Back to
Istituto Romeno’s Publications
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:
The Lower Danube
Frontier during the 4th-7th Centuries. A Notion’s
Ambiguity
«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
Back to Homepage
Annuario 2000
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.