1875.

• Die Eroberungen von Constantinopel im dreizehnten und fünfzehnten Jahrhundert. By Professor Johann Heinrich Krause.

to Dr. Mordtmann's history of the two captures of Constantinople. The latter work, as well as the 'Meletai' of Dr. Paspati, are especially useful for the topography of Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Dr. Paspati and Dr. Mordtmann, the son of the author of the work just quoted, the Rev. Canon Curtis, and a number of archæologists in Constantinople, have worked very successfully at the topography of the city, and by means of the excellent Greek Syllogos have brought to light much interesting information on the subject, and have especially produced a map of the ancient walls, embodying all the recent discoveries, which is extremely valuable.

Most of the writers I have named have occupied themselves more or less with the conduct of Venice. This is a subject of controversy as old as the crusade itself. A contemporary of the fourth crusade, a Franco-Syrian named Ernouil, was the first to charge Venice with treason to Christendom. Other contemporary authors are quoted in the following pages who took, speaking generally, the same side. Gunther, a Cistercian monk belonging to Pairis in Alsace, and who died about 1210, has given us in his 'Historia Constantinopolitana' many facts which are not to be found elsewhere, and was one of the few contemporaries of the crusade who appears to have understood that there was an understanding between the Sultan of Cairo and Venice.2 Light has been thrown on the question by the 'Devastatio Constantinopolitana,' the discovery of which is due to recent research. This work was written, according to Charles Hopf,3 by a clerk from Germany; according to Klimke, by one from what is now Austria; according to Tessier, by a Lombard, possibly writing under the orders of Boniface himself. Robert de Clari's valuable book, 'La Prise de Con

'Die Eroberungen von Constantinopel.

2 See both the text of Gunther and a notice of his life in Exuvia Sacræ.

• Chroniques Greco-Romanes inédites ou peu connues. Par Charles Hopf. Berlin, 1873.

stantinople,' mentioned on page 244, is the most valuable contemporary account which modern research has brought to light on the Latin Conquest. Indications of great value upon the conduct of Venice, and upon various other points in the history of the event in question, are contained in many of the MSS. collected together in the 'Exuviæ Sacræ1 of Count Riant, a writer who has done more than any other to elucidate the questions raised during the last few years regarding the Fourth Crusade. La Société de l'Orient Latin, the foundation of which was, I believe, due to Count Riant, is engaged in the publication of every scrap of evidence which bears on the Latin occupation of Constantinople and other places in the Levant.

Until within our own times the controversy as to the Fourth Crusade was allowed to sleep. The narrative of Villehardouin, clear, flattering to France, and singularly interesting, was taken from Gibbon to Finlay almost as a conclusive statement upon all which related to the conquest of the city. As his account coincided with others which are aptly classified by Dr. Klimke as official versions, those of more or less independent observers were forgotten or overlooked. M. de Mas-Latrie, in his 'History of Cyprus,' was probably the first to call attention to the untrustworthy character of Villehardouin's narrative, and to charge Dandolo with the failure of the Fourth Crusade. His conclusion is that the Marshal of Champagne was insufficiently informed, and was not able to penetrate the designs of Venice. This position was attacked with great ability by M. de Wailly, Member of the Institut, the learned editor of Villehardouin, who maintains that there were no secret designs to penetrate. He insisted that the abandonment of the route for Syria by the crusading fleet was the unforeseen and accidental result of the journey of young Alexis to Venice,

1 Exuvia Sacræ Constantinopolitana. Par Comte Riant. Geneva, 1867. 2 Histoire de Chypre, vol. i. pp. 161-4.

and that among the actors who took part in the conquest of Constantinople there were neither dupes nor traitors.'

Thereupon a controversy arose in which the last word has certainly not yet been uttered. This controversy has in the main taken the form of a discussion as to the authenticity of the narrative of Villehardouin. A great number of incidental questions have been raised which are now being hotly debated upon the Continent. On one side are M. de Wailly, M. Streit,' and M. Jules Tessier,2 whose able examination of the causes which led to the diversion only came into my hands a few weeks ago, when the present work was already in the press. On the other side is Count Riant, whose papers on the Fourth Crusade 3 and whose Exuviæ Sacræ' are models of careful research worthy of the study to which Du Cange devoted the exuberance of his energy and the deluge of his learning. M. Hanoteaux writes on the same side. It will be seen that on the whole I agree with the conclusions of Count Riant.

4

Each of the following questions has been and is still the subject of controversy.

(1.) The conduct of Venice; as to which the questions to be settled are:

1

a. Was there a treaty with Malek-Adel like that described by Charles Hopf, by which, in return for benefits conferred on the republic, Venice undertook not to convey the Crusaders to Egypt?

b. Did Dandolo intentionally make difficulties while the Crusaders were on the island of Lido, in order to carry out his part in such treaty ?

Venedig und die Wendung des Vierten Kreuzzuges gegen Konstantinopel. Von Ludwig Streit.

2 La Diversion sur Zara et Constantinople. Paris, 1884.

3 Revue des Questions historiques, vols. xvii, xviii, and xxiii.

Revue historique, Mai-Juin 1877.

c. Was the expedition to Zara part of Dandolo's design for a diversion of the crusade, or was it due to accidental circumstances, without premeditation on the part either of Dandolo or Boniface?

Count Riant maintains that the treason of Venice was premeditated even before the arrival of the Crusaders at the Lido. Against this hypothesis M. Tessier has presented what is undoubtedly an argument worth attention, derived from a letter of Innocent, calling upon the Venetian clergy to emulate the devotions of their own laymen to the cause of the Holy Land. Hurter doubts whether there was premeditation.

(2.) The design and conduct of the Crusaders :

a. What was the destination desired by the Crusaders, and were they agreed that this should be Egypt?

b. Were the Crusaders duped into violating their vows by acquiescing in the diversion upon Zara, or did they willingly accept the proposal as the best under the circumstances?

c. Was Villehardouin cognisant of the treachery of Venice, if there were treachery, and does he conceal facts which were within his knowledge?

According to Villehardouin and his adherents, the diversion of the expedition towards Zara was due to no foreign interference, to no intrigue, to no treachery on the part of Venice, but to the facts, first, that from the commencement the Crusaders were unable to agree upon the destination to be adopted, the leaders wishing to go to Egypt as undoubtedly the best point of attack, the majority of the host obstinately insisting upon going to Syria; and second, that in consequence of the non-arrival of the stipulated number in Venice the Crusaders were compelled to accept the proposal of the Doge to take part in the expedition to Zara. Instead of being