Back to Istituto Romeno’s Publications

 

Back to Geocities

 

Back to Yahoo

 

Back to Homepage Annuario 2000

 

 

 

 

p. 41

Palaiovlachoi - Stari Vlah. Medieval Balkan History and Toponymy

 

 

 

Stelian Brezeanu,

University of Bucharest

 

 

 

Among the numerous Balkan toponyms attesting the presence of the Romanic element in the region, there are two that maintain a totally particular respect: Palaioblacoi and Stari Vlah.

The first one is attested in Thessaly and could be detected in a patriarchal document in 1393. The Patriarch Anthony IV’s sigillon mentions this toponym (PalaioblacouV) in connection with the village of Voivonda, around whom there exists the analysed toponym. Referenced on more ancient maps as Voivoda - Voevoza and nowadays-called Basilike, the village of Voivonda was settled in the middle of Thessaly, between Trikkala and Kalampaka, not far of Meteôron[1]. Max Vasmer, who firstly mentioned its existence, connected it with the Slavs’ presence in the region and with their voyvodal institution[2]. However, J. Koder and Fr. Hild[3], followed by P. Şt. Năsturel[4], were inclined to connect them with the Vlachs’ presence in Thessaly. They relied upon the mentioning of the Palaiovlachs in the neighbourhood. Năsturel considered that it could be an influence from the North, from Serbia, since the Vlachs exclusively knew the voyvodal institution in the state of the Nemanids and by the Romanians from the Northern of the Danube[5]. At the same time, the Romanian historian accorded a depreciative connotation to the expression of Palaioblacoi (“the Ancient Vlachs”)[6].

The second toponym, Stari Vlah, was to be found out at hundreds kilometres on the North than the Palaioblacoi, somewhere in the Medieval Serbia. It represented an entire region inside of the Kingdom of the Nemanids that attached the Kopaonik Mountains to the Romanija Mountains, around the city of Sarajevo. That region had as centre the Drina and the Lim rivers’ valley[7]. For the first time,

p. 42

the toponym appeared in a Serbian document dated in 1443[8]. Constantine Jireçek believed that it would perpetuate over the centuries the memory of an “ancient Vlach” in the Balkan toponymy[9]. A totally different opinion was embraced by J. Cvijiç, who considered that the toponym expressed “the ancient Vlachs’ region”[10], where the term of ‘Vlach’ had an ethnical meaning. Novakoviç translated the toponym similarly, although he regarded that the notion of ‘Vlach’ from the medieval Serbian acts did not represent an ethnical category, but a social-professional one, respectively the sense of ‘shepherds’[11]. Ultimately, S. Dragomir took the option to follow the interpretation given by Cvijiç, associating the toponym with the presence of the Southern Danubian Vlachs in the area[12]. For the Romanian historian, the only difficulty in connection with this last consideration was to be the absence of a Romanic toponymy in the Stari Vlah region[13].

 

 

 

*   *   *

 

It is to be noticed that the expression of “the ancient Vlachs” appeared in the both cases, the Greek and the Serbian ones. By now, there has not been established any connection between the two toponyms. It has neither been attempted an explanation for this expression in the historical context and especially in the background of the medieval Balkan society mentality. Before insisting upon the meaning of the two toponyms, there are necessary some observations regarding them.

The first of them is thus settled in Thessaly, an area with a large Vlach settlement during the Middle Ages. The Byzantine and Latin sources have offered ample and various testimonies for this. Among them, we remark the ones considered as being more significant for our question. In the 11th century, Kekaumenos settled “the Vlachs’ land”, wandered through by the river of Plêrês[14], in Thessaly. The river and the “land of the Vlachs” are settled in the Western side of Thessaly, belonging to the thema of Hellas [15]. According to the same Thessalian historian, this is the region where the Emperor Basil II had a century before

p. 43

conscripted a corps of soldiers from among the Balkan Vlachs[16]. In the 13th-14th centuries, in the context immediately following the 1204 events, a nucleus of Wallachian political life was constituted in the same region, nucleus named in the Greek, Latin and Slavonic contemporary sources as “The Great Wallachia” or “Vlachia”. It was commanded by a head called in the sources as “despot” or “archont”[17]. Consequently, there are no doubts that the toponym of Palaioblacoi is to be connected with the presence in the region of the Southern branch of the Balkan Vlachs, which had and still has the region of Thessaly as nucleus[18]. At the same time, the region had a very heterogeneous ethnical structure during the Middle Ages, being inhabited not only by the Vlachs, but also by the Greeks and the Slavs. Therefore, Thessaly was one of the areas in the Peninsula where the feeling of the linguistic contrasts was intensely felt by the local ethnic identities[19]. This conclusion permits us to assert that the endeavour for the creation of the toponym of Palaioblacoi must be searched for outside of the Vlach world, namely among their Greek neighbours.

An apparently different situation seems to be in the case of the other toponym, taking into consideration the finding that the vast region of Stari Vlah does not contain any toponym of the Romanic origin. First, this finding is not entirely precise, whether it is taken into account the principal hydronymy of the area. The main rivers in the region, among them Lim and Drava, have a Thracian or Latin origin. Even the hydronyms having a Thracian origin seem to have a Latin feature. This allows us to believe that the Stari Vlah belonged to a zone inhabited by the Thracian-Romans at the beginning of the Middles Ages, and the Slavs borrowed the hydronymy from them[20]. On the other side, the experts took the present day toponymy of the region into consideration, inhabited by the Serbian population. It does not necessarily mean that in the past the ethnical respect was the same. As any other regions of the Peninsula, the medieval Serbia was marked by important population motions under the impact of the Ottoman expansion in the 14th-16th centuries. Thus, its ethnical structure was modified[21]. This seems also to be the case of the Stari Vlah region. A historical tradition, especially spread in Montenegro, presents Radule Vlah as its hero, coming from the Stari Vlah and

p. 44

taking refugee in Montenegro. He and other “ancient Vlachs” are considered to be in direct association with the built of the church of Vlaška Crkva (“the Wallachian Church”) in Cetinje, that has preserved this name by now[22]. Although it could not be precisely established the period of the Vlachs’ motion from Stari Vlah towards Montenegro, there remains as an undeniable fact that the area was populated by the Balkan Romanians during the Middle Ages. Therefore, the region of Stari Vlah belonged to a more extended area, intensively romanised at the end of the antiquity, an area where the Romanic element survived a long period during the Middle Ages.

It is necessary to insist upon the meaning of “the ancient Vlachs” in the two toponyms. As far as I consider, the meaning of the expression is more profound than the simple feeling of the linguistic contrast between the homines Latini and their neighbours, Greeks or Slavs. It is especially whether it is taken the adjective of “the ancient” into consideration. Examined ad litteram, the two toponyms are not understandable by the researcher involved in the Balkan history and toponymy. The apparition of this adjective has a meaning only whether it is regarded that the ‘Vlachs’ from the expression signify the Greek and the Slavonic translation of the name of ‘Romans’. This latter was the one that the Vlachs given to themselves according to their dialects: ‘armùni’ in Thessaly, or ‘rumeri’ in the case of the Western Vlachs. There are names that the two branches of the Balkan Vlachs conserved until the modern period or even by nowadays[23]. Certainly, the name of Romanus had not the ancient political-juridical meaning in the Balkan neo-Romans’ speaking and way of living. It represented the Vlachs that formed a medieval natio[24], aside the other neighboured nationes.

The Byzantine, Latin and Southern Slavonic medieval documents are extremely clear in this procedure. The most precious testimony was delivered by the Presbyter of Dioclea in the 12th century. Describing the demographic modifications in the Peninsula caused by the Bulgarian conquest, the Dalmatian author referred also to the Romanians from Dalmatia “qui illo tempora Romani [emphasis mine] vocabantur, modo vero Morovlachi, hoc est Nigri Latini vocantur[25]. In other words, the Latin speaker population in the Balkans had been

p. 45

named as Romani during the first medieval centuries, and in the author’s period as Morovlachi, translated by the Presbyter as “the Black Latins”. Leaving aside the controversies around the term of ‘Morovlachs’[26], there is to be regarded that the ‘Romans’ were called with the ethnonym in the 12th century, or - utilising an almost general term in the Peninsula - as ‘Vlachs’. However, it is important thaat this last ethnonym of the Balkan Latins was utilised by the foreigners, and not by the Vlachs themselves. The latter continued to constantly self-named as ‘Romans’. Two centuries previously, in a well known passage from De administrando imperio, Constantine the Porphyrogenitus had informed about the Latin population in Dalmatia, brought from Rome by the Emperor Diocletian: “these are also called as Romans, because they came from Rome, and even nowadays they have this name”[27]. A half of millennium after, Ireneo della Croce also explicitly affirmed that the Vlachs from the northwestern part of the peninsula, also nominated by the foreigners as cici, “called in their language as rumeri [emphasis mine] / addimandosi nel proprio linguaggio Rumeri”[28]. There must be added the statements of some Byzantine authors that regard the Balkan Vlachs as “colons of the Romans” or as “colons from Italy”. The Hungarian chroniclers in the 13th-14th centuries also identified the Romanians in Pannonia and Transylvania as “shepherds of the Romans” or as “shepherds and colons” of the Romans[29]. Therefore, all these testimonies demonstrate that the Latin population in the Balkans continued to name itself as Romani during the Middle Ages and also afterwards, while their Greek and Slav neighbours, and also other foreigners designate them as Vlahi.

However, a capital importance for the two toponyms’ explanation is the fact that the Byzantines also named themselves as ‘Romans’ (Rwmaioi). The term indicates the citizens of the New Rome’s empire, members of the Roman politeia, subjects of the Roman laws, educated in the spirit of the Roman paideia and, last but not least, members of the Christ’s community[30]. Consequently, the notion of RwmaioV had an exclusively political meaning in the empire of Constantine the Great and of Justinian. Quite soon however, beginning with the 8th-9th centuries, when the hellenisation of the empire took place, and also because of the entering of the Balkan romanity in the Barbaricum, the term of Rwmaioi also acquired a national designation, indicating the persons of Greek language and origin. The phenomenon was also illustrated by John Kanabutzes in

p. 46

the 15th century, after a millenary experience. He defined the difference between ‘the Romans’ from the New Rome and the Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian and Russian ‘Barbarians’, Orthodox Christians: “the notion of barbarian is not defined by faith, but by race, language [emphasis mine], state organisation and education”[31]. Therefore, when the reconquista of the Macedonian dynasty around the year 1000 made that the Romanic population re-enter in the Imperial frontiers after almost four centuries of separated life, the New Rome was put into difficulty when it had to denominate the homines Latini, returned under its politeia. This difficulty was for the first time marked when Constantine the Porphyrogenitus defined the ‘Romans’ in Dalmatia. As a singular case, the scholar-emperor called them as oi Rwmanoi, in order to distinguish them from the oi Rwmaioi, the Greek speaker ‘Romans’, his subjects[32]. Some decades later, the intellectuals and the administration of the New Rome surpassed the difficulty taking the ethnonym of Blacoi from the contacts with the Slavs, in order to denominate the Latin speaker ‘Romans’[33].

Nevertheless, the difficulty still subsisted when the Byzantine world related to the ancient Romans. There were not the Christian ‘Romans’ in discussion, from the times of Constantine the Great, whom the Byzantines constantly claimed as the founder of their Christian empire[34], and that represented one of the Byzantine political ideology’s major idea. It was yet about the Romans from the pagan empire of Augustus, which were often called by the New Rome’s intellectuals also as Rwmaioi, without any other specification. It was the case of Kekaumenos who, referring to the wars between Trajan and Decebal, regarded the first one as one of “the formerly emperors of the Rwmaioi / touV  arcaioterouV  basileiV  twn  Rwmaiwn”, while Rome is the “city of the Rwmaioi” (h poliV Rwmaion)[35]. The distinction operated by Kritobul of Imbros between “the formerly Rwmaioi” (palai Rwmaioi)[36] and “the Rwmaioi”, regarded as “the nowadays Rwmaioi” (nun Rwmaioi) is much more infrequent in the Byzantine world. Maybe this distinction of the 15th century historian is to be put into connection with the ‘national’ new-Hellenic phase that characterised the Byzantine ideology after 1204.

Taking these understandings into consideration, we afford to consider the toponym from the 1393 Patriarchal act on another basis. The parallelism between the Imbros historian’s text and Anthony IV’s act is clear. In the first case, the

p. 47

expression of palai Rwomaioi supposed a distinction with the nun Rwmaioi. In the second one, it meant Palaioblacoi, as the translation of the Palaioi Rwmaioi with the ethnical sense of homines Latini that represented an implicit opposition to the Neoi Rwmaioi, regarded as the Greek speaker Rwmaioi. The distinction between ‘the ancient’ and ‘the new’ Romans was determined in this case by the opposition between the adjectives palaioi / neoi. Consequently, beyond the feeling of the linguistic contrast between the Vlachs and the Greeks, the toponym of Palaioblacoi supposed the fact that the Greeks from Thessaly were conscious that the Vlachs are a Romanic people and that they define themselves as ‘Romans’ (‘armùni’ in the Aromunian dialect). This latter term was in opposition with the name of ‘Rhomei’ that the Greeks gave to themselves and that obtained a more and more powerful ethnical connotation. A complete confirmation for this consideration could be detected in a Croatian testimony from the 16th century. Thus, a letter written by Nicholas Jurišiç in 1538, and addressed to the King Ferdinand of Hapsburg. Concerning the new immigrations, it mentioned “the Vlachs that we call ancient Romans [emphasis mine] / Walächen, welche bei uns allt Römer genennt sein[37]. Come from a cultural-linguistic horizon different than the Byzantine one, this testimony might be regarded as the ‘lack link’ that could solve the complete meaning of the two toponyms. At the same time, the toponym of Palaioblacoi from Thessaly proves that the opinion spread in Croatia, according to whom the Vlachs were the Antiqui Romani, was not an isolated case in the Balkan Peninsula.

The other toponym leads us to a similar conclusion. Stari Vlah belonged to the same Balkan medieval society’s worlds of ideas. At a first sight, its Southern Slav origin was Serbian. Just that the Serbian medieval tradition had not the ancient Romans’ and their empire’s memory, so enduring as in the New Rome’s culture and ideology. It could be invoked that its explicit attestation in the 15th century Croatian milieu pleads for its existence also among the Serbs. In both cases, the origin could be searched at the Balkan Vlachs themselves. Nevertheless, there is another explanation for the Serbian toponym that seems to be more plausible. During the 11th-12th centuries and because of the Macedonian re-conquest, the Byzantine domination was extended upon the entire territory of the Western Slavs, towards the Sava river. There was an intensively romanised territory at the South of this line. It had an important number of Vlach toponyms and in the 11th-12th centuries there was attested a bishopric of ‘the Vlachs’. It had the residence at Vreanoti (Vranye), on the upper watercourse of Morava[38]. There is also the toponym of Stari Vlah that appears on the North Western limit of this territory. Thus, there is extremely possible that the toponym be a Greek creation at

p. 48

its origin and have the same form as the Thessalian toponym, Palaioblacoi. At the end of the 12th century, the Serbian state emancipated from the Byzantine authority in a space that comprised also the territories inhabited by the Vlachs. Under these circumstances, the Serbian chancellery retook the toponym translated from the Greek under the form of Stari Vlah.

We could not finish without underlining the political meaning of the two toponyms.

The presence in Thessaly of two proximate toponyms, namely Palaioblacoi and Voivonda does not appear to be accidental. It is less important whether the toponym of Voivonda is the result of an influence come from Serbia or of the local Slavs. Actually, it is difficult to explain why other branches of the Balkan Slavs, except of the Serbs and the Croats, would not know the voyvodal institution. Two decades after the attestation of the toponym in the Patriarchal act, there appeared another ‘voyvode’ in an Epirote church’s fresco, around Janina[39], in a region with Vlach population. It is more important the fact that the two toponyms seem to preserve the memory of an autonomous Wallachian political continuity, commanded by a voyvode. This kind of autonomous communities were mentioned in the Serbian and Croatian area in the Middle Ages, where the Vlach voyvodes had large prerogatives[40]. They also appeared after the 15th century under the Ottoman or Hapsburg domination[41]. It is difficult to specify the period when the Thessalian Vlachs were conducted by a proper voyvode. It was not possible during the 10th-12th centuries, when the imperial authority was effective in the region, and when the Vlachs were under the military command of a Byzantine duke. Therefore, there were two periods that could be taken into account. The first was previous to the 10th century. There pleads for it the information given by Kekaumenos that referred to the existence of a military Vlach corps in Thessaly in 980[42], as a memory of a possible more ancient situation. The other period that is to be taken into consideration was subsequent to the 1204 events, when Thessaly obtained a quasi independent situation inside of the Empire of Thessalonic and then of the Despocy of Epirus. Under these circumstances, the local Vlachs took an important part on the events in the region during the 13th and the 14th centuries. This very fact could explain the denomination of the Great Wallachia or Vlachia. There seems to be more probable the last option, for which also pleads the mention of the ‘voyvode’ in Epirus in 1412.

In connection with the toponym of Stari Vlah, there appears the problem of the relation between it and the neighbour toponym of Romanija. The probability of

p. 49

a direct connection between the two toponyms is less probable, although the hypothesis that the first be the Slavonic equivalent of the latter - that could be regarded as a memory of a local Romania - is tempting. More probable, the toponym of Romanija has represented a memory of the domination of the New Rome in the region during the 11th-12th centuries, whose largely spread name was Romania[43].

 

 

Other articles published in pur periodicals by Stelian Brezeanu:

 

History and Imperial Propaganda in Rome during the 4th Century a. Chr. A Case Study: the Abandonment of Dacia

 

The Lower Danube Frontier during the 4th-7th Centuries. A Notion’s Ambiguity

 

Toponymy and ethnic Realities at the Lower Danube in the 10th Century. «The deserted Cities» in Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De administrando imperio

 

«Venetic» en roumain. Economie et mentalités collectives médiévales

 

 

 

For this material, permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use.

Whether you intend to utilize it in scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web adress or the Annuario. Istituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica 2 (2000), edited by Şerban Marin and Ion Bulei, Venice, 2000

No permission is granted for commercial use.

 

© Şerban Marin, January 2001, Bucharest, Romania

 

Last updated: July 2006

 

serban_marin@rdslink.ro

 

 

Back to Geocities

 

Back to Yahoo

 

Back to Homepage Annuario 2000

 

Go to Annuario 2001

 

Go to Annuario 2002

 

Go to Annuario 2003

 

Go to Annuario 2004-2005

 

Go to Quaderni 2001

 

Go to Quaderni 2002

 

Go to Quaderni 2004

 

Back to Istituto Romeno’s Publications

 



[1] J. KODER and Fr. HILD, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Hellas und Thessalia, Vienna, 1976: 136.

[2] Max VASMER, Die Slawen in Griechenland, Berlin, 1941: 87.

[3] J. KODER and Fr. HILD, op. cit.: 136.

[4] P. S. NăSTUREL, “Les Valaques de l’espace byzantin et bulgare jusqu’à la conquête ottomane”, in the vol. Les Aroumains, Paris, 1989: 63.

[5] Ibidem.

[6] Ibidem.

[7] Silviu DRAGOMIR, Vlahii din nordul Peninsulei Balcanice în evul mediu, Bucharest, 1959: 33.

[8] Constantin JIREÇEK, Staat und Gesellschaft im mittelalterlichen Serbien, vol. 1, Vienna, 1912: 25.

[9] Ibidem.

[10] J. CVIJIÇ, Le Pèninsule Balcanique, Paris, 1918: 313.

[11] Stojan NOVAKOVIÇ, “Les problèmes serbes”, Archiv für slavische Philologie, 33 (1914): 453-456.

[12] S. DRAGOMIR, op. cit.: 33 and passim.

[13] Ibidem: 33.

[14] Sovety i rasskazy Kekavmena. Socinenie vizantiiskogo polkovodta XI veka (edited by G. G. LITAVRIN), Moscow, 1972: 260; Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, vol. 3, Bucharest, 1975: 32.

[15] J. KODER, Fr. HILD, op. cit.: 244.

[16] Sovety i rasskazy: 282; Fontes, vol. 3: 44.

[17] P. S. NăSTUREL, op. cit.: 63-64. For the mentioning of the Great Wallachia in the medieval sources, see Fontes, vol. 3 and Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, vol. 4, Bucharest, 1982, where all these sources are gathered together.

[18] See M. D. PEYFUSS, Chestiunea aromânească, Bucharest, 1994: 13-14 and especially Les Aroumains, particularly the studies signed by M. D. PEYFUSS and Mihaela BACOU.

[19] For the importance of those areas of ethnical contrasts, see also Leo WEISSGERBER, Deutsch als Volksname. Ursprung und Bedeutung, Darmstadt, 1953: 40 sq., for the particular case of the French-German contacts.

[20] G. SCHRAMM, Eroberer und Eingesessene. Geographische Lehnnamen als Zuegen der Geschichte Südosteuropas im ersten Jahrtausend n. Chr., Stuttgart, 1981: 233-235, 286-287, and passim.

[21] For these population motions, see S. DRAGOMIR, op. cit. and the map of this changing of places.

[22] Ibidem: 38-39, with the critics of other interpretations about the event that seems to be dated at the end of the 15th century when Vlaška Crkva is for the first time attested.

[23] Les Aroumains, and especially the volume’s study signed by Mihaela BACOU, “Entre acculturation et assimilation: les Aroumains au XXe siècle”: 151-165.

[24] For the shifting of the notion of Romanus from a political-juridical category to a gentile determination in the West, see E. EWIG, “Volkstum und Volksbewusstsein im Frankenreich des 7. Jahrhunderts”, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo, 5 (1957), Spoleto, 1958: 638 sq. For the particular case of the Vlachs from the Southern of the Danube, see S. BREZEANU, “De la populaţia romanizată la vlahii balcanici”, Revista de istorie: 29 (1976), no. 2: 212 sq.

[25] Presbyter Diocleatis, Regnum Slavorum, in I. G. SCHWANDTNER, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres ac gemini, vol. 3, Vienna, 1748: 478.

[26] S. DRAGOMIR, op. cit.: 86-92, 143-148.

[27] Constantin Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio (edited by Gy. MORAVCSIK), Budapest, 1949, 29: 3-7; Fontes Historiae Daco-Romaniae, vol. 2, Bucharest: 1970: 662.

[28] Cf. S. DRAGOMIR, op. cit.: 148.

[29] A. ARMBRUSTER, La romanité des Roumains. Histoire d’une idée, Bucharest, 1977: 28 sq.; S. BREZEANU, “‘Romani’ şi ‘Blachi’ la Anonymus. Istorie şi ideologie politică”, Revista de istorie, 34 (1981), no. 7: 1323 sq.

[30] Fr. DÖLGER, “Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner”, Zeitschrift für Kirchegeschichte, 56 (1937): 8-9; S. BREZEANU, “De la populaţia romanizată …”: 216-217.

[31] Maximilian LEHNERT, Ioannis Canabutzae magistri Ad principem Aeni et Samothraces in Dionysium Halicarnasensem commentarius, Leipzig, 1890: 35; Fontes, vol. 4: 354.

[32] Constantin Porphyrogenitus, op. cit.: 122, 124, 146, 148, 152, 162.

[33] S. BREZEANU, “De la populaţia romanizată la vlahii balcanici”: 217 sq.

[34] For the 13th century, see for instance V. GRUMEL, “L’authenticité de la lettre de Jean Vatatzès, empereur de Nicée, au Pape Grégoire IX”, Echos d’Orient, 33 (1930): 452-453.

[35] Sovety i rasskazy: 269; Fontes: vol. 3: 40.

[36] KRITOBUL din Imbros, Din domnia lui Mahomed al II-lea (edited by V. GRECU), Bucharest, 1963, vol. 1, 48, 5.

[37] S. DRAGOMIR, op. cit.: 99.

[38] H. GELZER, “Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistümverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1 (1892): 256-257; Fontes, vol. 4: 24.

[39] Marcu BEZA, Urme româneşti în Răsăritul ortodox, Bucharest, 1935: 133-134.

[40] Matei CAZACU, “Les Valaques dans les Balkans occidentaux (Serbie, Croatie, Albanie etc.). La Pax ottomanica”, in vol. Aroumains: 83 sq.

[41] Ibidem: 86 sq.

[42] Sovety i rasskazy: 82; Fontes, vol. 3: 44.

[43] R. L. WOLFF, “Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople”, Speculum, 23 (1948): 2 sq.