Sie sind auf Seite 1von 81

p.

51

A HUMANIST VISION
REGARDING THE FOURTH
CRUSADE AND THE STATE OF
THE ASSENIDES. THE
CHRONICLE OF PAUL RAMUSIO
(PAULUS RHAMNUSIUS)
by Şerban Marin

Motto

“Un procedimento questo che una volta si


attirava l’odiosità, oggi può costar la testa”

Guarino,
Classical Scientist,
answering to the question why is not he
writing a Venetian history
14271

1. When does a Crusade come to an End?

The most reasonable answer to the above question seems to be that the
ending of a crusade should occur at once with the liberation of the Holy Land
and of the Holy Sepulchre from the domination of the ‘infidels’2. This
represented the
1
Cf. E. B. FRYDE, Humanism and Renaissance Historiography, London: The Hambledon
Press, 1983: 10.
2
At least, this seems to be the conclusion embraced by the most informed researchers about
the Crusading phenomenon; see: Carl ERDMAN, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade,
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1977 (1935); Aziz Suryal ATIYA, "The
Crusades: Old Idea and New Conceptions", Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale. Journal of World
p. 52
declared purpose of every crusade, its reason of being. As a negative
counterpart, the end of a crusade could be the neutralising of the Crusader
action. From this perspective, it may be considered that the only successful
crusade was the first one. Indeed, it had as consequence the foundation of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem and of its adjacent states (the Principality of Antioch, the
County of Tripoli, and the County of Edessa) situated on the Eastern coast of
the Mediterranean Sea3.
Having this context taken into account, where could the Fourth Crusade
been integrated? Could it be regarded as a success? Or as a lamentable failure?
Generally speaking, the ones who have focused their approaches upon this
particular crusade have suddenly stopped their narration with the year 1204,
more precisely to the moment when the Crusader and Venetian forces captured
the Christian Constantinople4. Therefore, the respective authors seem to
consider this moment as the final point, in other words as the crusade’s finality.

History. Cuadernos de Historia Mundial, 2 (1954), no. 2: 469-475; Paul ALPHANDÉRY, La


Chrétienté et l'Idée de Croisade, 2 volumes, Paris: Editions Albin Michel, 1959; Henry
TREECE, The Crusades, London: Bodley Head, 1962; James A. BRUNDAGE, "The Votive
Obligations of Crusaders. The Development of a Canonistic Doctrine", Traditio 24 (1968):
79-118, reprinted in idem, The Crusaders, Holy War and Canon Law, Aldershot-Brookfield,
Vermont: Variorum, 1991; Hans Eberhard MAYER, The Crusades, London: Oxford
University Press, 1978 (1972); Franco CARDINI, Le crociate. Tra il mito e la storia, Rome:
Istituto di cultura Nova Civitas, 1971; idem, Il movimento crociato, Florence: Sansoni, 1972;
Maureen PURCELL, "Changing Views of Crusade in the Thirteenth Century", The Journal
of Religious History, 7, no. 1 (June 1972): 3-19; J. BRUNDAGE, "Holy War and the
Medieval Lawyers" in The Holy War (edited by Thomas Patrick MURPHY), Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1976: 99-139, reprinted in J. Brundage, loc. cit.; Giorgio
FEDALTO, Perche le crociate: saggio interpretativo, Bologna: Patron, 1980; Jonathan
RILEY-SMITH, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, London: The Athlone press,
1993 [1986]; Alphonse DUPRONT, Du sacre: croisades et pelerinages, images et langages,
[Paris]: Gallimard, 1987; F. CARDINI, Gerusalemme la Terrasanta e l'Europa, Florence:
Giunti Barbera, 1987; Franca MIAN, Gerusalemme citta santa: Oriente e pellegrini
d'Occidente (sec. I-IX / XI), Rimini: il Cerchio, 1988; Penny J. COLE, The Preaching of the
Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095-1270, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy
of America, 1991; F. CARDINI, Studi sulla storia e sull' idea di crociata, Rome: Jouvence,
1993, Le mythe de Jerusalem: du Moyen Age a la Renaissance (edited by Evelyne Berriot-
Salvadore), St. Etienne: Publications de l'Université de Saint-Etienne, 1995, etc.
3
From such a perspective, the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229) may also be regarded as a success.
Undertaken by the Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1212-1250), it was finished with
the obtaining of Jerusalem by the Christians from the Muslims.
4
See Roberto CESSI, "Venezia e la quarta crociata", Archivio veneto, 5th series, 48-49
(1951): 1-52; Edgar Holmes McNEAL and Robert Lee WOLFF, "The Fourth Crusade", in A
History of the Crusades (edited by Kenneth M. SETTON and others), vol. 2, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962; Donald M. NICOL, "The Fourth Crusade and the
Greek and Latin Empires", in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4, part 1 (edited by J.
M. HUSSEY), Cambridge: [Cambridge] University Press, 1966: 275-330; Charles M.
BRAND, Byzantium Confronts the West 1180-1204, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
Established the liberation of the Holy Land as the crusade’s ideal, then
there are only two alternatives in the consideration of this specific crusade.
Either it is
p. 53
5
accepted the ‘theory of premeditation’ , of the plot (having as immediate
corollary the theoretical ‘transfer' of the idea of Holy Land from Jerusalem
towards the Byzantine metropolis)6. Or it is followed the opinion that the
respective crusade did not come to an end with the conquest of Constantinople
on April 13, 1204 or at least with the creation of the Latin Empire of
Constantinople and of the other Crusader states on the former Byzantine
Empire’s territory (the Kingdom of Thessalonic, the Principality of Morea,
etc.). Indeed, it seems somehow paradoxical that the most fervent followers of
the Byzantine camp7 come to a common point to the opinions formulated by
Donald Queller8, and this really paradox is explained exactly by the avoiding of
the present demonstration.
Anyway, the sudden finish of the Crusade to 1204 is denied by the
persistent appeals launched by the Pope Innocent III. The Papal messages were
launched in order to mobilise the Crusaders and to convince them to leave
Constantinople and to descend to Syria or Palestine9. The pope attempted to

University Press, 1968; Donald E. QUELLER, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of
Constantinople. 1201-1204, [Leicester]: Leicester University Press, 1978; John GODFREY,
1204: The Unholy Crusade, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, just mentioning the
representative post-war works. There is interesting the material published on the Internet,
detected on the web address http://www.callisto.si.unherb.ca/~croisade/4croisad.html, signed
by Marc CARRIERI and Bernard CHAPUT, whose title, La Quatrième Croisade (1198-
1205) seems to demonstrate that it follows the events by 1205, but it also suddenly stops to
the rubbery of Constantinople on April 1204. There is another history of this crusade, at the
web address http://www.pwi-intl.com/THEORY/DECFALL/DEC6C60/HTM, unsigned text.
5
For the problem's history, respective the division of the Fourth Crusade's historiography
between the two main currents, the 'theory of the accidents' and 'theory of premeditation', see
Donald E. QUELLER and Susan J. STRATTON, "A Century of Controversy on the Fourth
Crusade", Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 6 (1969): 235-277, reprinted in D.
QUELLER, Medieval Diplomacy and the Fourth Crusade, London: Variorum Reprints,
1980; The Latin Conquest of Constantinople (edited by D. QUELLER), New York-London-
Sydney-Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.
6
This could not be the situation in the case of researchers of the size of D. QUELLER and
his school, definitely subdued to the idea of the West's acquittal, see Donald E. QUELLER
and Gerald W. DAY, "Some Arguments in Defense of the Venetians on the Fourth Crusade",
The American Historical Review, 81, no. 3 (June 1976): 717-737 and also D. QUELLER,
The Fourth Crusade….
7
Therefore, the supporters of the 'theory of the plot' of 'of the premeditation': Charles
BRAND, op. cit.; John GODFREY, op. cit.; Donald NICOL, op. cit.
8
Supporter of the 'theory of the accident', see his works quoted above: ? notes 4, 5 and 6.
9
See Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Patrologia Latina (edited by Jacques Paul MIGNE),
Paris: Migne, 1855 [from now on, Patrologia], vol. 215, doc. CCXXX, colls. 260-261 (261):
"Ad recuperationem igitur terrae sanctae totis viribus insistatis, quoniam id erit vobis
guide the Crusaders to the real purpose of the Crusade, although he got along
with the new situation and recognised the Latin Empire10.
p. 54
At that time, the Crusader barons and knights settled in Constantinople
still possessed the necessary force to accomplish their Crusader vow11. Yet,
their energies have been wasted for the strengthening of the domination upon
the new acquired territories. What is to be noticed is that, whether the conquest
of Constantinople would be finally regarded as a Crusader act, then also these
actions of conquest in the Balkans, the Asia Minor, or the Aegean Archipelago
should be considered as belonging to the Crusade. They are nothing more than a
result – a natural one, from the Crusader knights’ point of view – of the April
1204 episode.
Although the capture of Constantinople and the crowning of a Western
on the throne of the Eastern empire was indeed a revolutionary moment in
history11bis, the abrupt finish of the narration of the Fourth Crusade at the 1204
moment does not seem properly chosen. The Crusade continued and developed
during the entire 1204-year and also the beginning of 1205. Unfortunately, the

potissimum et apud Deum meritorium, et apud homines gloriosum" and ibidem, doc.
CXXXIX, colls. 957-959 (957-958), according to which the Pope specifies that, although he
enjoys the transfer of Constantinople under the Roman Church's obedience, he would be
more content whether Jerusalem would be liberated: "Certe, licet gratum sit nobis, quod
Constantinopolis rediit ad obedientiam sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae matris suae,
gratius tamen nobis fuisset, si Hierusalem redacta esset in potestatem populi Christiani."
However, as it was asserted, "Innocent had been correct in believing that only some new
ingredient, such as massive Byzantine support, could alter the situation in Syria; where he
had for a time been wrong was in his belief that the Latin conquest of Constantinople would
make it available", cf. Colin MORRIS, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from
1050 to 1250, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991: 442.
10
See Patrologia, vol. 215, doc. CLIII, colls. 454-455 (455): "[…] Unde, tam te quan terras
et homines tuos, sub principali beati Petri et speciali nostra protectione suscipimus [emphasis
mine]"; ibidem, vol. 215, doc. CLIV, colls. 456-461 (456): "Sane, a Domino factum est istud
et est mirabile in oculis nostris."; ibidem: doc. LXX, colls. 636-637; ibidem: doc. LXXI,
colls. 637-638, etc. These were affirmed under the circumstances that the escape of the
Crusade from the Papal control and its passing to the Venetian one had led at a certain
moment even to the excommunication of the entire enterprise by the Pope, fact without any
precedence in the Crusades' history, see ibidem: vol. 214, doc. CLXI, colls. 1178-1179: "[…]
Ne vero praemissa inhibitio segniter audiretur, si qui contra eam venire praesumerent, eos
denuntiavimus excommunicationis vinculo innodatos et beneficiis indulgentiae quam
apostolica sedes crucesignatis indulsit, immunes." and ibidem: vol. 215, doc. CII, colls. 107-
110.
11
For the Crusader vow, see J. BRUNDAGE's works, quoted above:?, note 2.
11bis
See for instance the considerations of Peter LOCK, "The Latin emperors as heirs to
Byzantium", in New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th
Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St.
Andrew, March 1992 (edited by Paul MAGDALINO), Aldershot, Hampshire, UK -
Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, 1994: 295-304 (295): "[…], this was as revolutionary, if
indeed not more so, as the creation of Charlemagne as Roman emperor in the west […]".
specialists in the Fourth Crusade’s problems have regarded these events only as
simple consequences of the Crusade itself, often gathering them as the
‘epilogue’. Nevertheless, these facts are Crusade by themselves. Actually, since
a Crusader leader, directly participant at the episode, like Geoffrey of
Villehardouin, or another eye witness, like Robert of Clary, considered the
events as a continuous evolution, without finishing their narration at 120412,
there is unexplainable why the nowadays analysts do not follow the same
tendency.
p. 55
Anyhow, the situation would be totally different since April 1205. Only
then there would take place the essential moment to label this crusade as an
unsuccessful one, meaning the impossibility of any action towards the Holy
Land. The respective moment was the battle of Andrinople; its effects are well
known. Among its direct or indirect influences, there are the menacing of the
new created Latin Empire with the disappearance13; the losing of every

12
See Geoffroi of VILLEHARDOUIN, La Conquête de Constantinople (edited by Natalis de
WAILLY), Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1872; Robert de CLARI, La conquete de Constantinople
(edited by Philip LAUER), Paris: Champion, 1956. The text of the Marshall of Champagne,
VILLEHARDOUIN, could be also found out on the Internet, at the web address:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/villehardouin.htm (edited by Paul HALSALL on April
1996 on the basis of Memoirs or Chronicle of the Fourth Crusade and the Conquest of
Constantinople, translated by Frank T. MARZIALS, London: J. M. Dent, 1908).
Unfortunately, we could not find out in Venice the edition Geoffroi of VILLEHARDOUIN,
La Conquête de Constantinople (edited by Edmond FARAL), 2 volumes, Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1961 and neither the general work Chronicles of the Crusades (edited by M. R. B.
SHAW), New York, 1963, that is why the future references will rely upon the edition of
Natalis de WAILLY. For the importance of Villehardouin's chronicle, see Colin MORRIS,
"Geoffroy de Villehardouin and the Conquest of Constantinople", History 53 (February
1968): 24-34; Edmond FARAL, "Geoffroy de Villehardouin: la question de sa sincérité",
Revue historique, 176 (1936): 530-582; Jean DUFOURNET, Les escrivains de la Quatrième
Croisade: Villehardouin et Clari, 2 volumes, Paris, 1973; Jean LONGNON, Les
Compagnons de Villehardouin: recherches sur les Croisés de la quatrième Croisade, Geneva
- Paris: Droz - Champion, 1978. In connection to Robert of CLARY, the Venetian libraries
do not possess Three Old French Chronicles of the Crusades (edited by Edward Noble
STONE), Seattle, 1939 and neither Robert of CLARY, The Conquest of Constantinople.
Translated from the Old French of Robert de Clari (edited by Edgar Holmes McNEAL),
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969 (1936). For supplementary data about CLARY,
see J. DUFOURNET, op. cit. Regarding Geoffrey of Villehardouin, he extended his narration
by the death of Boniface of Montferrat, at 1207, but the WAILLY edition presents also the
chronicle's continuation, due to Henry of Valenciennes, that comprises the presentation of the
subsequent ruling years of Henry I of Hainaut. Robert of Clary, who also stops at 1216,
followed somehow the same approaching. In this last case, the accent of the narration
includes also the year 1204, although the period after 1207 is moreover summarised.
13
The image that subsequently the Latin Empire would have is well illustrated by a
contemporary source that would consider it as "tantum magni nominis umbra", cf. "Annales
S. Iustinae Patavini", in Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, Scriptores (edited by P. JAFFÉ),
vol. 19, 182: 11. For the 'pitiful' image of this empire, see also Matthae Parisiensis, monachi
2. The State of the Assenides. Controversies
Previously, the State of the Assenides attracted the attention of the Pope
Innocent III (1198-1216)19, who had in intention to expand the Roman Church’s
influence in the Eastern Europe. Anyhow, in the huge and impressive
correspondence of Innocent III20, the exchange of letters with the ruler in
Tarnovo could be ignored. Only after the Crusader disaster at Andrinople,
Johannitza and his state begin a decisional factor and commence to be
appreciated at such a level by the Westerners. For those latter, the first result of
the impact was, obviously, the terror. Afterwards, obviously again, there was
the interest regarding this new reality. The West began to inquire about the new
enemy’s origin, to verify its sources of legacy, in other words to integrate it into
context of their world21.
The debates between the Romanian historiography and the Bulgarian one
concerning the origin of the state of the Assenides and of its sovereigns and
especially the ones correlated to its ethnical composition are known22. At the
last

19
See Patrologia, vol. 214, doc. CCLXVI, col. 825 for the exchange of letters between
Innocent III and Johannitza Kaloyan; ibidem: vol. 214, doc. CXV, colls. 1112-1113 and
ibidem: doc. CXVI, colls. 1113-1115 for the Johannitza's and of Basil of Tarnovo's requires
to have the titles of emperor, respective patriarch recognised; for the rest of the
correspondence, see ibidem: vol. 215, documents CXLII, colls. 155-156, CXLIV, col. 158, I,
colls. 277-280, IV, colls. 287-288, VI, colls. 290-292, VIII, colls. 292-294, XII, colls. 295-
296, CCXXX, colls. 551-553, but also Vetera monumenta slavorum meridionalium, historia
illustrantia (edited by Augustino THEINER), vol. 1, Rome, 1863; Documente privitoare la
istoria Românilor (edited by Eudoxiu de HURMUZAKI and Nicolae DENSUçIANU), vol.
1, part 1 (1199-1245), Bucharest, 1887; Latinski izvor+ za bèlgarskata istorija (Fontes
Latini Historiae Bulgaricae) (edited by M. VOINOV, J. DUJÇEV, Str. LIŠEV and B.
PRIMOV), Sofia, 1965.
20
See the four volumes from Patrologia (214-217), comprising the Innocent III's entire
correspondence.
21
Much more powerful, the Tartar invasion's impact upon the Western world in 1241 would
pass through the same steps: initially fierce, and then investigation and integration.
22
They started with IORGA-MUTAFÇIEV debates [Nicolae IORGA, Geschichte des
rumänischen Volkes, vol. 1, Gotha, 1905; idem, "Sârbii, Bulgarii òi Românii +n Peninsula
Balcanicè +n Evul Mediu", Analele Academiei Române, 2nd series, 38 (1915); idem, Istoria
Românilor din Peninsula Balcanicè (Albania, Macedonia, Epir, Tesalia etc.), Bucharest,
1919; idem, Formes byzantines et réalités balcaniques, Bucharest - Paris, 1922; idem, Les
conflits balkaniques. Leurs Origines et leurs conséquences, Paris, 1926; Petèr
MUTAFÇIEV, Bèlgari i Rumyni v istorijata na dunavskite zemi, Sofia, 1928; idem,
"Proizhodèt na Asenevci" Makedonski Pregled, 4 (1928): 1-42, 149-152; N. IORGA,
Histoire des Roumains et de la romanité orientale, vol. 3, Bucharest, 1937: 104-121; P.
MUTAFÇIEV, Istorija na bèlgarskija narod, vol. 2, Sofia, 1943] and BéNESCU-
ZLATARSKI ones [Vasil N. ZLATARSKI, "Potekloto na Petra i Asena, vodacite na
vèzstanijeto v 1185 godina", in Spisanie na bèlgarskata dèrzava prez srednite vjakove,
vol. 3: Vtoro bèlgarsko carstvo. Bèlgarija pri Asenevci (1187-1280), Sofia, 1940; Nicolae
BéNESCU, "O problemè de istorie medievalè: crearea òi caracterul celui de al doilea
Imperiu bulgar (1185)", Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secàiunii Istorice, 3rd series,
25 (1943): 543-590] and continued in the inter-war historiography: see Vsevolod
NIKOLAEV, Potekloto na Asenevci i etniceskijat harakter na osnovanata ot tjeh dèrŸava,
Sofia, 1944; Gheorghe I. BRéTIANU, "Asèneòtii", in idem, Tradiàia istoricè despre
+ntemeierea statelor româneòti, Bucharest, 1945: 53-82; Kiril ¯UGLEV, "Kakvo razbira
pod Blaquie i Blakie-le-Grant", Izvestija na Istoriceskoto DruŸestvo, 22/24 (1948): 159-
169; Strašimir LIŠEV, "Kam izvestijata za preminavaneto na krastonoscite ot tretija pohod
prez bèlgarskite zemi", Izvestija na Institut za bèlgarskata istorija, 3-4 (1951): 274-278;
Ivan DUJÇEV, "Vèstanijeto ot 1185g. i negovata hronologija", Izvestija na Institut za
bèlgarskata istorija, 6 (1956): 327-358; Str. LIŠEV, "Tretijat krastonosen pohod i bèlgarite
[118-1190]", Izvestija na Institut za bèlgarskata istorija, 7 (1957): 205-240; çtefan
çTEFéNESCU, "Legèturi româno-bulgare +n prima jumètate a secolului al XIII-lea", in
Omagiu lui P. Constantinescu-Iaòi, Bucharest, 1965; Petre P. PANAITESCU, Introducere la
istoria culturii româneòti, Bucharest, 1969: 216-224; Borislav PRIMOV, "Crearea celui de-
al doilea àarat bulgar òi participarea vlahilor", in Relaàii româno-bulgare de-a lungul
veacurilor, vol. 1, Bucharest, 1971: 9-56; Eugen STéNESCU, La population vlaque de
l'Empire byzantin aux XIe-XIIIe siècles. Structure et mouvements, Athens, 1976; Genoveva
ÈANKOVA-PETKOVA, "La libération de la Bulgarie de la domination byzantine",
Byzantinobulgarica, 5 (1978): 95-121; idem, Bèlgarija pri Asenevci, Sofia, 1978; Stelian
BREZEANU, "'Imperator Bulgariae et Vlachiae'. *n jurul genezei òi semnificaàiei
termenului 'Vlachia' din titulatura lui Ioniàè Asan", Revista de Istorie, 33 (1980): 651-674;
Nicolae çerban TANAçOCA, "De la Vlachie des Assénides au second Empire bulgare",
Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes, 19 (1981): 581-588; idem, "Din nou despre geneza
òi caracterul statului Asèneòtilor", Revista de Istorie, 34 (1981): 1308-1310; Dimitèr
ANGHELOV, "Der Aufstand der Asseniden und die Wiederrichtung des bulgarischen
Staates im Mittelalter", Bulgarian Historical Review, 12 (1984): 31-52; Petèr PETROV,
Vèzstanovjavane na Bèlgarskata dèrŸava, 1185-1197, Sofia, 1985; N. ç. TANAçOCA,
"Romanitatea balcanicè òi al doilea àarat bulgar +n lucrèri recente", Cercetèri de istorie
òi civilizaàie sud-est europeanè, vol. 3, Bucharest, 1987: 26-36; St. BREZEANU, "Les
'Valaques' dans les sources byzantins concernant les débuts de l'Etat des Assénides.
p. 58
time, being preoccupied with other controversies, the Romanian historical
school has loosened its argumentation. Anyhow, the official version still
integrates the history of the State of the Assenides in the Romanian general
history, more precisely in “History of the Romanians in the South of Danube”
category23. Unfortunately, the Romanian historiography’s contribution to this
state’s history is still reduced to the contesting of the Bulgarian origins of the
dynasty and of the state24. At the same time, the Bulgarian school of history has
largely approached many other respects, such as the state institutions during the
Assenide dynasty, the policy in the international relations context, the religious
aspect and the Bogomilic heresy in this state, the respects of the social and
economical life, archaeological
p. 59
25
problems, the dating of some manuscript documents etc . To illustrate the
difference between the two viewpoints, a simple consult of the post-war general

Terminologie ethnique et idéologie politique", Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Européennes, 25


(1987): 203-215; idem, "'Vlahi' òi 'misieni' +n sursele bizantine relative la +nceputurile
statului Asèneòtilor. Terminologie etnicè òi ideologie politicè", in Rèscoala òi statul
Asèneòtilor, Bucharest, 1989: 37-69; N. ç. TANAçOCA, "O problemè controversatè de
istorie balcanicè: participarea românilor la restaurarea àaratului bulgar", in Rèscoala òi
statul Asèneòtilor, Bucharest, 1989: 153-181.
23
See the handbooks.
24
As an exception, we mention the collection of studies entitled Rèscoala òi statul
Asèneòtilor, Bucharest, 1969, where some articles - the ones signed by Eugen STéNESCU
("Premisele rèscoalei Asèneòtilor. Lumea româneascè sud-dunèreanè +n veacurile X-
XII": 11-36), and Tudor TEOTEOI ("Civilizaàia statului Asèneòtilor +ntre Roma òi
Bizanà": 70-102) somehow approach also other respects of this state.
25
N. A. MUçMOV, "Un sceau en plomb du tsar Kaloyan", Byzantinoslavica 4 (1932): 135-
138; Ivan DUJÇEV, "La date de la révolte des Asénides", Byzantinoslavica, 13 (1952-1953),
no. 2: 227-232; Borislav PRIMOV, "The Papacy, the Fourth Crusade and Bulgaria",
Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1962): 183-211; Dimitèr ANGELOV, "Le bogomilisme, résurgence
de la pensée rationaliste", in Apport des Bulgares aux richesses culturelles des peuples,
Sofia, 1968; Peter S. KOLEDAROV, "More about the Name 'Zagore'", Bulgarian Historical
Review, 4 (1973); Ivan DUJÇEV, "Le bague - sceau du roi bulgare Kalojan",
Byzantinoslavica, 36 (1975), no. 2: 173-183; Vasilka TéPKOVA-ZAIMOVA, "Quelques
réprésentations iconographiques de Saint Démétrius et l'insurréction des Assénides -
première scission dans son culte 'oecuménique'", Byzantinobulgarica, 5 (1978): 261-267;
Genoveva ÈANKOVA-PETKOVA, "Certains aspects du pouvoir royal et des institutions
d'Etat sous le Second Royaume Bulgare", Etudes Balkaniques, 14 (1978); E. SAVÇEVA,
"The office and the title of the 'sebastocrator' in Bulgaria", Etudes Balkaniques, 14 (1978);
works is necessary: while Istorija na Bălgarija26 allocates an extremely large
editorial space to the State of the Assenides, the references from Istoria
României27 are almost non-existent, and when the matter is brought into
discussion28 it is totally into connection with the Marxist theory of the ‘class
struggle’. From all these perspectives, there seems more natural to integrate the
state led by the Assenides in the Bulgarian general history’s context, sine ira et
studio29.
Anyway, this is not the kind of debate that we intend to present here. The
starting point is another one, and that is the very fact that the Assenides’
history30 has many times opened the possibility to some references generally
regarding the
p. 60
Wallachian history. The present paper proposes exactly one of the images that
the Western world shaped into connection with the new factor of power in the

Ani DANÇEVA-VASILEVA, Bèlgarija i latinskata Imperija (1204-1261), Sofia, 1985; V.


TéPKOVA-ZAIMOVA, "Réstauration de la Bulgarie par les Assénides (Problèmes du
pouvoir)", Etudes Balkaniques, 21 (1985): 27-36; Ivan BO¯ILOV, Familiata na Asenevci.
Genealogija i prosopografija (1186-1460), Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bèlgarskata Akademija na
Naukite, 1994 (1985), etc.
26
Istorija na Bèlgarija, vol. 1, Sofia, 1954.
27
Istoria României, vol. 2, Bucharest, 1962.
28
ibidem: 12, 110.
29
This difference could be also noticed following the Internet materials elaborated by the
Bulgarian, respective the Romanian historiography. We present some examples of sites
issued in Bulgaria: "The Second Bulgarian State" (web address:
http://www.interrinet.bg/bulgaria/History/2kingdomEN.htm), "Rulers of Bulgaria", signed by
Milço LALKOV (the references about Johannitza Kaloyan could be found out at the web
address: http://www.bulgaria.com/history/rulers/Kaloyan.html, while the ones about Asen,
Peter, John Asen II and the other Assenide rulers has different addresses), "The Rulers of
Bulgaria" (see http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/temple/111/bg/english.html). A more natural
integration of the Assenide history in the Romanian general context may be noticed in the
period of the 'Romanian Humanism', more exactly in the case of one the representatives of
the 'Transylvanian School' (çcoala Ardeleanè), see Samuil MICU, Istoria românilor (edited
by Ioan CHINDRIç), Bucharest: Viitorul Românesc, 1995: 125-164, see also the editor's
pertinent notes, ibidem: 260-275; Gheorghe çINCAI, Hronica romùnilor (edited by Florea
FUGARIU), vol. 1, [Bucharest]: Editura pentru literatura, 1967: 341-379, 392-394.
30
We prefer the more neutral denomination of 'Assenides' instead of 'Asèneòti' or
'Asanevci', exactly in order to do not enter to a national shade for a period when the political
entities did not operate with such criteria.
Balkans, and also the searching for the real and respectively imaginary
elements31 that constituted the vision on the State of the Assenides.

31
Those elements that depend upon the what is called in the contemporary historiography as
mythomoteur, see John A. ARMSTRONG, Nations before Nationalism, Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1982; Anthony D. SMITH, The Ethnic Origins of
Nations, Oxford: Blackwell, 1988; idem, National Identity, London: Penguin Books, 1991;
Benedict ANDERSON, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, London: Verso, 1991.
3. An Implication into the Venetian Chronicles
We consider that a Byzantine, respectively a Crusader or a Papal vision
would since the very beginning become partial. That is why we appeal to the
Venetian Chronicles as a starting point. At a first sight, the Venetians reacted
subjectively regarding the battle of Andrinople. It is somehow natural, since the
Fourth Crusade was ultimately a Venetian crusade32, and the Crusaders were
forced to adopt a route directly or indirectly imposed by the Serenissima. Thus,
the Crusaders were mainly considered as ‘the ours’. Nevertheless, Venice rather
remained outside of the conflict between the Crusaders and the Assenides. It
was not directly touched by the result of the battle of Andrinople since the
Venetian state had already appropriated the needed territorial acquisitions and
the commercial privileges, while the Doge’s pride had assured the title of
Dominus quartae partis et dimidiae totius Imperii Romaniae33. At the same
time, the question whether Venice would desire a Latin Empire weaken, or a
powerful one has not been yet elucidated. We are inclined to consider that the
Venetian policy regarding the Latin Empire would be situated somewhere in the
middle. A too powerful empire would represent the undermining of the
Venetian control and implicit the menacing of the Venetian commercial
interests in the region. On the other hand, the disappearing of the Latin Empire
either by the capture of Constantinople by Johannitza Kaloyan or by the
restoration of a Greek empire, would deny the Crusade’s result by itself.
Anyhow, it may be conclued that the Venetians regarded the result of the
moment of Andrinople with a relative objectivity34, while the passion that may
be

32
See the denomination of ‘Venetian Crusade’ in Ludovico GATTO, Le Crociate, Rome:
Tascabili Economici Newton, 1994: 76-79.
33
The title would be preserved until 1356, although the Greeks had retaken Constantinople in
1261.
34
As an anti-argument may be invoked the fact that Andrinople and the surrounding regions,
comprising the entire Thracia, represented the object of a part of the Venetian influence zone,
according to the previous agreement with the Crusader barons (see Paolo RAMUSIO, Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli per la restitutione de gl’imperatori Comneni fatta da’ signori
Venetiani et Francesi, l’anno MCCIV. Libri sei [from now on, Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli], Venice: Appresto Domenico Nicolini, 1604: 121, respective Paulus
RHAMNUSIUS, De Alexii Isaaci, filii Reductione, et Bello Constantinopolitano [from now
on, De Bello Constantinopolitano], inventory Lat. X. 79 (=3077) at Biblioteca Nazionale
Marciana: 150v-151r, presenting all the cities that was to be acquired in Thracia by the Doge
Henry Dandolo, according to Partitio Romaniae, see also Martin da CANAL, Les Estoires de
Venise. Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275 (edited by Alberto
LIMENTANI), Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1972: 62-65; Historia, o espositione di ms. Gio.
Battista Ramusio sopra la cagione, perche in Constantinopoli anticamente stesse un Podesta
per nome del Serenissimo Doge di Venetia tratta da’ molti antichissimi libri, manuscript
Ottob.lat. 2240 from Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: 1-13 (4v): “Li Venitiani andorno al
possesso, et acquisto del lor Imperio che fu molte Citta della Thracia [emphasis mine], et
p. 61
noticed from the different Venetian chronicles or histories is only on the
surface. In addition, their participation in the middle of the events demonstrates
that the Venetian viewpoint is extremely informed and it may be taken for
granted.
Beginning with the 12th-13th centuries, the Venetian historiography
marked the flourishing of a specific literary genre: the chronicles. The number
of the chronicles gathered at the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice, the
Biblioteca Apostolica at Vatican, the Biblioteca Civica in Padua, the Biblioteca
Nazionale Centrale ‘Vittorio Emmanuele’ in Rome, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana
in Milan, the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence, the State Archives in
Venice or the Querini Stampalia Foundation’s Library in Venice35 is
impressive. To these hundreds of chronicles, elaborated between the 12th and
the 17th centuries, it must be added the ones outside of Italy: at Vienna,
Dresden, Paris, and London35 bis or in
p. 62

molte isole dell’ Arcipelago, et parte della Morea, […]”. Therefore, the lost of the respective
territory would directly hit the Venetian interest. However, we doubt that the Venetians
would have a real interest in Thracia; their predilection towards the creation of a stable
commercial area excluded by itself the engagement in a territory that did not promise
anything from the trading viewpoint. What later would be called stato del terra - meaning the
terrestrial Venetian policy, in contrast with stato del mar would exclusively refer to the
Venetian domination in the Italian Peninsula. After 1204, Thracia would be supposed to be
utilised as an exchange value in the subsequent transactions with the Crusader leaders.
Actually, in 1206, Andrinople would be submitted to Theodore Branas, in exchange for a
tribute, but this substitution had rather a theoretical feature, since Thracia continued to
support Johannitza’s invasions. Among the works concerning Partitio Romaniae, we
mention: William MILLER, The Latins in the Levant. A History of Frankish Greece (1204-
1566), London: John Murray, 1908; Denis A. ZAKYTHINOS, “La conquête de
Constantinople en 1204, Venise et la partage de l’Empire Byzantin” in Venezia dalla Prima
crociata alla Conquista di Costantinopoli del 1204, Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1965: 137-155;
Antonio CARILE, “La Partitio Terrarum Imperii Romanie del 1204 nella tradizione storica
dei Veneziani”, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, new series, 2-3 [12-13] (1965-1966):
167-179; Nicolas OIKONOMIDES, “La décomposition de l’Empire byzantin à la veille de
1204 et les origines de l’Empire de Nicée: à propos de la Partitio Romaniae”, in XVe
Congrès International d’Etudes Byzantines, Rapports et co-rapports, Athènes, 1976: 3-28,
reprinted in idem, Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade. Studies, Texts,
Monuments, Hampshire - Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, 1992.
35
We only enumerate here the libraries that we have had access by now.
35 bis
Concerning the Venetian manuscripts on the territory of the Great Britain, an important
collection was gathered by Sir Thomas Phillipps. A number of the chronicles included there
was brought at Marciana Library in the period between 1972 and 1985. For the Venetian
manuscripts belonging to that collection, see C. CASTELLANI, “I manoscritti Veneti
contenuti nella Collezione Phillipps in Cheltenham (contea di Glocester)”, Archivio Veneto,
37 (1889): 199-248 (especially 207-248, where the author presented a list of the impressive
collection’s manuscripts).
the United States, already signalised in 1967 by Anthony Carile36.
Unfortunately, the studies around the Venetian chronicles are still in an initial
phase, in spite of Freddy Thiriet’s appeals37, or of A. Carile’s attempts to
classify them under different criteria38. Actually, the Italian researcher only
succeeded to notice the respective chronicles, without studying them
minutely39. Consequently, also the printing of these chronicles is still in an
incipient stage, being favoured the early chronicles40. It is obvious that the
respective chronicles influenced each other and

36
A. CARILE, “Note di cronachistica veneziana: Pierro Giustinian e Nicolò Trevisan”, Studi
Veneziani 9 (1967): 103 sq. (104-105). This list is to be accomplished with the chronicles
personally detected at the Civic Library in Padua, where there are 14 codex, beside the
manuscripts dealing with the origins of the Venetian noble families.
37
Fr. THIRIET, “Les Chroniques Vénitiennes de la Marcienne et leur importance pour
l’histoire de la Romanie gréco-vénitienne”, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, publiée
par l’Ecole Française de Rome, 1954: 241-292. This kind of initiatives is also registered in Il
testamento del cronista Gian-Giacomo Caroldo: per una edizione della sua cronaca (edited
by V. LAZZARINI), Venice, 1915.
38
A. CARILE, La cronachistica Veneziana (secoli XIII-XIV) di fronte alla spartizione della
Romania nel 1204, Florence: L. S. Olschki (Conti), 1969; idem, “Aspetti della cronachistica
veneziana nei secoli XIII e XIV”, in La Storiografia veneziana fino al secolo XVI (edited by
Agostino PERTUSI), Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1970: 75-126. Another criterion proposed by
Carile is the one linked to the way in which the Venetian chronicles regard the origins of
Venice, see idem, “Le origini di Venezia nella tradizione storiografica”, in Storia della
cultura veneta, vol. 1, Vicenza: N. Pozza, 1976: 135-166.
39
This conclusion results from the verifying of the papers that certifies the utilising of the
respective manuscripts from Marciana, Querini Stampalia, the State Archives, the “Vittorio
Emmanuele” Library, etc. According to these, A. CARILE researched only one day for each
of the chronicles.
40
Among the Venetian chronicles edited by the present day, we mention: Cronaca Altinate,
Cronica Grado, the ones attributed to John the Deacon (all of them previous to the 12th
century), published in Cronache veneziane antichissime. Fonti per la storia d’Italia (edited
by Giovanni MONTICOLO), vol. 9, Rome: Forzani, e C.: 1890; Origo civitatum Italie seu
Venetiarum (Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense) (edited by Roberto Cessi), Rome:
Tipografia del Senato, 1933; Martin da CANAL, “La Cronique des Veneciens, des origines à
1275”, in Archivio storico italiano, vol. 8: 231-707; Lorenzo de MONACIS, Chronicon de
rebus venetis ab U. C. ad annum MCCCCLIV [1454] (edited by Flaminio CORNER),
Venice: ex Typographia Remondiniana, MDCCLVIII [1758]; the Doge Andrew Dandolo’s
chronicle, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (edited by L. A. MURATORI), vol. 12, reprinted
by Ester PASTORELLO, Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1938-1942; its continuation due to
Raffaino de Caresini, loc. cit. (edited by E. PASTORELLO), Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli,
1923; Marino SANUDO the Old, Gesta Dei per Francos, sive Orientalium expeditionum, et
Regni Francorum Hierosolimitani Historia a Varios, sed illius avi scriptoribus, litteris
commendata… (partially edited by Jacques BONGARS), 2 vols., Hannovra: typis
Wechelianis, apud Ioan. Aubrii, 1611; Domenico MALIPIERO, “Annali veneti del Senatore
Malipiero”, in Archivio storico italiano (edited by Agostino SAGREDO), Florence, 1843;
Andrea NAVAGERO, “Storia veneziana”, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, (edited by L. A.
MURATORI), vol. 23: colls. 923-1216, Milan, 1733; Cronaca veneta sacra e profana, osia
un compendio di tutte le cose più illustri ed antiche della città di Venezia, Venice: presso Fr.
p. 63
that almost all of them accentuated the period belonging to the respective
author. As a result, an analysis of the Venetian chronicles and a new
classification of them relied upon new criteria could be an interesting
undertaking and could create the background for new debates41.
The respect of the Venetian chronicles is going to be the purpose of our
future researches. Concerning the present paper, we confine to approach one
particular chronicle, specifying that there is a work exclusively dedicated to the
Fourth Crusade. Although this would risk to surpass the general frame of the
Venetian chronicles – that approaches the general history of Venice42, the
analysis of this chronicle becomes so much the more inciting as it emphasises
exactly the period immediately following the first contact between the West and
the Assenides.

Pitteri, 1751; Cronichetta venetiana dove brevemente si contengono La edification di


Venetia, Venice: appresso Marco Claseri, 1599; there is partially edited Zorzi DOLFIN’s
chronicle, Belagerung und Eroberung von Constantinopel im Jahre 1453 aus der Chronik
von Zorzi Dolfin (edited by Georg M. THOMAS), Munich: Im Verlage d. akademie, 1868,
excerpt from Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2 (1868).
41
At least, this might be in order to accomplish the Fr. THIRIET’s attempt, who tried a
classification of them according to the manner in which they reflect the Venetian Romania’s
problem, see THIRIET, op. cit.
42
In their greatest part, these chronicles are entitled either ‘Venetian Chronicle since the
origins of the City’, or ‘History of the Venice’s Doges’, or ‘The Origin of the Venetian noble
families’. See especially the codex from the classes Ital. VII and Lat. X from Biblioteca
Marciana.
4. A neglected Chronicler: Paul Ramusio
Whether the works of his father, John Baptist, were published and
reedited on a large scale because of their undeniable geographical
contributions43, Paul Ramusio (1532-1600) has been one of the ignored authors
of the 16th century. Indeed, he was obstinately neglected, even also by the most
famous analysts of the Fourth Crusade or of the history of the Latin East44. His
chronicle, De Bello Constantinopolitano… was not even mentioned by the 1954
Freddy Thiriet’s
p. 64
45
paper, despite the well intended title of this . Among the Biblioteca
Marciana’s manuscripts enumerated by Thiriet and that are supposed to deal
with the impact of the Fourth Crusade upon the Balkan space and with the Latin
Romania, there are only analysed the well known chronicles written by
Nicholas Trevisan46, John James Caroldo47, Anthony Morosini48, Gasparo
Zancaruolo49 and Zorzi Dolfin50.
At the same time, one of the distinguished specialists in the Venetian
chronicles, that is Anthony Carile made very few notes about P. Ramusio,
confining himself to some episodic references. Therefore, A. Carile for one
moment placed Ramusio’s work in the category of the variante minore51,
although with other occasions Ramusio was considered as a gifted savant and

43
Giambattista RAMUSIO, Navigationi et viaggi: Venice 1563-1606 (edited by R. A.
SKELTON and George B. PARKS), 3 vols., Amsterdam: Theatrum orbis terrarum, 1967-
1970; idem, Navigazioni e viaggi (edited by Marica MILANESI), 5 vols., Turin: Einaudi,
1978; The “Ramusio” Map of 1534: a facsimile edition (edited by Arthur HOLZHEIMER
and David BUISSERET), Chicago: The Newberry Library, 1992. The oldest edition of
Navigatione et viaggi available in the Venetian libraries specifies in its title that it is the third
one: Primo volume, et terza editione Delle navigatione et viaggi raccolta già de m. Gio.
Battista Ramusio…, Venice: nella stamperia de Giunti, 1563.
44
A history of the crusades (edited by Kenneth M. SETTON), volume 2, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962; D. QUELLER, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest
of Constantinople. 1201-1204, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978; John GODFREY,
1204: The Unholy Crusade, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980, etc. The only
bibliographical reference about Paul RAMUSIO that we found out was in Donald M.
NICOL, Byzantium and Venice. A study in diplomatic and cultural relations, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988, but there the Venetian author is no where mentioned
during the proper text. On the Internet, there is only one referece to De Bello
Constantinopolitano…, at the web address: http://www.pei-
intl.com/THEORY/DECFALL/DEC6C60.HTM, note 103.
45
THIRIET, op. cit.
46
Ibidem: 262-266.
47
Ibidem: 266-272.
48
Ibidem: 272-279.
49
Ibidem: 279-285.
50
Ibidem: 286-290.
51
A. CARILE, La cronachistica Veneziana (secoli XIII-XIV): 168-169.
his work was well appreciated52. However, the contact that Carile had any time
with the Ramusio’s work was rather tangential53.
Under these circumstances, we dare to question: why this author has
almost been completely ignored in the modern literature and research, although
his documentation and his capacity of interpretation could not be
underestimated? Was it considered that, in the context of the numerous and
impressive contributions of the humanist current in general, this chronicle
passed unobserved? Anyway, Paul Ramusio’s work came to fill a real abyss: a
critical analysis exclusively dedicated to the Fourth Crusade had never been
written anywhere before his chronicle. Beside this, the work of the Venetian
scholar did not restrict itself to this respect. Any time it was necessary, Ramusio
involved himself in debates that treated other problems, more or less connected
with the Fourth Crusade.
However, a presentation of Paul Ramusio’s family is necessary for the
beginning, having as intention the construction of a more comprising vision
about the milieu that assured his intellectual background.
Certainly, the principal source for the making up of a short history of
Ramusio family is “The Family’s Chronicle”. Not edited, the manuscript of it is
found at Biblioteca Marciana54 and its author has been supposed to be Jeremy
Ramusio (1555-1610), the natural son of the author of De Bello
p. 65
55
Constantinopolitano… . “The Chronicle of the Ramusio Family” undoubtedly
represented the base for the later works belonging to Fr. Sansovino, J. Ghilini,
J. Degli Agostini, Em. A. Cicogna, or Mark Foscarini, which dealt also with
this family in their general achievements dedicated to the Venetian literary
historical and cultural life56.

52
Ibidem: 203.
53
See the using papers of the Marciana’s manuscripts that prove that A. CARILE researched
no more than one day for the Ramusian manuscript, namely at June 21, 1965.
54
Girolamo RAMUSIO, Cronaca della Famiglia Ramusia, at the inventory Ital. VII. 325
(=8839) from Biblioteca Marciana.
55
However, a graphologic analysis of the manuscript demonstrates that two authors wrote it,
more exactly there was a second hand that made some corrections to the text. To the same
extent, we could not find out any sign to attribute the manuscript’s paternity to Jeremy
RAMUSIO. Anyway, the detail referring to the same Jeremy’s decease (cf. Cronaca della
Famiglia Ramusia: 7r) surely belongs to another author.
56
Francesco SANSOVINO, Venetia Citta Nobilissima et singolare, Descritta in XIIII Libri,
Venice: Appresso Iacomo Sansovino, MDLXXXI [1581]: 132r-133r, 254v, 272v, 282r;
Girolamo GHILINI, Teatro d’Huomini Letterati, Venice: per li Guerigli, MDCXLVII
[1649]: 104-105; Giovanni degli AGOSTINI, Notizie istorico-critiche intorno la Vita e le
Opere degli Scrittori Viniziani, [Bologna]: Arnaldo Forni Editore, 1975 (reprinted after
edition in Venice: Presso Simone Occhi, MDCLII [1752]: vol. 2: 400, 433-438, 456, 464,
469-471, 566; Emanuele Antonio CICOGNA, Delle inscrizioni veneziane, vol. 2, Bologna:
Arnaldo Forni Editore, 1982 (reprinted after edition in Venice: Presso Giuseppe Picotti
Stampatore, MDCCCXXVII [1827]: 310-337; Marco FOSCARINI, Della Letteratura
Originated in Rimini and enjoying the protection of the Malatesta family
– the political leaders of this city57, the Ramusio family would settle in Venice
in 1458, under the endeavour of Paul Ramusio Sr (1443-1506)58, the
homonymous grandfather of the De Bello Constantinopolitano…’s author.
Accompanied by some other cultural personalities from Rimini, Paul Ramusio
Sr would soon impose as one of the remarkable members of the Venetian
intellectual life, because of his relations in Venice and of his fame in the
juridical domain59. The family’s subsequent involvement in the Venetian
society could not leave the political activity aside: his son, John Baptist (1485-
1557)60 would become secretary in the Council of Ten, and Paul Ramusio Jr61
would become member in the Republican Senate; there must also be mentioned
the diplomatic missions of John Baptist – fluently speaker of four foreign
languages, beside the Latin and the Ancient Greek, and Jeremy Ramusio62.
Analysing the family’s correspondence, it may be noticed that it was in deep
connections not only with illustrious cultural personalities
p. 66
63
(Peter Bembo and his literary circle, etc. ), but also with Serenissima’s great
chancellors64. There were also some members of the Ramusio family who were
eulogised and were the subject of some dedicated papers65.

Veneziana ed altri scritti intorno ad essa, Bologna: Arnaldo Forni Editore, [1976] (reprinted
after edition in Venice: Co’ Tipi di Teresa Gattei Editrice, 1854): 298-302, 461-467.
57
See the privilege offered by Pandolfo Malatesta to Benedetto Ramusio in 1416, cf.
Cronaca della Famiglia Ramusia, Ital. VII. 325 (=8839): 1r.
58
Ibidem: 1r-v; Giovanni Degli AGOSTINI, op. cit., vol. 2: 433-434; Em. A. CICOGNA,
Delle inscrizioni veneziane, vol. 2: 311-312; Antonio Del PIERO, “Della vita e degli studi di
Gio. Battista Ramusio”, Nuovo Archivio Veneto, new series, 2 (1902): 5-112(1-2).
59
Cronaca della Famiglia Ramusia: 1v-3r.
60
Ibidem: 4r-v.
61
Ibidem: 5v.
62
Ibidem: 6r-7v. According to Em. A. CICOGNA, op. cit.: 316, 335, John Baptist Ramusio
was the Republic’s ambassador at Rome, in Switzerland and in France, and Jeremy Ramusio
acted as diplomat in Spain (1581-1582), Germany (1582-1584, 1591), France (1584-1588).
63
See Pietro BEMBO, Lettere inedite a Giovan Battista Ramusio, Venice: Antonelli, 1875
(beside these letters, there could be added the one detected at the Civic Library in Padua,
registered at the inventory C. M. 291: 504), Epistola ad Joannem Baptistam Rhamusium
Musarum alumnum. Ex Coenobio nostro DD. Joannis, et Pauli Venetiarum (1554), cf.
Giovanni degli AGOSTINI, op. cit., vol. 2: 400, also the funeral speech in verses addressed
to Peter Bembo by Paul RAMUSIO Sr. at 1548, the Paul RAMUSIO Sr.’s editing of the
work of Felice FELICIANO, Alphabetum romanum, cf. the manuscript Vat. lat. 6852 from
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and the translation from Latin to Italian of the work of
Roberto VALTURIO, De re militari, Verona: Boninus de Bonini: 1483, the J. B.
RAMUSIO’s correspondence with Jeremy Fracastoro (whom he dedicated his capital work,
Navigationi et viaggi), Victor Fausto, Benedetto Ramberti, Aldo Manuzio, Francis Asolano,
Bernardino Donati, Gasparo Contarini, Francis Massario, Andrew Navagero, etc. For some
other details regarding the scientifical activity of this family, see also the manuscript having
the inventory Ital. VII. 351 (=8385) from Biblioteca Marciana: 83r, 181r, 299r. For the list of
Other members of the Ramusio family are also signalised in different
other contexts66, but the documentation is not sufficient to permit their
integration in the family’s genealogical tree67.

J. B. RAMUSIO’s works, see Antonio Del PIERO, “Della vita e degli studi di Gio. Battista
Ramusio”, Nuovo Archivio Veneto, new series, 2 (1902): 5-112 (110-112); also, for the
works written by the all members of Ramusio family, see: Em. A. CICOGNA, Delle
inscrizioni veneziane, vol. 2: 510-511 (for Jeremy Ramusio, Paul Ramusio Sr.’s brother),
513-515 (for Paul Ramusio Sr.), 522-530 (for J. B. Ramusio), 532-534 (for Paul Ramusio
Jr.), 536 (for Jeremy Ramusio, P. Ramusio Jr.’s son).
64
See the speeches spoken on different funeral occasions: Oratio Jo. Baptistae Rhamnusii in
funere Francisci Faseoli magni Venetiarum Cancellarii (1559), cf. Emanuele Antonio
CICOGNA, Saggio di Bibliografia Veneziana, Bologna: Forni Editore, 1967 (reprinted after
edition of Venice: dalla Tipografia di G. B. Merlo, MDCCCXLVII [1847] or the funeral
speeches of Paul RAMUSIO Jr. dedicated to Trifon Gabriello, to Andrew de Franceschi
(Republic’s Great Chancellor) or to Iovitta Rapitio (cf. Fr. SANSOVINO, op. cit.: 282r).
65
See for instance Jacobi Rufinii Carmen de pestilentia Venetam urbem vexante 1556, ad
Paulum Rhamnusium Venetum,Venice, 1557, cf. Em. A. CICOGNA, op. cit.: 97.
66
See for instance I Diarii di Marino Sanudo (MCCCCXCVI-MDXXXIII) [1496-1533]
(edited by Rinaldo FULIN, Federico STEFANI, Nicolò BAROZZI, Guglielmo BERCHET,
Marco ALLEGRI), 2nd vol. (edited by G. BERCHET), Venice: a spesse degli editori,
MDCCCLXXX [1879]: 1008, 1129, where there are mentioned Matthew, respectively Peter
Mark Ramusio on July-August 1499.
67
See Appendix no. 1.
5. De Bello Constantinopolitano…. Context
Once established the environment in which Paul Ramusio Jr was formed
and the reputation achieved by his family, we consider as a necessity the
presentation of the context in which De Bello Constantinopolitano… was
written and published. This supposes an involvement inside of the endeavours
promoted by the Venetian authorities in order to propagate the events of the
Fourth Crusade, customarily considered as one of the glorious moments of the
Venice history and, at the same time, a model which could stimulate the 16th
century Venetians and
p. 67
generally the Western Christendom in the fight against the new enemy, namely
the Ottoman Turks. In essence, the question indirectly suggested by Ramusio
was whether the conquest of Constantinople was possible at 1204, why this
undertaking could not be repeated? This is also into direct connection with the
very fact that the termination of the Ramusian opus came to an end in the
context in which the entire Western Christendom relished the Christian naval
success on 1571 at Lepanto, against the Ottoman fleet:

“[…], possiamo ragionevolmente sperare, che à tempi nostri, presa di nuovo


Constantinopoli da Christiani, soggiogata la Grecia, et la Macedonia, con la maggior parte
dell’ Asia, et dell’ Africa, et principalmente ricuperato l’istesso Sepolcro di CHRISTO [sic!],
et il Regno di Gierusalemme, che sarà il vero frutto di guerra cosi pia, il popolo Christiano,
distrutto il comune nemico, goda una vera pace, guadagnata per mezzo di tanto illustre
vittoria: […]”68

“[…] speremus, ut a Christianis capta iterum nostro aevo Constantinopoli, subacta


Graecia, et Macedonia, Asiae, Africaeque maiore parte, sed ipso potissimum Christi, summi
regis sepulchro, et Hierosolymorum regno, qui verus erit pii belli fructus, in Christianorum
potestatem redacto, Christiana gens, deleto hoste communi, parta per summam victoriam
pace perfruatur. […]”69

Thus, it becomes clear the author’s determination to justify the appearing


of a work concerning the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders70.

68
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 4.
69
De Bello Constantinopolitano: 12r.
70
Another appeal for the unity of the Christendom against the ‘common enemy’ is presented
in Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 119: “[…]; parendone, che so dovesse inciò dar qualche
gusto à gli studiosi, accioche fossero poi più pronti, ad investigare l’altre memorie dell’
antica impresa di Costantinopoli fatta da’ Francesi et da’ Venetiani, et intendessero, quanto
di honore, et di merito guadagnarebbono i Prencipi della Christianità , se prendessero
l’armi unitamente contra il nemico commune, sendo destinati non solamente alla
conservatione della gloria, ma ancora alla difesa della pietà, et della quiete commune; di
modo, che publicata dopò tanti anni dal Sommo Pontefice una Crociata, et spiegato contra i
nemici lo stendardo dell’ insegna di CHRISTO [sic!], i posteri con la cognitione del valore
della nostra età, s’infiammassero do nuovo alla ricuperatione della Città di Costantinopoli, et
p. 68
The propagandistic feature does not reduce the work’s value, but it proves that
Ramusio was informed about his contemporary main political events71.
In 1541 a manuscript was brought to Venice, containing Geoffrey of
Villehardouin’s memoirs. It was achieved in Brussels by Francis Contarini72,
the future procurator of St. Mark, and in that moment the Serenissima’s
ambassador to the Emperor Charles V. The manuscript was presented to the

dell’ Imperio dell’ Oriente dovuto ragionevolamente à Christiani. [emphasis mine]”,


respectively in De Bello Constantinopolitano: 148v: “quod operae huic videretur
responsurum precium, si gustum offerrent studiosus, quo deinceps ad religia veteris
Gallorum et Venetorum Constantinopolitanae expeditionis monumenta diligenter
perquirenda, alacri animo firmarentur: indicarentque quantum decoris et gloriae regibus
Christianis accederet, si veteribus odiis extinctis, novis sublatis quibus inter se quotidie
digladiantur, pacem constituerent, et in communem hostem communi consensu arma sua non
solum gloriae sed tuendae quoque pietati et publicae quieti destinata, summenda esse
existimarent. ut scilicet sacro bello Pontificis maximi auspiciis post tot annos indicto,
sublatoque in hostes Christianae crucis vexillo, unde nostrae aetatis virtutem posteritas
intelligere queat, urbs iterum Constantinopolis atque Orientis imperium Christianis gentibus
debitum peteretur [emphasis mine].”
71
In addition, see the information from Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 123, respective De
Bello Constantinopolitano: 152v, where there are some details referring even to the battle of
Lepanto; also, the author demonstrates his genealogical knowledge, presenting the
matrimonial connections of some families of the participants to the Fourth Crusade (Baldwin
of Flanders, Boniface of Montferrat) and of their descendants by the 16th century (for
example, Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 131, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
161r, where he establishes the kinship connection between Baldwin I of Flanders and the
Emperor Charles V; for the Marquis of Montferrat’s genealogy and the justification of his
pretensions in Romania and in Thessaly, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 198-199,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 248r-250r). RAMUSIO insisted on these two
characters, considering them “the two eyes of the Empire”, see Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 109, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 137v.
72
Jeremy RAMUSIO would dedicate his Italian version of the Ramusian chronicle to Francis
Contarini’s nephew, Mark. For the kinship relation between Francis and Mark Contarini, see
Em. A. CICOGNA, Delle inscrizioni veneziane: 332. The same Francis Contarini was
mentioned by Paul RAMUSIO not only in the preliminary dedication from De Bello
Constantinopolitano, but also during the proper work: see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
96: “[…], per gratia di Francesco Contarini figliuolo del Cavalier Zacheria, all’hora
Cassier della Procurattia di S. Marco, Senatore Illustrissimo, et gran Protettor nostro, et
Mecenate della casa Ramusia, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 121 r-v:
“tribuit enim hoc mihi uni singularis beneficii loco, Maecenas olim meus Franciscus
Contarenus Zachariae Equitis F. ipsius aedis Marcianae procurator sacrarii praeses et
senator illustris, fore illud aliquando arbitratus, ut dum ex Villharduini Equitis Franci
commentariis historiam belli Constantinopolitani contexeremus.”. As one may note, the
expression of ‘Ramusio family’s protector’ appears exclusively in the Italian version and
seems rather to be a subsequent addition introduced by Jeremy RAMUSIO, as a consequence
of his special relations with the Contarini family.
members of the Council of Ten73. Actually, the Venetian authorities’ intention
was to produce a
p. 69
simple translation of Villehardouin’s chronicle from Medieval French into
Latin. The endeavour was promoted exactly in order to popularise the Fourth
Crusade. Considered as a success and as a proof of the Republic’s glorious past,
a chronicle of those events had to be published in the Western international
language of the time. After an initial translation in Italian, executed by John
Baptist Ramusio himself74, the Council of Ten would recommend in 1556 the

73
For this manuscript’s history, see below: 14, 14-15. Paul RAMUSIO himself refers to it, in
the dedication that precedes De Bello Constantinopolitano. An unclear respect was
represented by the question whether VILLEHARDOUIN’s respective manuscript was even
the 13th century original or just a simple copy executed in 1573, see Antonio PASINI, “Sulla
versione Ramusiana della cronaca di Villehardouin”, Archivio Veneto, 3 (1872): 264-267
(267), and the doubts expressed by Jean George Théodore GRAESSE, Trésor des Livres
Rares et Précieux ou Nouveau Dictionnaire Bibliographiques, vol. 6, part 2, Dresden: Rudolf
Kuntze - Geneva: Librairie H. Georg - London: Dulau & Comp., Libr - Paris: C. Reinwald,
1865: 322 are justified: “Mais la version latine […], de cet historien [emphasis mine:
Villehardouin] par Paul Ramusio […], précédée d’une dédicace datée de 1573, mais publiée
plus tard, a été faite sur un manuscrit de Ville-Hardouin, car on lit dans le journal de
Guillaume Paradin, sous la date di jeudy 30 Octobre 1572, ce passage remarquable: ‘Mon
frêre retourna à Lyon pour l’affaire dont avoit escrit Rouille pour recouvrer le livre de
Geoffroy de Ville Hardouin pour ung Venitien nomme Paulo Ramusio quile vouloit conferer
avec sa copie’ (voir Péricaud, Variétés p. 130).” That the French edition of
VILLEHARDOUIN would be later published in 1601 under the title of L’histoire ou
chronique du seigneur Geoffroy de Ville-Hardouin, marechal de Champaigne et de Romanie.
Representée de mot à mot en ancienne langue françoise d’un vieil exemplaire escrit à la
main, qui se trouve dans les anciens archives de la république de Venise: contenant la
Conqueste de l’empire de Constantinople faicte par des Barons François, confédéres et unis
avec les seigneurs Vénitiens, l’an 1204, Lyon: par les héritiers de Guillaume Rouille, 1601
does less matter. What interests us is that RAMUSIO utilised the manuscript from 1573 only
later, when he had already finished his proper work, relying upon his father’s translation.
This is proved by RAMUSIO’s dedication, dated also in 1573, cf. J. G. T. GRAESSE, op.
cit., vol. 6, part 1: 23. John Baptist (ceased in 1557) could not utilise the manuscript dated
1573, but another one, more previous. For a short history of the manuscript utilised by
RAMUSIO, see also the article on the Internet from the web address: http://abaa-
booknet.com/catalogs/mrtomcat/2-5.html, at number 175. See also Em. A. CICOGNA, op.
cit.: 330-332 (331), with his mention that the French edition from 1601 was also edited by
Jeremy RAMUSIO, that is evidently an exaggeration. Anyhow, CICOGNA, op. cit.: 335
himself remarks the fact that William ROUILLE’s edition does not make any reference to the
Ramusio family.
74
See the translation of J. B. RAMUSIO at Biblioteca Marciana; actually, there are two
manuscripts: Ital. VII. 138 (=8749) and Ital. VII. 139 (=8324). The second one has the same
graphic like in the case of De Bello Constantinopolitano…, but to attribute also the
translation of VILLEHARDOUIN in Italian to Paul is rather venturesome. The respective
text makes since the very beginning the specification that the translation belongs to John
Baptist, while Paul does not make something else than dividing this version in the six books
mission of the translation into Latin to Paul Ramusio, under his father’s
suggestion. Paul Ramusio’s knowledge of the Latin justified the Venetian
politicians to consider him as the proper choice. John Baptist’s proposal was
noted in this way:
“L’historia veramente di così grande et notabil impresa non è stata finhora scritta
particolarmente in alcuna cronica né volgar né latina, né manco dal Sabellico, né dal
Biondo, né da Egnatio se non brevissimamente, et in molte parti al contrario della verità,
[…]. […] sig. Geoffredo di Villa Arduin marascalco di Campagna, che […] scrisse questa
historia con tutta quella diligentia che dir si possi, in lingua francese, con molta laude del
serenissimo principe Dandolo et di tutta quella illustrissima Republica. Il qual libro il
clarissimo m. Francesco Contarini, il procurator, quando fu nella legation di Fiandra tenne
modo di havere, et havuto lo portò seco in questa città: nel qual si vede che la scrittura è
molto vecchia et antica, et fatta già più d’anni ducento. Però io Zambatista Ramusio, suo
fidelissimo servitor, ho pensato esser di grandissimo honor et gloria di questo
Excellentissimo Stato, quando ditta historia, scritta da un signor francese con tanta laude di
questa Republica, venisse in luce, et che tutto ‘l mondo conoscesse la magnanimità et
grandezza di questo Stato da così grande et illustre impresa; pertanto mi offerisco di tradurla
dal francese nella lingua nostra vulgare [emphasis mine]; […]. Ma quel che importa più, et
dove consiste la gloria et reputation di questo Excellentissimo Stato, che grandissima nasce
da questo così illustro fatto, è che tutti li paesi dei christiani, et dove si
p. 70
estende la lingua latina, sia letta questa historia [emphasis mine] […]. Per far il qual effetto
offerisco l’opera et fatica di Paulo mio fiol et suo servitor; il qual la farà latina con tutto quel
studio et diligentia che per lui si potrà maggiore, accrescendola con le altre cose75 [emphasis
mine], che si trovano scritte nell’ historie di questa città et nelli libri publici, che sono stà da
questo autore pretermesse, et ornandola con tutti quei lumi et di parole et di concetti, il quali
possino far l’historia et bella et ornata, non manco di alcun’ altra che finhora sia stà scritta
da alcuno di questi o di passati tempi delle facende di questo Excellentissimo Stato. E
accioche questi sig. illustrissimi siano sicuri che questa promessa debba riuscire, […],
saranno contente di commetter alli illustrissimi signori Reformatori sopra el Studio, che
leggino delle compositioni del detto Paulo mio fiol fatte finhora in scrittura con sacramento
[emphasis mine], se le pare che’l sia atto a questo effetto o non; et referendo che sì, le
piaccia allhora di dare il carico ad esso mio figliuolo di tradurre questa nobilissima historia
nel latino [emphasis mine], come di sopra ho detto. “76

John Baptist Ramusio would reiterate the recommendation in his


fundamental work, where he, editing Mark Polo’s voyages, would create an
exposure entitled Esposizione di messer Gio. Battista Ramusio sopra queste
parole di messer Marco Polo: “Nel tempo di Balduino, imperatore di
Costantinopoli, dove allora soleva stare un podestà di Venezia per nome di

(see below: 27, note 123). The conclusion must be that Paul initially did only transcribed his
father’s translation, having in intention to make easily his future own work.
75
Besides the details that interest us, it may be inferred from here that the intention to
produce an opus to surpass a simple translation from VILLEHARDOUIN was already
stipulated.
76
Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Cons. X, Comune, no. XXII: 193 sq.
messer lo dose, correndo gli anni del nostro Signore 1250”77. On this occasion,
he would make a reference to the work prepared by his son78. The respective
mention could be also consulted in a manuscript from the Biblioteca Apostolica
of Vatican, under the title of Historia, o espositione di ms. Gio. Battista
Ramusio sopra la cagione, perche in Constantinopoli anticamente stesse un
Podesta per nome del Serenissimo Doge di Venetia tratta da’ molti antichissimi
libri79. After the presentation of the events and of his points of view, John
Baptist Ramusio made the below specification:
Ma chi havera a piacere d’intendere particolarmente et con più dritti, et continuato
ordine il filo di tutta questa historia, che io di sopra non ho raccontato, ne è sino hora stato
scritta da alcuno, incominciando spetialmente dal principio, che Theobaldo Conte di
Ciampagna, et di Bria [emphasis mine: Theobald of Champagne], et Luigi Conte di Bles
[emphasis mine: Louis of Blois] con Balduino [emphasis mine: Baldwin of Flanders], et gli
altri Baroni l’anno 1200 presero la Cruciata nella Fiandra, et fatto il loro parlamento in
p. 71
una Città di Ciampagna mandarono l’anno seguente sei honorati Baroni loro Ambassatori
al Doge Dandolo a Venetia, con lettere di credenza, et molti partiti a domandar navilii, et
una armata per passar in Soria [emphasis mine: Syria] con un essercito de 38 in 40 m
persone, che havevano raccolto per andar alla ricuperatione di Terra Santa, leggera la
Historia di Paulo mio figliolo, la quale egli latinamente scrive di ordine dell Illustrissimo et
Eccellentissimo Consiglio de Dieci di questa Città di Venetia [emphasis mine] acciochè la
memoria di tanto Illustre, et gloriosa impresa non sia dalla lunghezza del tempo fatta piu
oscura di quel, che ella è stata finhora. Onde egli li ha dato con la sua solita liberalità carico,
che ne debba far un copioso Volume, raccogliando tutte quelle cose, che si trovano scritte
parte ne memoriali, et scritture autentiche portate in quei tempi con molte gioie, et Thesori
dell’acquisto di Constantinopoli in questa Città di Venetia da gli altri historici, che ne
habbino parlato, pretermesse, et parte ne commentarii scritti appenna ritrouati a nostri tempi,
che mai nè il Sabellico, nè alcuni altro scrittore ha veduti, di un grande gentilhomo Francese
di molta auttorità, et maneggio, il quale ritrovandosi sempre presente co’l Conte Balduino di
Fiandra, et Henrico suo fratello in questa impressa, la volse all’hora come co lui che la
maneggio, et della quale ne era benissimo instrutto, nella lingua francese con molte belle
particolarità, et con ogni diligentia descrivere80 [emphasis mine]. Questo libro già alquanti
anni il Clarissimo ms Francesco Contarino il Procurator di S. Marco essendo Ambasciator a
Carlo Quinto Imperatore in Fiandra l’anno 1541 et havendolo à caso in una libreria d’un
monasterio trovato, portò seco in questa Città, non volendo patire, che così bella historia
tanto diligentemente et con tanto honor della sua Patria per un’huomo Francese descritta,

77
G. B. RAMUSIO, Navigazioni e Viaggi (edited by Marica MILANESI), 5 vols., Turin:
Giulio Einaudi, 1980, vol. 3: 37-55.
78
ibidem: 52-53.
79
See Ottob. lat. 2240 from Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: 1r-13r. We bring into discussion
the existence of this manuscript because it presents, beside the proper text retaken by John
Baptist in Navigationi, also the transcription of some unpublished documents about the Latin
Empire of Constantinople’s history.
80
See below: 17, note 75.
che altrova non si troveva, rimanesse perpetuamente in un solo libro nascosta, scritto a
penna dentro una libraria della Fiandra.”81

On his turn, Paul would not omit to make referrals to his father’s
geographical contributions, mentioning them on many occasions82.
p. 72
The activity undertaken by Paul Ramusio in this direction extended on a
many years interval, from 1556 (when the proposal came) to September 1572,
when his opus came to its final shape and was approved by the Council of
Ten83. Meanwhile, John Baptist had deceased, in 1557, and this also may be an
explanation for the work’s postponing. There is certitude that the result was
entirely different: instead of a simple translation, Paul Ramusio displayed an
impressive and completely new opus, much more than a simple critical edition
upon the Marshall of Champagne’s chronicle84.
The work’s printing would be made much later, at 1604, after the
author’s decease, when an Italian version – Della Guerra di Costantinopoli…85
- would be published by his son, Jeremy. This version could be confronted with
the same Jeremy’s manuscript from Biblioteca Marciana86. In addition to this

81
G. B. RAMUSIO, Navigazioni e Viaggi: 52-53; Ottob. lat. 2240 from Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana: 9v-10v.
82
For example, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 143, on the occurence of the Cumans’
description: “Ma de’ Cumani […] hà scritto Gio. Battista Rannusio nostro Padre buon
Geografo, nel secondo volume de’ viaggi, et delle navvigationi [emphasis mine]; havendo
esso con due altri volumi à publica utilità illustrato quasi tutte le parti del mondo, conosciute
fin hora, da mezzogiorno à Settentrione, et dal Levante al Ponente; et per conseguenza infino
à gli Antipodi; cavando il tutto da’ Commentarii, et da altri scritti de’ moderni, che sono
andati peregrinando per il mondo, et che ò sono essi stati auttori di nuove navigationi, ò
Generali, Capitani, et Pilotti di armate de Prencipi. […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 178v: “Sed de Cumanis […], Joannes Baptista Rhamnusius pater, sui
temporis non ineptus Geographise scriptor, secundo de itinerum, ac navigationem [emphasis
mine] per dificili cursu volumine, cum tribus voluminibus ex recentiorum qui orbem
explorantes peragrarunt, et se vel navigationum authores, vel classium regiarum proefectos
fuisse asserunt, commentariis, ad non mediocrem nostri aevi utilitatem, omnes fere cogniti
orbis ad hanc diem plagas ab ipso meridiei cardine ad septemtriones, exinde ab ortu in
occasum et proinde ad antoecos pertinentes inganuo labore illustraverit, […]”. Also, Paul
RAMUSIO would not hesitate to mention John Baptist even in the dedication on the De
Bello Constantinopolitano, reminding about the activity and the services brought by his
father to the representatives of the Council of Ten.
83
Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Cons. X, Comune, no. XXX: 134.
84
Paulus RHAMNUSIUS, De Alexii Isaaci, filii Reductione, et Bello Constantinopolitano,
inventory Lat. X. 79 (=3077).
85
Paolo RANNUSIO, Della Guerra di Costantinopoli per la restitutione de gl’imperatori
Comneni fatta da’ signori Venetiani et Francesi, l’anno MCCIV. Libri sei, Venice: Appresto
Domenico Nicolini, 1604.
86
Paolo RAMUSIO, Storia della Guerra dei Veneziani e Francesi nel’ 1204, Libri VII,
tradotti da Girolamo suo figliuolo, con emendazioni originali del Traduttore, inventory Ital.
VII. 188 (=7773).
manuscript, the printed edition presents an original dedication of the editor
(beside the initial one, belonging to Paul Ramusio) and, more important, the list
of the works utilised by Paul and not used by Villehardouin87. Beside these,
Jeremy Ramusio operated some adjustments88, but his contribution could not
overrun the level of a simple translation. Finally, the Latin version would be
also printed, either by Jeremy or by somebody else, twice: in 160989,
respectively in 163490.

87
The list is impressive, comprising the following authors: “Andrea Dandolo Prencipe di
Venetia, Annali di Francia di Nicolo Giglio, Annali di Fiandra del Meyero, Annali di Fiandra
d’incerto Auttore, Beato Antonino,. Bernardo Giustiniano, Benintendi secretario della
Republica, Biondi Flavio da Forlì, Claudio Paradino Francese, Cronica di Marino Sanudo
nobile Venetiano, Cronica del Caroldo, secretario del Consiglio de’ Dieci, Cronica d’incerto
Auttore, Giorgio Acropolita, Giorgio Codino, Gio. Battista Platina, Gio. Villani Fiorentino,
Giovanni Zonara, Guglielmo Arciuescouo di Tiro della Guerra Sacra, Marc’ Antonio
Sabellico, Niceta Coniate, Niceforo Gregora, Niceforo Calisto Xantopulò, Paolo Emilio,
Pietro Giglio, Polidoro Virgilio, Publico Archivo, Specchio historiale di Vincenza”.
88
See for instance Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 2, where, in the context of the
enumeration of some past wars with the Venetian participation, Jeremy added by his own
initiative the war against the ‘League of Cambrai’ (1508-1509) and “quella finalmente de’
Turchi, al tempo della qualle scrivo la presenta historia […]” (1570-1573); although there is
utilised the first person in this text, the reference could not be detected in De bello
Constantinopolitano.
89
Pauli Rhamnusii Veneti, De bello Constantinopolitano et Imperatoribus Comnenis per
Venetos et Gallos restitutis a MCCIV, Libri sex, Venice: Dom. Nicolini, 1609.
90
De bello constantinopolitano et imperatoribus Comnenis per Gallos, et Venetos restitutis
historia Pauli Ramnusii. Editio Altera…, Venice: Apud Marc. Ant. Brogiolum, 1634.
6. De Bello Constantinopolitano…. Technical Data.
Entitled Pauli Rhamnusii. De Alexii Isaaci filii Reductione et Bello
Constantinopolitano Libri VI. eccerpti ex Gallicis Commentariis Gottofredi
Villarduini Eq. Franci Campaniae Marescalli, the Latin manuscript is classified
at Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana under the inventory Lat. X. 79 (=3077), is
dated on the 16th century and has the 355 X 240 dimensions. Written endorse-
reverse, the 261 pages presents equal dimensions during the entire paper, but
the pages between 4v and 8v and between 257r and 271v are blank. The
librarians from Marciana operated the number of the pages, when they made the
inventory of the manuscript in 1904. The material utilised is the paper. The
graphic of the letters is clear and intelligible, proving that the manuscript
represents a final version, and denotes that the same hand wrote it from the
beginning until the end. Dated Venetiis Pridie Idus Septembris MDLXXIII
[1573] and signed by Humillimus servus Paulus Rhamnusius, the manuscript
does not present any evidence that it could be a simple copy. Between the pages
2r and 4r there is the dedication addressed by the author to Peter Giustiniani,
James Foscarini and Bartholomew Veturio, the ones who composed the College
of Three of the Council of Ten at those times. The proper chronicle begins at
the page 9r, with this phrase: “Veneti, post Gotthicum atque Hunnicum
tumultum, sub ipsum Langobardorum in Italiam adventum, ut primum in
insulas se collegerunt, […]”.
As Anthony Carile asserted, the opus represented indeed the passing from
the chronicle to history91. We regard the negativistic considerations expressed
by

91
A. CARILE, La cronachistica Veneziana: 203. On the other hand, it may be somehow
noticed an approaching between the Ramusian work’s style and the general one, utilised in
the Venetian chronicles; we refer here at the manner in which the work begins, with
references to the mythical origins of Venice as a state, to the devastating Germanic and
Hunnic invasions that had represented the background of the state formation in the region of
Veneto (see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 1, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 9r).
Generally, there is the same method followed in different Venetian chronicles that could be
found out in the manuscripts from the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, such as: Cronaca
Veneta detta Veniera sino al 1479 (or, following the denomination in the catalogue: Andrea
DONÀ, Cronaca Veneta, inventory Ital. VII. 10 (=8607); Marcantonio ERIZZO, Cronaca
Veneta dal principio della Città sino al 1495, inventory Ital. VII. 56 (=8636); Cronica
Barbo. Venezia Cronici, inventory Ital.VII. 66 (=7766), but also in Lorenzo de MONACIS,
Chronicon de rebus Venetis ab U. C. ad Annum MCCCLIV [1354] sive ad conjurationem
Ducis Faledro (edited by Flaminius CORNELIUS), Venice: ex Typographia Remondiniana,
1758, which all of them begin with the history of Venice after the Attila’s invasion in Italy
(with the specification that Lorenzo de Monacis’s text also adds an ‘involvement’ in the Old
Testament). On a somehow different position is Andrew DANDOLO’s chronicle: Andreae
Danduli Ducis Venetorum Chronica per extensium descripta a aa. 46-1280 D. C. (edited by
Ester PASTORELLO, in the collection Rerum Italicarum Scriptores of L. A. MURATORI),
Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, MDCCXXVIII [1728], which commences with the relation
p. 74
92
another humanist historiography’s analyst, namely Eric Cochrane , as being
somehow improper. At least, for the simple reason that the utilisation of the
Byzantine sources or the references to examples from the history and
historiography of the Antiquity are made, in Ramusio’s case, with judgement
and in a critical way, the resulted chronicle much overrunning the level of
compilation.
At a first sight, Ramusio’s opus simply tried to elucidate the main
problems raised by Villehardouin. This tendency is many times visible and even
declared93, explaining the initial intention to create nothing more than a critical

about St Mark, the legendary founder of Venice. For the manner in which the Venetian origin
was reflected in the Venetian chronicles, see A. CARILE, “Una ‘Vita di Attila’ à Venezia
nell XV secolo”, in Venezia e Ungheria nel Rinascimento (edited by Vittore BRANCA),
Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1973: 369-396; idem, “Le origini di Venezia nella più antiche
cronache veneziane”, Mnemosynon (1974): 27-40; idem, “Le origini di Venezia nella
tradizione storiografica”, in Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 1, Vicenza: N. Pozza, 1976:
136-166; idem and Giorgio FEDALTO, Le origini di Venezia, Bologna: Patron, 1978.
92
E. COCHRANE, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago -
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1981: 232, where it is specified: “[Paul] Ramusio
merely translated parts of Villehardouin’s chronicle of the Fourth Crusade […]; and he then
patched it together with passages taken from the standard humanist historians […]. But the
results hardly justified the claims of his grandson [sic!] that he [Paul Ramusio, emphasis
mine] had consumed years, spent his substance, and neglected his family affairs’ while
working on it.”
93
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 4: “Ma che stò io à produrre nuovi essempi, havendo
Gottifredo di Villarduino, Marescial de Campagna, huomo per la sua molta virtù, di gran
credito presso i Francesi, testimonio verace, et religiose, che tutta questa impresa
particolarmente descrive nella sua lingua Francese? Né fù gli solamente presente à tal
guerra: ma la maneggio ancora con carico militare. Si che qual sia stata in quel tempo la
virtù de’ Venetiani, et il valor de’ Francesi si può agevolmente raccogliere da’ suoi
Commentarii. Nella qual cosa temiano veramente, di non parer con questa nostra fatica, di
rinfacciare à gli huomini del nostro secolo la dapocaggione, et la fiacchezza loro, ancorche
noi non habbiamo questo fine; […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 11v: “Quid
amplius argumentus utor, qui Gotthofredum Villharduinum, equitem Francum, Campaniae
Mareschallum, testem in primis veum et religiosum, atque huius historiae, et Scriptorem, et
actorem affero? Nec enim ei bello solum interfuit, sed etiam proefuit. Quam obrem quae tum
Venetorum, et Francorum virtus fuerit, quae animi praestantia, ex eodem licet agnoscere, in
quo equidem vereor, hac Villharduini historici de lingua Gallica in latinam conversione, ne
huius saeculi hominibus ignaviam, et imbecilitatem exprobrare videar.” and Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 42: “Tutte queste cose il nostro Villarduino, che vi si trovò presente, et con
carico, narra in questa maniera: Onde noi da’ suoi Commentarii con l’istessa fede la venimo
à rappresentare.”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 54v: “Haec Gotthofredus
Villharduinus Campaniae Marescallus, qui omnibus rebus interfuit plerisque etiam proefuit,
omnia suis commentariis (ex quibus has historias conscripsimus) ex veritate testificatur.”;
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 119: “[…], sotto gl’Imperatori di Costantinopoli, lequali al
tempo del Villarduino erano celeberrime, et al presente haver notitia alcuna, non che
habbiamno potuto gli Historici antichi farne mentione, […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 147v: “[…], multas enatas Constantinopolitanis Augustis
edition of La Conquête de Constantinople. Afterwards, Ramusio got thoroughly
into the problems raised by the Fourth Crusade, implicating also into the
solving of
p. 75
some ampler respects. For example, he approached the relationship between the
spiritual and the temporal powers94; the Eastern Christendom’s image in the
Western view and the Pentarchy inside of the ecclesiastical hierarchy95; the
problems of the translatio imperio96; the image of the ‘infidels’97; the
geographical integration of some exotical population, and the creation of a new
mappae mundi98, etc. All of these subjects preoccupied the humanist circles99,

imperatoribus, […], quarum Villharduini saeculo magna celebritas esset, nunc autem
penitus dirutarum nomine tantum superstite, nec notitia ad nos earum pervenerit, nedum, ut
veteres historici meminisse illarum potuerint, […]”. For other referrals to the French
chronicler not only in his position of reporter, but also in the one of participant, see Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 7, 92, 143, 148, 151, 153, 154, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 15r, 115v, 116r, 125v, 178r, 184r, 185v, 188r, 189r, 229r, 230v, 238v,
245v, and so on.
94
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 66-69, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 83v-
87v, about the pope - Western emperor relationship, in comparison with the one between the
Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor.
95
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 80-81, 106, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
100r-102r, 133v, where it is minutely discussed the respect of the Papal primacy, of the
position of the patriarch of Constantinople inside of the ecclesiastical pentarchy, of the
territories being under his jurisdiction, of the Greek ‘sect’. Moreover, Ramusio penetrates
with his investigation inside of the Byzantine principles of state, making a successful
presentation of the relationship between the Byzantine emperor and the patriarch of
Constantinople. De Bello Constantinopolitano: 87v-88r also presents the doctrine differences
between the Christianity’s two branches, which was not retaken in the Italian edition.
96
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 3, 101 119, 171, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 10v, 127r, 148r, 213v.
97
There are not less interesting the descriptions of the Turks (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 4, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 12r), including their origin
(Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 83, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 104r), or of
the Cumans (especially, Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 143-144, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 178v-179v, with references to Olaf the Great), the references to some
Eastern toponyms and their denominations in the author’s time, namely in the period of
Ottoman domination (for instance, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 47, respective De
Bello Constantinopolitano: 59r-v).
98
See below: chapter 13 “Geographical Approaches. Humanist Versions for a mappae
mundi”: 42-44, but also supplementary references to the Cumans, Turks, Tartars, etc.
99
Among the general works concerning the Humanist historiography, there are references to
the Ramusio family in: Gaetano COZZI, “Cultura politica e religione nella ‘publica
storiografia’ Veneziana del ‘500”, Bollettino dell’ Istituto di Storia della Società e dello Stato
Veneziano, 5-6 (1963-1964), Florence: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki, 1965: 215-294; Eric
COCHRANE, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago - London:
The University of Chicago Press, 1981; Margaret LEATH KING, Venetian Humanism in an
Age of Patrician Dominance, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Unfortunately, main works under this respect, such as Eduard FUETER, Storia della
especially in the case of the historians investigating the political sciences100.
There is also
p. 76
101
presented a very documented history of Constantinople , while the episodes
concerning the Byzantine history evince that the author is a complete
Byzantinologist102. For all this impressive documentation, Ramusio did not
confine itself to the literature at hand103. He did not resist to the temptation to
consult also

Storiografia moderna, Milan - Naples: Riccardo Picciardi Editore, MCMLXX [1970]; Hans
BARON, La crisi del primo Rinascimento italiano. Umanesimo civile e libertà repubblicana
in un’ età di classicismo e di tirannide, Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1970; Charles TRINKAUS,
In our image and likeness: humanity and divinity in Italian humanist thought, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1970; Barbara MARX, Venezia altera Roma? Ipotesi sull’
umanesimo veneziano, Venice: Centro tedesco di studi veneziani, 1978; Denys HAY, Storici
e cronisti dal medioevo al XVII secolo, Rome - Bari: Laterza, 1981; Gian Mario ANSELMI,
Umanisti, storici e traduttori, Bologna: CLUEB, 1981; E. B. FRYDE, Humanism and
Renaissance Historiography, London: The Hambledon Press, 1983; Francesco TATEO, I
miti della storiografia umanistica,, Rome: Bulzoni, 1990 do not make any mention.
100
See The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350-c. 1450 (edited by J. H.
BURNS), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 (1988), especially chapters 13
(“Introduction: Politics, Institutions and Ideas” by J. P. CANNING: 341-366), 14 (“Spiritual
and Temporal Powers” by J. A. WATT: 367-423), 15 (“Law. 1 Law, Legislative Authority,
and Theories of Government, 1150-1300” by K. PENNINGTON: 424-453), and also Ernst
CASSIRER, The Myth of the State, New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 1974
(1946), chapter 7 (“The Religious and Metaphysical Background of the Medieval Theory of
the State”: 78-105); Antony BLACK, Political Thought in Europe 1250-1450, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992; Maurizio VIROLI, From Politics to Reason of State. The
acquisition and transformation of the language of politics 1250-1600, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
101
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 45-49, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 58r-
65v.
102
For the referrals to the Byzantine history, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 105,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 130v - about the Byzantine emperors Justin I (518-
527), Justinian I (527-565), Nicephorus II Phocas (963-969), on the occasion of the Bokaleon
palace’s description; Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 98, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 124r - about the period of the emperor Heraclius (610-641); Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 45-47 and 72-73, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 58r-
65v, 91r-v - in the context of the relations with the First Bulgarian Empire; Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 135, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 168r-v - an etymological
history of Morea; Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 96, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 122r - about the 1261 event, where it is mentioned the Emperor
Michael VIII Paleologus (1261-1282), named “Michel Paleologo, detto Chier Michalim”,
respective “Michaele Palaeologo […] (Chier Michalim appellabant)”; Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 126, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 156r-v - about the Emperor
John VIII Paleologus (1425-1448) and his participation to the Council of Florence in 1439,
etc.
103
Meaning the Venetian chroniclers, such as Andrew DANDOLO (mentioned in Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 94: Tutto questo fatto sendo di questa maniera narrato dal
p. 77
104
the Byzantine historiography to almost the same extent . The parallelisms
made by him with the historical and mythological events from the Greek-

Villarduino, Noi ancora non resteremo dì esporlo con il lume piu chiaro di quasi tutti gli
annali Venetiani, et particolarmente dell’ Historia del Doge Andrea Dandolo, che hebbe il
Principato 134. anni dopò Enrico, et che diligentissimamente per memoria de’ posteri lo
rappresenta; […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 118r: “Quae totares a
Villharduino commemorata, ut maiorem lucem accipiat, quod omnibus fere Venetorum
annalibus sed Andreae Danduli principis praesertim historiis enucleatius prodita est, quae
Venetos haec ad posteritatis memoriam curiosius notasse commonstrant, a me fusius huic
historiae mandabitur.”, but also in Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 42, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 51v) or the so called ‘public Venetian historiography’ (cf. Gaetano
COZZI, “Cultura politica e religione nella ‘pubblica storiografia’ Veneziana del ‘500”,
Bollettino dell’ Istituto di Storia della Società e dello Stato Veneziano, 5-6 (1963-1964): 215-
294; for example, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 126-127, where he makes referral to
the builder of the library of St Mark, the Florence architect James Sansovino, but also to the
ones that had been preoccupied to its attendance: M. A. Sabellico, Andrew Navagero, Peter
Bembo, Bernardino Loredano, Alvigi Gradenigo, etc. However, De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 157r presents some different names: Philippus Tronus, Antonius
Capellus, Andreas Leonus, Victor Grimanus, Joannes Legius, Aloysius Pisaurus, Nicolaus
Tronus, the only common point being G. Sansovino and Aloysius Gradonicus; the
explanation for such a differences between the two versions consists of the fact that Jeremy
Ramusio ‘operated’ the respective modifications in function of his own relations and
interests. Among the Venetians historians proposed or nominated by the Council of Ten to
elaborate a history of Venice, we mention: Mark Anthony Coccio or Sabellico, Donado da
Lezze, Marino Sanudo, Andrew Navagero, Peter Bembo, Daniel Barbaro, Peter Giustiniani,
Paul Tiepolo, Michael Bruto, Bernard Navagero, Augustine Valier, Nicholas Barbarigo,
Mark Guazzo, Anthony Milledonne, Paul Paruta, Alvise Contarini, etc., cf. G. COZZI, op.
cit.
104
From the list given in the Jeremy RAMUSIO’s edition, it results that this chronicle
utilised as sources, among others: Nicetas Choniates, George Akropolites, John Zonaras,
George Kodinos, Nicephorus Gregoras. The referrals to Choniates and to Akropolites also
appear in the proper text, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 177, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 220v; while Choniates is also present in Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 99-100: “Ma Niceta, scrittor per altro molto fedele, di grande ingegno, et
assai curioso nel raccontar le cose di Costantinopoli”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 125v: “Sed Choniate summae alioqui fidei et ingenii scriptori, […]”
and continues with Nicetas’s retreat to Chonai, after 1204; Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
139-140, 171, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 173r, 213r. Respecting the
publication of Choniates, the Venetian libraries do not possess O City of Byzantium. Annals
of Nicetas Choniates (edited by Harry J. MAGOULIAS), Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1984, while the Italian initiative to print the Byzantine author in Nicetas Acominatos
CONIATA, Grandezza e catastrofe di Bisanzio (edited by Riccardo MAISANO and
Alexander P. KAZHDAN), [Rome]: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla - [Milan]: A. Mondadori,
1994 ceased after the publication of the first volume, comprising the period before the reign
of Manuel I Comnenus (1143-1180). The decease of Prof Al. KAZHDAN (occured on 1997)
does not let many hopes to the proceeding of such a project. This is the reason why we could
only utilise a 16th century edition: Nicetas ACOMINATUS, Secondo et terzo libro dell’
historie di Niceta Coniate, gran secretario, et giudice di Belo, ne’ quali seguendosi l’ordine,
Roman Antiquity, in fashion at his times have a specific savour105, while the
lecture of his

dall’ Imperio di Alessio Commeno porfirogenito, si viene fino all’ Imperio di Baldovino, et di
Henrico Conti di Fiandra (edited by Lodovico DOLCE and Agostino FERENTILLI),
Venice: Gabriel Giolito di Ferrari, 1569. We suppose that this is one of the editions utilised
by Paul RAMUSIO himself. Respecting G. Akropolites, see Georgi Acropolitae Opera
(edited by Augustus HEISENBERG), Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri, 1900, instead of the edition
from Stuttgart: Teubner, 1978.
105
See the references to events of characters from Antiquity: the Egyptian pyramids and
obelisks (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 95, 120, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
149r, the detail about the obelisks could not be found out in the Latin edition); the Trojan war
(Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 121, 122, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 150r,
151r-v); the supposed sepulchre of Homer in Magnesia (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
120, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 149v); elements from the Greek and Roman
mythology (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 46, 47, 120, 121, 122, etc., respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 59v, 60r, 149v, 150v, etc.); the Argonautic expedition (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 81-82, 114, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 102v, 154r); the
legendary Minos (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 204, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 255r, mentioned in the context of the passing of Crete under the
Venetian jurisdiction); the foundation of some colonies by the Athenians, Megarites or
Spartans (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 46, 47, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
59v, 60v); Cyrus, the Persian King (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 47, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 59v); the Greek intercourse in the expedition of Cyrus the Young
(Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 47, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 60r, thus
proving that he consulted Xenophon’s ; a minutely description of the Athens
(Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 121: “[…] nella quale era Athene, Città già tanto famosa
non solamente per la grandezza del suo dominio; ma ancora per essere stata nutrice di tutte
le scienze, et di prestantissimi ingegni; […]”, respective 150v: “cuius Athenae, urbs non
imperii solum late quondam dominantis, sed et artium omne genus et ingeniorum
praestantissimorum alumna fuerat”); Lycurgus (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 122,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 151r); Pausanias, the Spartan King, incorrect
considered as the founder of Constantinople (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 45, 48,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 58r, 60v); Pythagora (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 120, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 149v); the Themistocles’s
struggles against the Persians (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 121, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 150r); Epaminondas and Pindarus, in the context of the Thebes’s
description (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 121, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
150v); Philip II of Macedonia and Alexander the Great (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 121,
124, 183 respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 150r, 153v, 227r); Lysymachus (Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 125, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 156r); Pyrrhus
(Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 122, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 152v);
Alexandria from Egypt, during the Lagide period (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 98,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 124r); the wars of Cnaeius Pompeius against
Tigranes and Mitridates (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 94, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 119r); Mark Antony and Cleopatra (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
95, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 120r); a general presentation of the Roman
emperors (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 95, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
120r); the Arches of Rome belonging to Augustus, Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Maxence,
Constantine and the description of Colosseum (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 95,
p. 78
106
text illustrates his allusions to historians from the Classic world . Moreover,
he took advantage of this opportunity to display his knowledge from different
other fields; for instance he furnished details respecting the precious stones’
composition, sorts of these stones, etc107.
Practically, every detail connected to the conquest and the robbery of
Constantinople by the Crusaders108 represented an opportunity for Paul
Ramusio to demonstrate his erudition and culture regarding the history of the
rubbed churches or relics. Every this monument or object had an apart history,
and the Venetian
p. 79
humanist did not hesitate to evoke it. To the same extent, the partition of the
Byzantine empire among the conquerors109 implicated the geographical and
historical description of all the regions and cities taken by the Crusaders and the

respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 119v); the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem


by the Romans (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 96, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 120v); the wars of the Emperor Valence against the Persians (Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 47, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 59v). There are
some other historical moments taken into consideration: the Emperor Marcian (Della Guerra
di Costantinopoli: 47; respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 59v); Muhammad (Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 98: “quello scelerato di Macometto”; respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 124r: “impurus ille et sceleratus Mahometis delirii sui leges daret”);
the destiny of the Henry Dandolo’s sepulchre in St Sophia (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
159, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 196r-v); Louis IX the Saint, the King of
France (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 96, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 122r);
the Cardinal Bessarion and the construction of the St Mark Library, compared with the
Ptolomaios’s library in Alexandria (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 126, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 156r-v). Anyway, there are also Christian elements, in the context of
the Constantinopolitan churches’ description: St John the Baptist (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 46, 97, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 59r, 122v - into connection
with the relics taken from Constantinople); St John the Theologian (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 123, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 153r - in the context of the
island of Patmos’s description); the Council of Nicaea in 325 (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 125, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 156r), etc.
106
See the references to: De Bello Gallico (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 3-4, respective
De Bello Constantinopolitano: 11r-v; there is to be remarked that in the Italian version,
Jeremy RAMUSIO did not understand that there is the famous Caesar’s opus, and he
translated word by word “la guerra di Francesi”); Plinius (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
95, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 120r); Strabon and Polybius (Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 194, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 243r); general reflections
upon the Latin historians (Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 119, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 147r).
107
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 94, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 119r.
108
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 92-98, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 114r-
122r.
109
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 119-124, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 122v-
127v.
Venetians into possession. Ramusio’s culture found a proper ground to be
displayed. Every geographical denomination implied the narration of a
historical event or the depiction of a past or present character. The very fact that
regions with a remarkable past, like Greece or Asia Minor were in his optic,
offered him the chance to turn his knowledge to good account.
It was appreciated that, by his work, it was changed only the approaching
method, not also the passion from the presented events and problems110. That is
partially true, but also inherent for a text written in the 16th century. Whether it
is persisted around the ‘passion’ and the ‘patriotism’, then how could be
considered the 19th and, in some cases, even the 20th century historiography?
There is no doubt that the Fourth Crusade episode held a distinctive place
in the Venetian historiography. It generated questions and raised problems
because of some particular reasons, such as the ‘exotic’ feature of the action,
the contact between the two worlds and, last but not least, a glorious past
moment. That is why there must not be surprising that the interpretations
around this episode would be retaken after Paul Ramusio. In 1627, Andrew
Morosini also ventured to elaborate a chronicle entirely dedicated to the Fourth
Crusade111, where he engaged on some occasions to critical debates, presenting
in parallels the Villehardouin’s and Nicetas Choniates’s opinions112, and the
narration of the events mainly respects the historical reality. Nevertheless,
Morosini’s text did not surpass the level of a compilation between the two
below mentioned authors. The impressive quantity of information and details
that assures a specific charm to Ramusio’s opus could not be found again in
Morosini’s history113. What had this one in addition was the presentation of
some documents, elaborated under the Emperor Henry I of Hainaut (1206-
1216) and published by A. Morosini in order to suggest the Venice’s imagine as
“the third Rome”114. Respecting the events immediately subsequent to the
appearance of the Assenides on the stage, they were well accentuated. The
p. 80

110
A. CARILE, La cronachistica Veneziana: 203, “Tale più tarda storiografia, inaugurata
dall’ opera dei Ramusio, è diversa dalla cronachistica solo nei matodi, mentre è vicina a
quella negli intendimenti e nelle passioni.”. See also idem, “La Partitio Terrarum Imperii
Romanie del 1204 nella tradizione storica nei Veneziani”, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e
Neoellenici, n.s., 2-3 (12-13) (1965-1966): 167-179 (174-175, note 1).
111
Andrea MOROSINI, L’Imprese, et espeditioni di Terra Santa, et l’Acquisto fatto
dell’Imperio di Constantinopoli dalla Serenissima Republica di Venetia, Venice:
Antonio Pinelli, MDCXXVII [1627].
112
ibidem: 208-209, 252-253, 261-262.
113
The referral to the Spartan King Pausanias as founder of Byzantion, ibidem: 136 or the
specification that Pylos is Nestor’s homeland, ibidem: 247 are two of the few allusions to the
Antiquity.
114
ibidem: 270, 273-275. See also above: 5, note 16.
author insisted upon the agreement between the Greeks and Johannitza
Kaloyan115. On the contrary to the Ramusian description, A. Morosini
constantly regarded the Assenides as Bulgarians, and Johannitza, once Principe
di Bulgaria116, would subjugate Wallachia117. In addition, the author insisted on
the battle of Andrinople and on the clash produced upon the Crusader camp118.
Generally speaking, the same conclusions could be drawn concerning
another chronicle, elaborated during the 18th century and anonymous, being
only as a manuscript119. Focusing again on the Fourth Crusade, it finished
abruptly, in the middle of the phrase, during the narration of the preparations for
the second siege of Constantinople. It suggested thus that the other pages are
lost. As a consequence, the referrals to the Assenides were accordingly reduced.
However, the anonymous author found the opportunity to mention Ioannis di
natione Valacco, describing him as a rebel against his own father and against
the Greek emperors, and to allude that he obtained the title of Rè di Bulgaria et
Valacchia120.
Anyhow, an investigation of such a far-reaching like Ramusio’s work
could not be detected.

115
ibidem: 248-250.
116
ibidem: 252.
117
ibidem: 249. There could be a sign that A. MOROSINI did not mainly utilised Nicetas
CHONIATES, but George ACROPOLITES, who had operated the substitution of the terms
of or from the Choniates’s text with , respective .
118
ibidem: 254-262, respective 263-269.
119
Storia della Conquista di Costantinopoli efatta da’ Venetiani, e da’ Francesi, inventory
Ital. XI. 152 (=6253): 1-203 from Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana.
120
Ibidem: 193.
7. De Bello Constantinopolitano…. Structure
De Bello Constantinopolitano… was structured in six books. That was
not by chance, since also the Italian version of Villehardouin’s chronicle
presents the same structure. Actually, Paul Ramusio himself copied his father’s
translation. There is the same handwriting as in the case of De Bello
Constantinopolitano…. Consequently, John Baptist’s Italian version of
Villehardouin121 was recopied by Paul122 with the introductory specification:
“Tutto questo corpo di Cronica del S.Gotthofredo Villarduino Francese tradotta già da
M. Gio: Battista Ramusio, è stato dapo’ diuiso in sei Libri da m. Paolo Ramusio suo figliolo,
così in questo volume volgare, come nel Latino fatto da lui, per maggior commodità di
Lettori. […]”123

p. 81
Thus, Paul Ramusio also operated the division of the Villehardouin’s
chronicle in the six parts, in order to be less difficult for him to elaborate his
own work. Hence, it is maintained the initial intention, that was to follow
Villehardouin’s text.
The first book of De Bello Constantinopolitano comprises a general
presentation of the Venetian past before the Fourth Crusade, makes references
to the previous crusades, the Fourth Crusade’s premises, narrating the events by
the capturing of Zara by the Crusaders and the Venetians in November 1202124.
The second one follows the evolution of the events under a new context,
namely the appearing of a new possibility for the Crusaders: the deviation to
Constantinople, and it also contains the first siege of the Byzantine capital (July
17, 1203). There is rather a descriptive part (of Constantinople and of the
surrounding regions) than a narrative one125.
The third book takes into consideration the Alexius IV’s crowning and
reign (1204-1205); his assassination and the ruling of Alexius V ‘Murtzuphlos’
(January 1204); the second siege of Constantinople (April 12-13, 1204); the
Partitio Romaniae, the election of Baldwin I and of the Patriarch Thomas
Morosini; the other Crusader conquests in Greece and Asia Minor; the tensions
between Baldwin I and Boniface of Montferrat126.
The fourth book insists upon the confrontations with Johannitza Kaloyan
and with Theodore I Lascaris, the Nicaean emperor (1204-1222) and culminates
with the record of the battle of Andrinople127.

121
The manuscript Ital. VII. 138 (=8749) from Biblioteca Marciana.
122
The manuscript Ital. VII. 139 (=8324) from Biblioteca Marciana.
123
Ibidem, f. I.
124
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 1-38; De Bello Constantinopolitano: 9v-50r.
125
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 39-74; De Bello Constantinopolitano: 51r-94r.
126
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 75-116; De Bello Constantinopolitano: 94v-145r.
127
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 117-150; De Bello Constantinopolitano: 145v-185r.
The fifth book describes the consequences of the moment of Andrinople
and the partial reestablishment of the situation of the Latin Empire by Henry I
(1206-1216), the normalisation of the relations between the Latins and the
Greeks128.
Respecting the last book, this is dedicated to the subsequent events,
passing around the year 1207, when the former leader of the Crusade, Boniface
of Montferrat disappeared129.
The accent of our presentation is going to rely upon the references to the
Assenides, which occupy a consistent portion of the second and of the sixth
books. Actually, the proportion that these hold in the entire text is
approximately the same as in the case of the French chronicler. The difference
consists in the quantity of information.

128
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 151-180; De Bello Constantinopolitano: 185v-224v.
129
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 181-205; De Bello Constantinopolitano: 225r-256r.
8. Johannitza Kaloyan – Symbol of Terror
Any time, the image of Johannitza inspires frighten. There is explainable,
since during the entire period described in the chronicle the relationship
between the Westerners and the Assenides relied exclusively upon
confrontations and pillages, slaughters and deportations. There would not be
negotiations before the violent disappearing of Johannitza in 1207. Therefore,
he as personality could not find a place in the Western world ‘system’. Until his
end, he would remain integrated in the category of ‘the others’. This theory of
the ‘integration’ of some outsider population or characters into the system
already created could be farther explored130. The State of the Assenides would
also be ‘accepted’, but only beginning with the rule of Boril (1207-1218) and
continuing with the one of John Asen II’s (1218-1241). There was not the case
with Johannitza. In the context of the theory that we follow here, his state was
just at the beginning, in the period of the initial collition.
Definitely, this respect should not be overestimated. One serious
amendment is represented by the contacts had by Johannitza and by the
Patriarch Basil of Tarnovo with the highest Western institution, that was the
Papacy. Nevertheless, after the impact of Andrinople, there was registered no
more than one letter written by Innocent III – a consistent one, rightly – in
which the Pope demanded the liberation of Baldwin I from Johannitza’s prison,
and looked for Johannitza’s good will131. The subsequent evolution of the
events was marked by

130
Although they have afterwards been the ‘evil enemies’, they have had a well-
distinguished delimitation. For example, the Muslims - after the first confrontations - have
been grouped in the ‘sect of Muhammad’, thus occupying a place into the system; the
Normans, the Hungarians, or the Tartars, after the initial impact, are integrated, moreover
properly: the Normans and the Hungarians would definitely belong to the Western world,
while the Tartars would be contacted by different Western embassies, in the in the
confidence that they would adhere to the anti-Muslim cause. The same situation is available
for the characters or for different epochs; for instance, Napoleon I was the ‘Monster from
Corse’, unrecognised by Europe exactly because he had come from outside of the dynasties
and of the ‘system’. He would gradually accepted, following his entrance in the European
‘family’, by his marriage with a Hapsburg princess; subsequently, the ‘system’ would
repudiate him as character, but not as a dynasty, as a proof staying the fact that his nephew,
Napoleon III, would not be contested by any one inside of the ‘system’.
131
Patrologia, vol. 215, doc. CXXIX, colls. 705-706: “Noveris ergo, fili charissime, quod
ingens exercitus de occidentalibus partibus est in Graeciam profecturus, praeter illum qui
nuper accessit. Unde, tibi, et terrae tuae debes summopere providere, ut, dum potes , pacem
inter ineas cum Latinis; ne, si forte ipsi ex una parte, et Hungari ex altera, te studuerint
impugnare, non facile possis resistere conatibus utrotumque. Quocirca, serenitati tuae
suggerimus et consultimus recta fide, quatenus, cum Balduinum, Constantinopolitanum
imperatorem, dicaris tenere captivum, ita tibi provideas, ut per liberationem ipsius veram et
firmam pacem facias cum Latinis, ut ab impugnatione tua et terrae tuae penitus conquiescat.
Nos enim, Henrico, fratri ejusdem imperatoris, qui Constantinopoli praeest exercitui
p. 83
the huge destructions provoked by the Cumans – Johannitza’s auxiliary troops –
and by his conduct against the Latins in the Balkans. It would demonstrate to
the Pope that the sovereign from Tarnovo would already be a lost cause, being
definitely escaped from the control of the ‘system’.
According to the Ramusian vision, Johannitza was pictured as “the God’s
and the people’s enemy”132, “unfettered Devil”133, disorderly134, miser135,
treacherous136, cruel137, perjurer138, ferocious139, proud140, tyrant141, but also
rich142.

Latinorum, per apostolica scripta mandamus, ut ad pacem tuam pro liberatione ipsius
imperatoris Latinos inclinet, et a tua molestatione cesset omnino […]”. Anyhow, this is the
last letter emitted by the Papal chancellery to the sovereign in Tarnovo.
132
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 172: “Ma il Rè Giovannissa nemico di Dio, et de gli
huomini […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 213v: “Caeterum Mysus, Deum
atque hominum apertus hostis animo agitans […]”.
133
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 168: “[…], che sapevano di havere à combattere
non con uno armato nemico, ma con un Diavolo scatenato, et co’ suoi ministri, che erano più
veloci del vento, et co’ quali non si poteva acquistare honore, […]”. The expression could
not be found out in the Latin version.
134
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 73, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 92r.
135
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 166: “[…]; percioche haveva avarissimamente
predata quasi tutta la Romania, […]”. The idea is not retaken in the Latin version.
136
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 164: “Ma havutili nelle mani, usò la solita perfidia
ancora contra i Greci; […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 203v: “At vero post
quam Mysus in manu habuit, consueta perfidia usus, in Graecos, soevit: […]”, or Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 169: “Fù poi tale spavento accresciuto dall’intendere la perfidia
del Rè Giovannissa, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopoli: 210r: “Dein fama vires
pavor de regis Joannissa perfidia, […]”, or Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 172: “Essi
[emphasis mine the Greeks] […] gli rimproverano la sua perfidia, la quale havevano per
alquanti mesi sopportata miseramente; percioche havendo promesso con giuramento di non
danneggiare la Grecia, l’haveva con tutto ciò ruinata tutta, et messala à fuoco, et à ferro,
con la morte, et con l’essiglio d’un numero infinito d’huomini della loro natione.”,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 214r: “Illi […] rege perfidiam turpiter
exprobrantes, nominatim refricant ei fractam fidem, cum primum a Francis ad ipsum
defecissent. Cum enim iurato promisisset, Graeciam omnem incolumem servare, suam
deditionem, miserrima caede Graecorum exulum, innocentium civitatum incendiis, rerumque
omnium eversione remuneratum fuisse.”
137
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 171: “I Greci, che rebellatisi da’ Francesi, si erano
accostati al Rè Giovannissa, ò fattii delle miserie de’ nostri, ò mossi dalle ruine di tante
Città, et Castella, et dalla perfidia del crudelissimo Rè, cominciarono à pensare à se stessi,
et à dubitare delle vite loro; […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 212 r-v:
“Graeci, nostrorum miseriis atque aerumnis, aut satiati aut pro malis illachrymantes, qui a
Francis ad Joannissam desciverant, eiusque sacramento militabant, ruinis etiam oppidorum
Graeciae, et castellorum regisque immanissimi perfidia commoti, se’ se barbaro ad necem
traditos putare” or the episode from Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 177, narrating the
Baldwin I’s faith: “[…]; et che poi per ordine del crudelissimo Rè Giovannissa, tagliateli
con una scure i piedi, et le mani, fù gettato il suo corpo in una certa valle, perche sbranato
da i cani, fosse cibro d’uccelli, et di fiere, riserbandosi l’osso nudo della testa, fatto intorno
p. 84
All these epithets were sometimes transferred on the entire people of the
Wallachians143.

intorno [sic!] circondar d’oro, et ornar tutto di pietre preciose, et di gemme, per servirsene
di tazza da bere, conforme al crudel costume de’ Sciti, in perpetua memoria della vendetta,
et in testimonio del valor suo, come se questo fosse uno illustre Trofeo, per adornar la sua
credenza ne’ banchetti Reali.”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 220v: “[…],
deinde iussu Joannissae inhumanae feritatis tyranni, manibus pedibusque securi praecisis,
cadaver canibus lacerandum, in valle quadam alitibus ferisque expositum: calva autem ab
labris auro circundata gemmisque plurimis et lapillis exornata ad diuturnam vindictae
memoriam, testimoniumque virtutis, tanque honestissimis omnium militiae tropheis, ad
ornamentum abaci in epulo Regem immaniter Scytharum ritu pro poculo usum.” See also the
description of the Johannitza’s atrocities at the siege of Serres, Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 161, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 199v-200r.
138
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 73, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 92v,
and also the episode from Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 161, immediately after the
conquest of a fortress by Johannitza: “[…], il Rè Giovannissa haverebbe deputato
venticinque da’ suoi principali, et più cari Gentilhuomini, che con giuramento gli
accompagnassero per viaggio, et gli mettessero in luogo sicuro, promettendo di lasciare à
tutti l’armi, et i cavalli, et in somma, di condurli, ò à Costantinopoli, ò à Salonichi, ò in
Ongaria, ò in qual più di questi luoghi piaceese loro. […]. Dopò, mancando di fede, ordinò à
suoi, che per via gli facessero prigioni, et spogliatili di quanto havessero, et lasciatili nudi,
scalzi, et à piedi, per gli aspri gioghi dell’ Hemo li menassero nella Valacchia; […]”,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 199v: “[Rex Joannissa] reditus gratia XXV
proceres quos praecipio honore haberet, iuratos comites qui eos cum armis, et equis
dirigerent et custodirent, adhibere; pollicitus illis neque equos, neque arma adimere;
denique aut Thessalonicem, aut Constantinopolim, aut in Hungariam, aut quo potissimum
horum locorum adire mallent, eo tutos dimittere. […] Sed Mysus, ut ea natio inhumana est et
infida, suis equitibus imperat, ut nostros in via deprehendant, miseros spoliatosque rebus
omnibus et expilatos, nudos, et excalciatos pedibus, qui diuturnitate belli defatigati
languerent, vixque corpus in corpore haberent, superatis Haemi iugis in interiorem Mysiam
producant.”
139
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 188: “[…] il Rè Giovannissa, che era di natura
feroce, et prontissimo alla fatiche, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 234r:
“[…] Joannissa Rex, ingenio ferox, laboris impiger, […]”.
140
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 73: “[…]; morto poi Pietro, suo fratello, et gridato
esso [emphasis mine: Giovannissa] Rè da’ suoi, ricchissimo già, insolente, et superbo,
haveva ridotto in suo potere quelle regioni dell’Imperio, […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 92v: “[…], quando maximis rebus gestis Petro fratre mortuo, Rex a
suis appellatus, idem secunda fortuna ditissimus, ad haec superbus et insolens, Imperii
regiones […]”.
141
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 216r, where is “Joannissae Tyranni”, but in Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli: 174 it appears simply, as “Rè Giovannissa”.
142
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 166: “Ma il Rè Giovannissa, si come era ricco, et
potente di danari, et di gente; […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 206r: “At Rex
Joannissa, nihil oblitus quod suae incolumitati ac dignitati conducere arbitraretur, idem
valda a pecunia et suo milite paratus, […]”.
143
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 172: “[…], se la sua crudeltà, et perfidia con eterna
infamia del nome Valacco, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 214r: “[…], nota
Somehow surprisingly, this variety of appeals could not be found
anywhere in Villehardouin’s text. Participant in the middle of the events, the
latter proved to be extremely lucid regarding li Roi de Blaquie et de Bougrie
and he objectively judged the evolution of the facts around him. He was merely
impressed by the confrontations’ proportion and by the raids committed by
Johanis. Among the above attributes, the Marshall of Champagne utilised only
the one of “rich”144.
p. 85
From this point of view, Paul Ramusio’s chronicle seems to be rather closer to
Nicetas Choniates’s text145, and it is also closer to it because of the rhetorical
qualities or of the quantity of information. In the case of Villehardouin,
Johannitza’s attacks, periodically retaken, were different one of each other only
in the denomination of the pillaged localities or in the names of the Crusader
knights perished or wounded in fights. In every case, Villehardouin’s scenery
was the same: raids, slaughters, deportations, scenery became somehow boring
for a less informed reader. However, exactly from this perspective,
Villehardouin demonstrated that he was present to the events, that he lived
them, in comparison to Nicetas’s lamentations or to Ramusio’s descriptions.

Mysae nationi ad aeternam ignominiam inusta.”, and also Della Guerra di Costantinopoli:
194: “[…] Valacchi, gente inimica de’ Traci, et nata à rubbare; […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 243r: “[…], Mysi seu Valacchi, […], infesta Thracibus et ad latrocimia
gens nata, […]”. See below, the chapter 9: ‘The State of the Assenides - at the Edge of the
‘Civilisation’’: 32-34.
144
Geoffroi de VILLEHARDOUIN, La Conquête de Constantinople (edited by Natalis de
WAILLY), Paris: Firmin - Didot, 1872: 240: “Et Johannis li rois de Blaquie et de Bougrie ne
s’oblia mie, qui mult fu riches et poestéis d’avoir; […].
145
For the abuses utilised by CHONIATES against the Vlachs, see Secondo et Terzo Libro
dell’ Historia di Niceta Coniate … (edited by Lodovico DOLCE and Agostino
FERENTILLI), Venice: Gabriel Giolito di Ferrarii, MDLXVIIII [1569]: 119: about the
Vlachs fallen in haughtiness; ibidem: 121: about their evil; ibidem: 127: about their robbery,
made together with the ‘Scythians’ [the Cumans]; ibidem: 138: about the haughty answer
given by Asen to the Emperor Alexius III’ s peace proposals, the Vlachs’ savageness, the
Asen’ s perfidy and impudence; ibidem: 139: Asen is called il Barbaro, and about his cruelty;
ibidem: 140: Asen is called ‘blood lover’; ibidem: 142: Johannitza Kaloyan as embodiment
of the Evil; ibidem: 143: the epithet of ‘rascals’ for the ‘Scythians’ and for the Vlachs;
ibidem: 181: “Et non havendo questo huomo Barbaro rispetto alcuno ne alla solennità di
quel giorno, […] ne meno al nome Christiano, […], ma spinto forse dal furore di alcuno
demonico sanguigno; […]”; ibidem: 235: […] Giovanni Myso nimico medesimamente de i
Romani, e huomo molto vindicativo, […]”; ibidem: 242: Johannitza invents new methods of
torment; ibidem: 246: Johannitza is named il Barbaro, without any other explanation; ibidem:
251: the cruelty against Baldwin I’; sometimes, the irony is not absent, the Cumans and the
Vlachs proving ‘valuable and quick’ in the context in which they deported the civilians
(ibidem: 243).
The frighten in front of Johannitza from the Ramusian version, just as on
front of a natural cataclysm146 had anyhow a corollary: Johannitza Kaloyan was
at the same time a trained warrior147. This detail, like the one regarding his
richness in money and population was illustrated merely in order to somehow
justify the defeats and the desperation of the Crusaders. There is a general rule
that the military successes of the enemy be explained through the numeric
argument, and
p. 86
148
Ramusio’s chronicle did not make exception of it . Considering it as being
somehow more exact, we notice an information that tangentially makes
reference to the structure of the Johannitza’s army:

“Chiamati dopò gli Ambasciatori, gl’interrogarono in quale stati si trovassero le cose, et


quanta gente havesse il Rè Giovannissa. Risposero, che egli haveva quarantamilla huomini
armati à cavallo, oltre ad un numero infinito di fanti. Gli Sciti, i Valacchi, et i Bulgari, come

146
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 172: “Ma il Rè Giovannissa […], pensando frà se
medesimo con qual arte potesse distruggere la reliquie della gente Francese, […]”,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 213v: “Caeterum Mysus, qua’que arte Francorum
reliquias prosternet.”, or Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 183-184: “[…] Re Giovannissa,
che era capital nemico del nome Imperiale Francese, […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 228r: “[…] Ioannissam Francico nomini atque Imperio inimicum
immortalem, […]”.
147
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 72: “[…], Giovannissa, […], huomo d’animo
militare, et veramente guerriero, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 92r: “[…],
Joannissa, […], vir ingenio militari, […]”, and also Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 73:
“Pertanto Giovannissa nato in Misia, buon soldato, fatta ragunanza di gente Scita […]”,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 92v: “Joannissa igitur Mysus genere, manu
promptus collectitio Scythae milite, […]” (as it may be noticed, the Latin version loses this
detail). This justifying ‘strategy’ is also followed by CHONIATES, who for example
described Asen I as “huomo di grandissimo ingegno, e di ligentissimo ne’ pericoli”, see
Secondo et Terzo Libro dell’ Historia di Niceta Coniate …: 98, and also by
VILLEHARDOUIN, La Conquête de Constantinople: 208, 240, 246, 274, and so on.
148
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 167: “Ma i Cumani, i Valacchi, et i Greci del paese
che erano in gran moltitudine, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitani: 207r: “At
Cumani, Vallachi, Graeci, pedetentim, quae maxima multitudo erat,[…]”, or Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 168: “Onde [Giovannissa] mandò subitamente per tutto il suo paese à far
gente, et mettere insieme quanto maggior numero fosse possibile di Cumani, di Valacchi, et
di Greci […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 209r-v: “extemplo admirabili
conquisitione, de Cumanis, quos Scythae diximus, Mysis, Graecis […] undecumque potest
maximum militum numerum colligit: […]”, or Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 188: “[…]
de’ difensori [emphasis mine din Adrianopol] così Greci, come Latini, che non erano punto
spaventati dalla gran moltitudine de’ Bulgari, et de’ Cumani; […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 234v: “Sed ea erat Graecorum et Latinorum propugnatorum
constantia, ea virtus, et nihil tanta Triballorum et Cumanorum multitudine terrerentur:
[…]”. The method is ‘borrowed’ from CHONIATES, who also considered the ‘Barbarian’
victories through the numerical argument, see Secondo et Terzo Libro dell’ Historia di Niceta
Coniate…: 180.
quei, c’hanno le lor forze principalmente nella cavalleria, percioche non vi è alcuno di essi
sì povero, che non habbia un cavallo in casa, per guerreggiare et predare, adoperano lo
scudo, l’hasta, et la scimitarra; et tal volta combattono con la lancia, et con gli archi.”149

“Mox, legatos introductos rogant, quo statu res foret, quot hominum millia Rex in ipsos
coegisset. respondent equites, patrio more armatos ad quadraginta millia collegisse, praeter
pedites innumerabiles, sed quos nullo fere numero in exercitu haberet. Scythae enim, Mysi,
ac Triballi, cum equitatu praecipue polleant (nam quisque vel egentissimus domi equum alit,
quo praedeturet militet) scuto, hasta, incurvo gladio utuntur; et nonunquam lancea
missilibus atque arcubus rem gerunt.”150

Regarding Johannitza’s origin, there was noticed only the detail that he
had been born in Mysia151. After the long details about Mysia, on its division in
Upper Mysia and Lower Mysia152, this specification looks extremely vague. It
denotes the fact that Ramusio had not at his disposal the necessary
documentation about the Assenide family’s origin. In exchange, the Italian
author provided sufficient information concerning the Bulgarian history. He
described their migration, their settling at the North of the Haemus Mountains
under Krum’s rule
p. 87
(803-814), the numerous confrontation with the Byzantine emperors, their
defeat by Basil II (976-1025), and the cognomen of the 
received by this emperor, the episode of Samuel’s (997-1014) overthrow, the
one about the revolt of the Assenides (1185-1186), the struggles between
Johannitza and the Byzantines before the Fourth Crusade, etc.153

149
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 174.
150
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 217v. Anyway, we consider the presentation of the
battle of Andrinople as the best image of the Cumans’, Wallachians’, and Bulgarians’
warfare, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 144-148, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 180r-185r.
151
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 73, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 92v.
152
See below: Chapter 11, ‘Geographical Approaches. ‘Lower Wallachia / Mysia’: 35-40.
153
For all of these, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 72-73, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 92v.
9. The State of the Assenides – at the Edge of ‘Civilisation’
On its turn, the image of the state led by Johannitza was constructed
exactly to inspire the same horror. The negative representation of the leader was
accordingly reflected upon the population154. His country was a region
belonging to the unknown world, but not necessarily to the fabulous one. It was
fabulous for Villehardouin, and especially for Robert of Clary155. On the other
side, Ramusio presented new items, meaning depictions of the region, taken
over from the Greek and Roman Antiquity. These details could not be detected
in the case of the French Crusader, whose chronicle – in comparison with
Ramusio’s one – does not surpass the level of a diary. Anyhow, the Venetian
humanist began suddenly a description of the Haemus Mountains that naturally
protected Johannitza’s ‘Wallachia’. He specifies that they were famous exactly
for the fact that many renowned men disappeared in the region156. It remains
unknown whether this ‘celebrities’ were strictly the Crusaders, or whether there
was an allusion to a suppositional past.
It is obvious that, once formulated this context, the Wallachians and the
Bulgarians (‘the Mysians’ and ‘the Tribals’) remained in the category of the
‘Barbarians’157, meaning of ‘the others’. In addition, their alliance with the
Cumans strengthened this option. It is also interesting the description made in
the
p. 88
speech of the Cardinal of Capua, the Papal legate, addressed to the Crusaders in
order to encourage their fight against Johannitza:

154
See above: 30, note 143.
155
See Robert de CLARI, La conquête de Constantinople (edited by Philip LAUER) Paris:
Champion, 1956: 80-90 (especially 80-81) for the first impact of Constantinople’s image.
156
See Della Guerra di Constantinopoli: 193: “Ma poiche habbiamo fatto mantione
dell’Hemo, monte celebre per le morti di tanti huomini illustri, et per la sconfitta de’ nostri,
[…]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 242r: “Sed quando in Haemi montis tot
illustrium virorum cladibus et adversa nostrorum fortuna nobilitati mentionem incidimus,
[…]”. For the association of the Assenides with the Haemus Mountain, see below: 36-37,
notes 177, 178.
157
The term of ‘Barbarians’ is sometimes directly expressed by RAMUSIO; see Della
Guerra di Costantinbopoli: 174: “[…] con sì poco numero di soldati venire à battaglia con
tanta moltitudine di Barbari.”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 217v: “[…]: ut
tantam nostrorum paucitatem, tantae barbarorum multitudini congressum ducere non sani
Ducis videatur.” See also Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 3: “[…], bisognò, et per terra, et
per mare far fierissima, et mortalissima guerra, da una parte co i Valacchi, et co i Bulgari,
huomini più barbari della stessa barbarie; […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano:
10v: “[…], hinc in Mysos, et Triballos, homines barbarie ipsa barbariores, […], bellum
opinione exitiosius, et crudelius, terra marique commoveri oportuit: […]”. See also the
expression of “Joannissam barbarum” in De Bello Constantinopolitano: 245v, that is not
present in the Italian translation.
“I Cumani, et gli Sciti, co’ quali voi fate guerra, sono empii, et scopertamente nemici de’
pii, et se noi li comportaremo, saremo distruttori d’ogni religione. Che dirò de’ Valacchi, et
de’ Bulgari? Non si sono essi ribellato al Pontefice Romano? Questa guerra contra i
Cumani, i Valacchi, et Bulgari è più giusta, et più pia di quante fin’hora ne siano mai state
fatte; posciache queste genti, le quali hanno lasciato le leggi divine, et abbandonato il
Sommo Pontefice, come purgate dalle vostre armi, et dalla vostra vittoria, si debbono ridurre
à gli antichi riti della Christiana religione. Et essendo la giusta cagion della guerra, che suol
fare animesi i timidi ancora, una parte della vittoria, perche dubitiamo noi di andar contra
questi tali nemici?”158

“Cumanus, et Scytha quo cum bellum facitis, non modo se impius est, verum etiam palam
hostis piorum; et si usque putimur, religionis omnis extinctor, et fatalis eversor. Quid Mysi,
quid Triballim? non ne ab Romano Pontifice maximo defecerunt? Hoc vero bellum adversus
Cumanum, Mysum, Triballum, quanta nullum unquam patratum fuit, iustitia et pietate
regitur; quandoquidem hae gentes quae a divinis legibus et Pontifice maximo defecerunt,
expiatae veluti sacris armis et denique victoria vestra lustratae, ad antiquos Christianae
religionis ritus revocentur. Cum que iusta causa armorum (quae conscientia timido etiam
animum addere solet) pers sit victoriae, quid in hunc hostem involare dubitamus? […]”159

There may be somehow noticed a justification of the crusading idea,


more exactly of the ‘transfer’ of the Crusade, in a context in which the
‘enemies’, the ‘infidels’ must not necessarily been searched for in Jerusalem or
in the Holy Land, since they are even in the Balkans. As more as subsequently
this ‘Holy War’ was legitimated:
“[…]; et all’ anime di quei, che moriranno in questa pia guerra, Innocentio Sommo
Pontefice, aprirà le porte del Cielo con le chiavi, che gli sono state date da Dio. […],
prendete questa giusta guerra sotto gli auspitii prima di CHRISTO [sic!], et poscia di Enrico
Bailo dell’Imperio, ottimo Capitano.”160

“Animis vero pio bello mortuorum, coelum ipsum Romanus Pontifex maximus Innocentius
clavibus (ut scitis) datis divinatiis reserabit. Nunc agedum, maioribus Deii auspiciis, sed
Henrici Ballivi Imperii ductu optimi Ducis pariter et militis aeternae spe laudi incensi, in
praelium iustum et pium adite.”161

158
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 173.
159
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 215v-216r.
160
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 173; the referral is to Henry I, Baldwin I’ s brother
and his successor on the Constantinopolitan throne, who occupied only the function of regent
(bailus) during the Papal legate’s speech (April 1206).
161
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 216r.
p. 89
10. Geographical Approaches. Between ‘Archaisms’ and
‘Adaptation’
One of the respects that must be clarified is the determination proceeded
by Ramusio when he approached different geographical details regarding
Balkan localities or populations, from Antiquity or contemporary to him. First,
there is indispensable to specify that the two versions – the Latin, respective the
Italian one – present differences. Writing in Latin, Ramusio felt as a duty to
‘colour’ his chronicle in an archaic way, in other words to utilise archaisms.
From this point of view, he followed a method proper for the Byzantine
chronicles, a phenomenon that could be place under Nicetas Choniates’s
influence. At his turn, Jeremy Ramusio intended in his Italian version to
retransform the respective denominations. This endeavour was in connection
with his contemporary realities, from the period of the passing from the 16th to
the 17th centuries, but especially with the 13th century ones, corresponding to
the described events. For example, what appears under the name of Thracia in
Paul’s version:

“[…] Thraciae adiacentum, qua Hebrus in mare influit.”162

in the Italian translation would be completed:

“[…] alla Tracia, che è la Romania, da qualle parte, ove l’Ebro fiume hoggi Mariza
sbocca nel mare; […]”163.

This example was not singular, and it was many times repeated164. Also,
the populations’ denominations followed the same tendencies: ‘archaism’ in
Latin, ‘retransformation’ in Italian. Concerning the Wallachians, they are
almost exclusively regarded as ‘Mysians’, obviously a corrupted form from the
‘Moesi’, taken over from Nicetas Choniates. Generally homogeneous under this
respect, the Ramusian text presents however some inconsistencies. Paul
Ramusio himself sometimes wrote even ‘Wallachians’, without any
supplementary explanation165. Anyway, this situation represents a simple
exception, especially because many

162
De Bello Constantinopolitano: 149v.
163
Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 120.
164
See, for example, the same Thracia, which in Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 48 appears
as Tracia, ò Romania.
165
Especially, De Bello Constantinopolitano: 206v-207r. The confusion culminated with the
expression of “Mysi, Scythae, et Vallachi”, see De Bello Constantinopolitano: 206v, unique
in the Latin version, because there is the only time when the ‘Mysians’ and the ‘Wallachians’
p. 90
times when an actual term is utilised (for instance, Cumani), it is associated
with a specification (for instance, quos Scythas diximus166).
In the situation of an exclusive consultation of the Italian edition of Paul
Ramusio’s chronicle, the lecturer could be confronted with some bizarre details.
For example, in the context of the description of a province in Asia Minor,
namely Laodicaea, there is the specification: “che confinano co’ Valacchi, co’
Lidi, co’ Cari”167. At least the same peculiarity could be noticed just few lines
below, where it is presented the city of Lampsakus: “Città dell’ Asia, nella
Valacchia minore”168. The mystery is solved by itself when the respective
passages are consulted in their Latin version, where Valacchi and Valacchia
becomes Mysos, respectively Mysia169. There becomes beyond any doubt that
the referrals were made to the name of the antique population and of the antique
region on the Upper Asian coast of the Hellespont. Already accustomed that by
‘Mysians’ must be understood ‘Wallachians’, Jeremy Ramusio was not
preoccupied anymore to verify the data provided by his father and translated
mechanically. Actually, the so many times mentioning of the Wallachians in the
former pages of the chronicle and the Crusaders’ constant fierce regarding them
promoted this population as a fabulous element. Transposing himself in the
Crusader knights’ feelings, Jeremy Ramusio began to place the Wallachians in
other geographical areas than the normal ones.
However, the above revealed respect represents an extra-argument for the
consultation in parallel of the both versions of the chronicle.

are regarded as separated entities. Somehow intricate, Jeremy RAMUSIO would solve the
problem, simply translating “Cumani et Valacchi”, see Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 166
166
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 143 or 166, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 178r, 206r.
167
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 121 .
168
ibidem.
169
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 150r: “[…], atque Asiana Laodicea ad Lycum fluvium,
atque iis quae ad ipsos Mysos, Lydos, Cares, et Ionas ad Maeandrum et Lycaones pertinent,
[…]; respective ibidem: “Lampsacum Asiae urbem in minori Mysia”.
11. Geographical Approaches. ‘Lower Wallachia / Mysia’
Beside the utilised denominations170, Ramusio’s chronicle many times
treated the location of Johannitza’s Wallachia. Certainly, a reference to the
North of Danube space would be attractive from the Romanian historiography’s
viewpoint. The temptation is as more seductive as, at a certain moment, there
was mentioned the proximity of Moldavia, of Bogdania171. Nevertheless, it
sounds more reasonable that the reference be made to the Danube frontier
between Dobroudja and the Southern of Bessarabia. It is especially because
there could be found out a clear specification, proving that Johannitza,
momentarily without the Cuman assistance, would abandon the Andrinople’s
siege. In this context, he would pass the Balkans (the Haemus Mountains) in
order to accede in
p. 91
172
Wallachia . On another occasion, Tarnovo is ‘displaced’ even in the Haemus
Mountains:

“[…] à Ternovizza, che è la sedia de’ Rè della Valacchia, edificata nella cima del monte
Hemo, et la più forte de quante quivi ne siano.”173

“[…] ad […] Ternobum deducendus (ea urbs Mysiae regum ex omnibus Haemi civitatibus
munitissima et praestantissima in montis vertice regia est) asservatur.”174

In addition, this location becomes beyond all the doubts when it is


narrated the episode of the Emperor Baldwin’s captivity after the battle of
Andrinople:

“[…], che Baldovino fosse ò stato condotto à Giovannissa à Ternovizza nella Valacchia,
[…]”175.

“Quod autem Balduinus ad Joannissam captivus Ternobum Haemi urbem perductus esset,
[…]”176
170
See Appendix 2.
171
See below: 39, 40, notes 193, 194.
172
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 188-189: “Onde lasciata la Città col consiglio de’
suoi, dirizzo il viaggio per le valli del monte Hemo nella Valacchia, verso Ternobo.”,
respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 235r: “itaque urbe relicta de suorum ducum
consilio, Ternobum per Haemi valles iter convertit, et se in Mysia recepit.” Consequently,
Wallachia already begins from the South of Tarnovo, according to the Ramusian version.
173
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 147. This ‘transfer’ of the Assenide residence in the
Haemus area is undoubtedly due to Nicetas Choniates, who similarly specifies, that “[…]
Ternobo (questa è città piu forte, e piu nobile delle altre di Hemo, posta nella cima del
monte, cinta di forti mura, per laquale corre anco un fiume) […]”, see Secondo et Terzo
Libro dell’ Historia di Niceta Coniate …: 141.
174
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 183r.
175
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 156.
There is out of discussion that the State of the Wallachians and of the
Bulgarians is situated by Paul Ramusio between the Balkans and the Danube177,
idea certainly ‘borrowed’ from Nicetas Choniates, the most authorised
p. 92
178
Byzantine source regarding the events . The only paragraph that could, at a
first sight, contradict this conclusion, presents the next detail:
“Dal nome di questi popoli, che habitano presso al monte Hemo, tutta quella regione, che
di là dalla Tracia si allarga infino al Danubio, si chiama Misia inferiore, et Valacchia vicina
alla Moldavia, terminata dal mar Negro, et dal fiume Ciabi, che altrimenti è detto Sucova.
Questa stessa da Costantinopolitani et da’ Traci, che habitano sotto l’Hemo è chiamata
Transalpina, quasi di là dall’ Alpi;”179

“unde sumpto de Haemi accolis nomine, omnem regionem quae ultra Thraciam ad Istrum
protenditur, Mysiam inferiorem et Valacchiam dicunt, Moldaviae proximam. Euxini Ponti, et
Ciabri fluminis aliter Sucovae, finibus inclusam. quam eandem Constantinopolitae et
Thraces infra Haemum habitantes, transalpinam quasi trans alpes, vocant.”180

However, the expression infino al Danubio proves that there is no


reference to the space between the Danube and the Carpathians, but rather to
176
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 193r; as it may be noticed, the Latin version does not
record the placement of Tarnovo in Wallachia anymore.
177
The idea of the association between the Wallachians and the Haemus Mountains is
retaken in Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 194: “La parte dell’Hemo, che è volta all’ Occaso
Estivo, et al Danubio, è quasi tutta habitata da’ Valacchi, […]”, respective De Bello
Constantinopolitano: 243r: “huius aversam partem ad occasum aestivum et in Istrum
devexam, Mysi seu Valacchi, quos diximus, ferme totam accolunt, […]”. Actually, the
mountain feature of the Wallachian population was also underlined by CHONIATES, see
Secondo et Terzo Libro dell’ Historia di Niceta Coniate …: 99, 116-121, 141, 143, 232, and
also by the events’ eye witnesses, see Robert de CLARI, La conquête de Constantinople: 63:
“Si est Blakie une molt fort tere qui toute est enclose d’unes montaingnes, si que on n’i puet
entrer en issir fors par un destroit.”
178
See above: 37, note 177. The firm association between the Wallachian population and the
Haemus Mountains undoubtedly leads to the placement of the State of the Assenides in the
proximity of the Balkans. Numerous referrals in this sense could be detected in the same
Nicetas’s speeches, according to which the Byzantine author regards the Haemus Mountains
as a symbol to characterise the Vlachs, see Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae. Izvoarele
istoriei României, vol. 3 (edited by Alexandru ELIAN and Nicolae çerban TANAçOCA),
Bucharest, 1975: 349: “[Peter], rolled from the Haemus, as from another heavenly throne,
[…]”, or ibidem: 368-369, referring to Johannitza Kaloyan: “He made a throne, as the vault
of heaven, from the Haemus Mountain, which raises up beyond the clouds […] and like the
false Zeus, Salmoneus, he throws artificial thunders and he behaves impudently for one
year.” The same rhetorical-propagandistic style is also used in George Tornikes’s speeches,
cf. ibidem, vol. 3: 384-385: “[…]that cloud that a long time ago gathered around the Haemus,
covered and shining of snow […]”.
179
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 194
180
See De bello Constantinopolitano: 243r.
the North of Danube before its flowing into the Black Sea, meaning also to the
South of Bessarabia. Much as attractive seems to be the involvement of Sucova
river in this passage, understood as ‘Suceava’, or of the ‘Transalpina’ province,
understood as ‘°ara Romùneascè’, the problem must be regarded in other
terms. The respective ‘Sucova’ simply represents the Slavonic denomination for
the Ciabris river. According to the administrative partition operated in 85/86 by
the Roman Emperor Domitian (81-96), Ciabris denoted the limit between the
Upper and the Lower Moesia181. At the same time, ‘Transalpina’ must be
regarded in its common meaning, as “beyond the mountains”, and not in the
proper one.
p. 93
To a certain moment, the temporarily abandon of Johannitza’s camp by
the Cumans and their retreat towards the territories on the North of the Black
Sea was described in this manner:
“Et questi [emphasis mine: the Cumans] abbandonato l’essercito, et passata la Valacchia
inferiore, et le bocche del Boristene [emphasis mine: the Dniester river] per li paesi di
Taurosciti, et della Russia, se ne tornarono alle case loro.”182

“Ita emensa inferiore Mysia, Thyraeque et Borysthenis ostiis superatis, per Tauroscythas
et Roxolanos ad Moetim properant, et iustis itineribus domum concedunt.”183

We refer to this brief paragraph because it may be a sign that ‘the Lower
Wallachia’ could mean only Dobroudja. Geographically speaking, the Cumans’
retreat towards the Dniestr’s mouth and towards the ‘Tauroscythians’ and
Russia’s territories could merely take place moving through Dobroudja. Since
there is no mention about the passing of the Danube, then it could not be
definitely identified whether it is in discussion the river’s Northern shore or the
Southern one. Thus, it could appear the possibility that ‘the Lower Wallachia’
be the South of Bessarabia. It would be a plausible option, but it is contradicted
by the denomination itself of ‘the Lower Wallachia’, ‘the Lower Mysia’, that
excludes any Northern Danubian territory184. Anyhow, the meaning of
‘Dobroudja’ for the Lower Wallachia in this case is singular, other examples to
confirm this identification being not detected. The main meaning for ‘the Lower
Wallachia’ comes from another passage that comprises the most detailed
geographical description of the regions and of the respective populations185:
181
Moreover, the same denomination, Ciabri, appears again some lines below (Della Guerra
di Costantinopoli: 194, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 243v), on the occasion of
description of the ‘Upper Mysia’, meaning Bosnia and Serbia.
182
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 188.
183
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 235r.
184
See below: 40.
185
We also include here the references beyond the State of the Assnides’ space, considering
them as interesting for the general vision on the Balkans.
“Ma perche da qui inanzi ci converrà parlare spesso de’ Valacchi, et de’ Bulgari, che
sono popoli della Misia inferiore, et diedero di gran rotte à Francesi, […], non sarà fuori di
proposito, prima che parliamo dell’ odio di Giovannissa contra i Greci Imperatori, il dire
alcune poche cose del nome della Misia, et del sito della Provincia, che sono peravventura
da molti tempo nostro non conosciute; […]. La Valacchia, et la Bulgaria, che sono regioni
finitime, presso l’Istro186, erano già comprese amendue sotto questo solo nome di Misia, et
da gli antichi fù in due Provincie divisa187. Una, che hora si chiama Servia
p. 94
[emphasis mine: Serbia], venne da gli antichi nominata Misia superiore, nella quale è la
Dardania, hoggi dalla Bosna, fiume della Schiavonia, detta la Bossina. questa à tempi de gli
Avi nostri fù governata da’ Rè, né ha perduto il nome, chiamandosi infino al presente Regno
della Bossina188; Hà molte Città: ma la più celebre è quella, che gli Ongari chiamano
Sinderovia [emphasis mine: Sarajevo], et fù, non ha molto, stanza de’ Rè della Bossina;
vicina da mezzogiorno con la Macedonia, et con i Monti Scardoi; da Ponente con la
Dalmatia; da Levante con la Romania; et da Settentrione confina con la Dacia189, dove
presso à Belgrado, passano i fiumi Danubio, et Sava. L’altra [emphasis mine: it is the other
side of Mysia, that is the Lower Mysia] cominciò à chiamarsi Flaccia, dal nome di Flacco,
Cittadino Romano, che la governava, et dopò corrotto il nome, passò in Valacchia
[emphasis mine]. Questa da gli antichi fù detta Misia inferiore, Regno di Giovannissa,
confina con Triballi, ò Bulgari, con gli Sciti, et co’ Greci, et dal Bolga [emphasis mine], che
è gran fiume della Sarmatia Asiatica, detto da gli antichi Rà, et da Tartari hoggi chiamata
Hedilo, mutato pian piano il nome di Bolga, si chiama Bulgaria. Nasce questo fiume presso
gli Scitti, di là dal Danubio verso Settentrione, in un luogo, che si dice Bolga da alcune
grandissime paludi, che si chiamano laghi bianchi, sopra Mosca fra Settentrione, et
Ponente; onde ha dato à quei popoli il nome de’ Bulgari, prima, che passassero il Danubio,
et penetrassero nelle parti della Misia inferiore […] che tutti corsero con nome de’ Tartari. I

186
An attentive translation demonstrates that here the author does not intend to suggest that
Wallachia and Bulgaria would be separated by the Danube. As many other texts’s referrals
prove, RAMUSIO constantly regards Wallachia and Bulgaria as a whole.
187
The division of Mysia in ‘Upper Mysia’ and ‘Lower Mysia’ denotes Ramusio’s affinity
regarding the administrative units of the Roman empire. It is not by chance that the author
would also refer to the ‘Lower Romania’, respective ‘Upper Romania’, see Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 135: “Et à di nostri parimente il Peloponneso con una parte della
Macedonia, con Salonichi, con Negroponte, con l’Albania, con la Locride, con la Focide,
con la Beotia, et con l’Attica si chiama Romania superiore, nominandosi Romania inferiore
la Tracia, con la stessa Città di Costantinopoli, infino alla Misia inferiore, da una parte
all’Arcipelago, alla ropontide, et al Bosforo, et dall’ altra infino al mar negro.”, respective
De Bello Constantinopolitano: 168r-v: “Peloponnesum enim hodie adhuc cum Macedoniae
parte, atque ipsa Thessalonica, Euboea praeterea Aetolia, Acarnania, Locride, Phocide,
Boeotia, et Attica Romanaeam superiorem recentiores dicunt, Thraciam vero, cum ipsa
Constantinopoli adusque inferiorem Mysiam Aegaeum et Bosphorum ac Euxinum mare
Romanaeam inferiorem vocant.”
188
This specification seems to be somehow bizarre since the Kingdom of Bosnia had a long
time ago ceased to exist, but in the moment of the chronicle’s elaboration the pasalik of
Bosnia still existed.
189
This detail is not to delude. Certainly, RAMUSIO has into consideration the ‘Aurelian
Dacia’, from the south of the Danube.
termini di questa Misia inferiore, nella qualle i Bulgari si trasferirono dalla Sarmatia, et la
nominarono Flaccia, et Bulgaria, sono da mezzogiorno la Romania, et il monte Hemo; da
Levante, nella sua maggior larghezza il Mar negro, nel quale entra il Danubio con sei
spaciose bocche; da Ponente la Dacia190; et da Settentrione la Sarmatia, appartenenti
all’Europa [emphasis mine]. La parte di là dall’ Hemo, che confina con la Moldavia, è da’
Turchi chiamata Bogdania, quasi Bulgaria, overo Carabogdania minore, abbondantissima di
pascoli, ne’ quali s’allevano diuerse sorte d’armenti, et gran copia di cavalli da guerra
[emphasis mine]191. I Misi dunque inferiori, che sono i Triballi antichi, et hoggi i Valacchi, i
Bossinesi, i Polacchi, et i Sarmati hanno quasi la medesima lingua; dal che si può facilmente
comprendere, che sono la medesima forte di gente192 [emphasis mine].”193

p. 95
“[…] Sed quoniam dehinc saepius de Valacchis et Bulgaris dicendum erit, qui Mysiae
inferioris populi sunt, et funestas clades Francis intulerunt, […], non alienum ab instituto
operis futurum reor, antequam de Joannissae regis adversus Graecos Imperatores odio
dicamus, si pauca di Mysiae nomine, et regionis situ, uti multis hoc tempore fortasse ignota,
quam fieri poterit breviter, referamus. […]. Valacchia et Bulgaria finitimae regiones ad
Istrum sunt, uno olim Mysiae nomine contentae. nam Mysia omnis veteribus, in duas partes
duasque provincias distinguitur. altera, quam Serviam dicunt, antiquis Mysia superior fuit,
In qua est Dardania, hodie à Bosna Illyridis nostrorum memoria Regibus parnit, nec amisit
nomen; hodieque Bosnae regnum vocatur, cuius oppida par multa, sed celeberrimum, quod
Hungari Sinderoviam dicunt, Regum Bosnae non ita pridem sedes. ad meridiem Macedoniae
proxima et Scardois montibus; ab occasu Dalmatia; ab ortu autem Thracia; in boream
autem et septemtriones, Dacia, qua non procul a Taurno, quod Belgradum vocant, ad
Danubii et Savi confluentes pertines, terminatur. Altera vero huic proxima, Valacchia, à
Flacco praeside Romano, Flaccia appellavi capta, corrupta paulatim voce, in Valacchiam
abiisse perspicimus. Haec, antiquis Mysia inferior fuit, Joannissae regnum, ad veteras
Triballos, Scythas, et Getas pertinet, et ab anne Bolga [emphasis mine], ingenti fluvio
Asiaticae Sarmatiae, quem Rhaveteres, Tartari autem recentiores Hediluum nuncuparunt,

190
See above: 39, note 189, concerning the Ramusian perception on Dacia.
191
See below: 41.
192
This last phrase is surely confused, from many respects: 1. The Bosnians, initially
belonging to the ‘Upper Mysians’ category, are suddenly integrated in the ‘Lower Mysians’
one; 2. It is unreasonable the mentioning of the Poles in this enumeration; moreover, on
another occasion, they are associated with the Sarmatians, see Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 194: “[…]; et da’ Sarmati, che sono i Polacchi, […]” (De Bello
Constantinopolitano… does only mention the Sarmatians, without any referral to the Poles),
and now they are regarded separatedly; 3. The Bulgarians are not present in this context
anymore, while the denomination that had previously represented them, of trybali, becomes
much more comprehensive; 4. The very fact that all those populations speak the same
language. It seems that the author’s intention is to prove that all those populations
contributed to the devastating Johannitza’s campaigns towards the South of the Balkan
Mountains and to suggest therefore the great disproportion of forces between them and the
Crusader knights. Moreover, the very fact that the Bulgarians are not included in the ‘Lower
Misians’ category could be explained by their association with the Wallachians, and
consequently the denomination of Wallachians would not comprise only the Wallachians, but
also the Bulgarians. Another interpretation could be that, by an error, Ramusio wrote
‘Bosnians’ instead of ‘Bulgarians’.
193
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 71-72.
mutato sensim vocabulo Bulgaria dicitur. Is fluvius, apud Scythas ortum habet, loco trans
Istrum versus septemtriones; Volga dicto, e magnis vastique paludibus, qui candidi lacus
appellantur. Sunt eae supra Moscham inter Aquilonem et Corum, et gentibus antequam
Istrum traiicerent, atque inferioris Mysiae partem Thraciae proximum penetrarent,
Bulgarorum nome dedit. cum a prima origine Bulgari pariter ac Valacchi, inferiorem
Mysiam incolentes […] Scythiae omnes fuerint. huic inferiori Mysiae, inquam Bulgari ex
Sarmatia habitatum concesserunt, et Flacciam ac Bulgariam appellarunt, fines sunt a’
meridie, Thracia atque Haemus mons; ab ortu, qua maxime patet, Euxinum; ubi Danubius
sex ostiis in Pontum Euxinum effunditur; ab occasu Dacia; a septemtrione Europea Sarmatia
[emphasis mine]. Transalpina ed Moldaviam regio trans Haemum haec, a nostris hodie dicta
est; et Bogdania, quasi Bulgaria nunc a Turcis, sine Carabogdania minor vocatur [emphasis
mine]. Mysi igitur inferiores, qui ex vetustis quondam Triballis constant, Illyrii, Poloni,
Sarmatae, eadem fere inter se lingua utantur, ex quo facile coniici potest, unum atque idem
fere hominum esse genus. [emphasis mine]”194

p. 96
Consequently, the general frame in which Ramusio understood the
situation may be summarised in this way: Mysia represented a whole entity,
comprising the present-day Serbia and the territory situated between the
Balkans and the Danube, inclusively Dobroudja. The temptation to add the
region between the Danube and the Carpathians to this entity does not seem to
be well argued since the Ramusian Mysia represented exactly the model of the
ancient Roman province. In addition, its partition in ‘Upper’ and ‘Lower’ had
its roots also in the Roman administrative organisation, according to the
division operated by Domitian in 85/86. Since the Lower Mysia began in time
to be called as Wallachia, because of the hypothetical Flaccus or not, then there
is beyond any doubt that Wallachia, in the Ramusian version, did not advance
in the territory from the North of the Danube. Somehow doubtful could be the
placement of Dacia in the neighbourhood of the Lower Mysia in the West, and
not in the North. This arrangement could have two explanations. One would be
that Ramusio looked to the West from Dobroudja195, but more plausible would
be that Ramusio took into consideration the so called ‘Aurelianic Dacia’,
meaning the Dacia artificially created at the South of the Danube by the
Emperor Aurelian in 271 and separating the Upper and the Lower Moesia.
That is certitude that this paragraph clarifies the entire question of what
meant Paul Ramusio by ‘Wallachia’: namely, the Lower Mysia, as this province
had been in the Roman period, meaning the entire territory between the Balkan
Mountains and the Danube, inclusively Dobroudja.

194
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 90r-91r.
195
The idea is not without basis, since the most of the medieval and humanist maps place the
Danube’s bend in the Turtucaia (Tutrakan) - Calarasi region more in the West than it is in
reality, accordingly overdimensioning the Dobrudja’s surface.
12. Geographical Approaches. The Inhabitants of the ‘Trajanic
Dacia’
Concerning the North of the Danube space, in the sense of ‘Trajanic
Dacia’, there could be considered that it was regarded as an exclusively Cuman
territory, or at most being inhabited by the Cumans and the Wallachians:
“[…] onde con la speranza di grosse paghe [Giovannissa] invitò de là dal fiume Istro una
moltitudine innumerabile di Cumani, che come habbiamo detto erano Sciti.” 196

“[…] [Joannissa] Cumanorum, quos Scytharum genus diximus, et Mysorum,


innumerabilem multitudinem trans Istrum spe stipendii invitat, superatisque Haemi faucibus,
[…]”197

p. 97
One more time, Jeremy commited an improper translation, excluding
without any justification the Wallachians’ presence from the Ramusian text.
Anyhow, likewise in this case the expression of ‘beyond the Ister’ could very
well be a reference to the Southern Bessarabia.
The denomination given by Ramusio to the North of Danube region,
more precisely to the future ‘Ţara Românească’ or ‘Wallachia’, is rather
suggested by another detail:
“La parte di là dall’ Hemo, che confina con la Moldavia, è da’ Turchi chiamata
Bogdania, quasi Bulgaria, overo Carabogdania minore, abbondantissima di pascoli, ne’
quali s’allevano diuerse sorte d’armenti, et gran copia di cavalli da guerra [emphasis
mine].”198

“Transalpina ed Moldaviam regio trans Haemum haec, a nostris hodie dicta est; et
Bogdania, quasi Bulgaria nunc a Turcis, sine Carabogdania minor vocatur [emphasis
mine].”199

As it may be noticed, Jeremy’s translation introduced some new elements


to the original Ramusian text. However, what is interesting in this passage is the
appearance of a new geographical determination, namely ‘Bogdania’, situated
in the vicinity of ‘Moldavia’. We consider that merely in this moment Ramusio
had in mind the North of the Danube space in the sense of the future ‘Ţara
Românească’.

196
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 166.
197
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 206r. Thus, the Latin version integrates the Mysians
(meaning, the Wallachians) beside of the Cumans coming from the North of the Danube.
198
See above: 39, note 193.
199
See above: 40, note 194.
Respecting the inhabitants of this space, we adhere to the solution given
also by the above mentioned paragraph200:
“Questa da gli antichi fù detta Misia inferiore, Regno di Giovannissa, confina con
Triballi, ò Bulgari, con gli Sciti, et co’ Greci, et dal Bolga […]”

“Haec, antiquis Mysia inferior fuit, Joannissae regnum, ad veteras Triballos, Scythas, et
Getas pertinet, et ab anne Bolga […]”

There is again the case of some discords between the two versions of the
Ramusian text. In our case, such an inconsistency permits us to accede to the
solution regarding the question: who inhabited the North of Danube territory
according to Ramusio? That is why there must not be given the entire credit to
the Italian version of the chronicle, where Jeremy Ramusio produced an
obvious confusion of the text, substituting the term of ‘Getae’, probably
unknown to him, with the more ‘comfortable’ of ‘Greeks’. ‘The Trajanic
Dacia’, from the North of Danube, corresponding to the Wallachia subsequent
to the 14th century, was
p. 98
201
therefore described as a territory inhabited by the Getae . This appearance of
the ‘Getae’ in the respective region must not be surprising; ‘Getae’ had also
been mentioned at the North of the Danube by other Byzantine authors, such as
Anna Comnena (on the 12th century) and John Cantacuzene (on the 14th
century).

200
See above: 39, note 193; respective above: 40, note 194.
201
Eventually by the Scyths also (read it: the Cumans), although in the Ramusian vision, the
placement of these ‘Scyths’in the Northern-Danubian regions from Bessarabia seems to be
more viable. Regarding these ‘Getae’, RAMUSIO’s text also mentions them in the context
on the enumeration of the populations living around the Black Sea, see Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli: 81: “ […], frà i quali sono non solamente i Geti, detti già da’ Romani Daci
[emphasis mine], et i Sarmati, chiamati da’ Greci Sauromati Amaxobii, ma gli Alani ancora,
et principalmente i Ruteni, […]”, respective De Bello Constantinopolitano: 102r: “[…] atque
in his non Getas modo Romanis olim Dacos dictos [emphasis mine], Sarmatas Graecis
Sauromatas, Hamayobios, sed Alanos mox, et potissimum Roxolanos, […]”, see below: 42,
notes 202 and 203.
13. Geographical Approaches. Humanist Versions for a mappae
mundi
It is also remarkable the description of the Black Sea, associated not only
with its denomination, but also with the populations living around it. It is
interesting at least for the specification of the identity between the Getae and
the Dacians:
“Havendo fatto viaggio tutta la notte, à buona pezza di giorno arrivarono à Filen, detta
da gli antichi Finopoli, presso al mare de’ Ruteni, che à l’Eussino, hoggi mar maggiore, et
anco mar negro, il quale si chiamava mare di Ruteni, perche della parte sinistra,
cominciando dal dito Salmiclesso [emphasis mine: Unfortunately, we could not place this
toponym] infino al Danubio, et à i deserti di Tartaria, piegandosi i liti grandemente
indentro, à guisa di corna, insino alla Taurica Chersonesso, volgarmente Tartaria minore,
confina con molti popoli, che habitano vicino à quei Seni, frà i quali sono non solamente i
Geti, detti già da’ Romani Daci [emphasis mine], et i Sarmati, chiamati da’ Greci Sauromati
Amaxobii, ma gli Alani ancora, et principalmente i Ruteni, che si stendono lungo la riviera
del mare insino à gli Sciti, hoggi Tartari del Monte Tauro. Per questo il Villarduino più
intendente della militia, che della Geografia, et per consequenza, non sapendo questo nome
di Eussino, chiamò ne’ suoi Commentarii in lingua Francese, secondo l’uso di quella età
roza, il Ponte con nome di mare di Ruteni, che era l’Eussino sopradetto, essendo in quel
tempo i Ruteni, detti ancor Russi, molto formidabili, per haver acquistato forze in tutta la
Romania, et nell’ Europa, et particolarmente presso il mar maggiore.”202

“Itinere totius noctis multa luce Phileam, quae Phinopolis, antiquis fuit, ad Roxolanorum
mare situm, quod Euxinum est, pervenit: Euxinum porro, quia ad laenam iam inde a
Salmydesso littore, ad Istrum et Scytharum deserta, magno littorum flexu retro
p. 99
curvatum, in cornua ad Tauricam Chersonesum multos attingit populos eorum sinuum
accolas atque in his non Getas modo Romanis olim Dacos dictos [emphasis mine], Sarmatas
Graecis Sauromatas, Hamayobios, sed Alanos mox, et potissimum Roxolanos se in longum
ad Tauroscythas iuxta maritimam oram extendentes, Roxolanorum mare dicebatur. Ea
propter Villharduinus eques peregrinarum regionem non satis sciens, et militiae quam
Geographiae peritior, proindeque Euxini nomini ignarus, pontum in Gallicis commentariis,
rudi eius saculi more Roxolanorum mare quod Euxinum erat appellavit, quando eo tempore
Roxolani iidem Russi viribus pollentes apud omnes noti, tota Thracia atque, Europa, sed ad
Euxinum potissimum prolatis viribus maxime formidabiles essent.”203

The entire consultation of the paragraph, just like some other above
presented, demonstrates a more or less mechanical taking over of the texts
merged by John Baptist Ramusio in his Navigationi et Viaggi. More exactly, the
referrals are made to La descrizione della Sarmazia europea di Alessandro

202
See Della Guerra di Costantinopoli: 81. These details are clearly retaken from
Navigazioni et Viaggi (edited by Marica MILANESI): vol. 3: 307, where John Baptist
presents Di messer Gio. Battista Ramusio discorso sopra il libro del signor Hayton Armeno:
299-309 (it is a history of the Tartars written by the Armenian author).
203
See De Bello Constantinopolitano: 102r-v.
Guagnino Veronese204 and to I libri di Matteo di Micheovo sulle due
Sarmatie205. From this geographical records, Paul Ramusio took over the ideas
concerning the two Sarmatias (the European Sarmatia and the Asiatic one)206;
the grouping in the same category of the Mysians, Tribals, Illyrians, Bosnians,
Wallachians, Poles or Sarmatians207; the Poles’ descent from the Sarmatians208;
the different denominations of the Volga river209; the mention of the Meotide
forests210 or of the White Lakes 211; and, what directly interests us, the
identification between Mysia and Wallachia212.
In this last sample, the situation seems somehow to complicate itself. The
same text – the Polish humanist Matthew of Micheovo’s one – contradicted
itself, introducing another geographical determination: “Mysia, nowadays
called Bulgaria”213. Meanwhile, the supplementary information issued by
Guagnino could
p. 100
provoke even more confusion: “ and finally occupying the two Mysias, they
denominated them with their vulgar name that nowadays is unanimously called
Bulgaria.”214 Thus, the things seem to be perplexing, but at the same time this
point could offer the key that would best explain the so bizarre association of
the Bulgarians and of the Wallachians inside of what has been called as the
State of the Assenides, beginning with Nicetas Choniates. Naturally, there must
be raised the question: what connection could be between the Byzantine
politician’s notices and the Humanists’ description on the 15th-16th centuries?
The answer could be found out in the utilisation, on different paths, of the same
sources, offered by the Antiquity. Actually, the geographers quoted by John

204
G. B. RAMUSIO, Navigazioni et Viaggi, vol. 4: 319-606. Originary from Verona, this
Guagnino settled down in Poland around 1556, became Polish nobleman 13 years later and
died in 1614, at Cracow. The first edition of Sarmatiae europeae descriptio was published
during his lifetime, in 1578.
205
ibidem, vol. 4: 607-681. Born in 1457, the Polish humanist Matthew of Miechow studied
the Medicine at Padua and died in 1523, at Cracow.
206
See especially, ibidem: 613.
207
ibidem: 324, 332-333. The so comprehensive denomination of ‘Sarmatians’ could have
the identification made to a certain moment between the Sarmatians and the Slavs as
explanation, ibidem: 333, accompanied by the specification: “E con tutto che questi siano tra
diverse nazioni dispersi, conservano peró l’idioma slavonico, quantunque nella proferta e
accenti molto differente.”
208
ibidem: 326, where begins a chapter entitled: “Origine dell’ antica e bellicosa gente di
Sarmazia, dalla quale sono i Poloni discesi”.
209
ibidem: 330.
210
ibidem: 325.
211
ibidem, vol. 4: 653, from Lettera di Alberto Campense sulla Moscovia: 635-666.
212
ibidem: 644: “[…] Misia, ora detta Valacchia.”
213
ibidem: 636: “[…] Misia (ora detta Bulgaria) […]”.
214
ibidem: 330: “E avendo finalmente occupata l’una e l’altra Misia, dal nome loro
Wolgaria la chiamarono, ch’ oggi Bulgaria da tutti è detta.”
Baptist Ramusio and he himself, implicit his son, did not hesitate to mention the
sources they had at hand, respective Ptolomaios, Strabo, Jordanes, Procope of
Caesarea, and so on. The same sources had also represented the foundation for
the Byzantine geographical determinations. When those sources, of
approximately equal authority, contradicted each other – either because of the
imprecise knowledge regarding the realities, but especially because of the
different political modifications in the area -, then the Byzantine and the
Western authors took all the versions over. A result of this method must be the
denomination of “the Kingdom of the Wallachians and of the Bulgarians”,
whose ethnical composition still remains an enigma under the condition of the
exclusive appeal to the sources.
Including the ‘Wallachians’ or the ‘Moldavians’ into the so
comprehensive family of the ‘Sarmatians’, John Baptist Ramusio, and implicit
Paul Ramusio did not take into consideration the publishing of some works
belonging to other humanists. Those works had approached the problem of the
Wallachians’ origin by reporting them to the Romans: Poggio Bracciolini
(1380-1459)215, Flavio Biondo (1392-1463)216, Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1405-
1464, as Pope Pius II, 1458-1464)217, Nicholas Machinensis (Bishop of
Modrussa, in Dalmatia and Pius II’s legate in Hungary)218 etc.

215
See R. SABBADINI, “Quando fu riconosciuta la latinità del rumeno”, Atene e Roma, 18
(1915): 195-196; Al. MARCU, “Riflessi di storia rumena in opere italiane dei secoli XIV e
XV”, Ephemeris Dacoromana, 1 (1923): 359-360.
216
See Al. MARCU, op. cit.: 362-363; F. GILBERT, “Biondo, Sabellico and the beginnings
of Venetian official historiography”, in Florilegium historiale. Essays presented to Wallace
K. Ferguson, Toronto, 1971: 275-293.
217
See Al. MARCU, op. cit.: 364-373; Marin POPESCU-SPINENI, Geograful Sylvius
Aeneas òi àèrile romùneòti, Cluj, 1938.
218
See R. SABBADINI, op. cit.: 84; Al. MARCU, op. cit.: 375.
14.The Etymology of the Denomination of ‘Wallachia’ in the
Ramusian Vision
A detail utilised by Paul Ramusio and that could not be detected in John
Baptist’s Navigationi et Viaggi is the one referring to the etymology of the
name of ‘Wallachia”, namely its descent from the name of a supposed Roman
governor of the region, that had been Flaccus. Although there has not been
written any study exclusively dedicated to the appearance and to the evolution
of this tradition, it may be asserted that there was a Humanist invention, in the
general tendency to find out legendary founders for every population, on the
model of the Rome’s foundation by Eneas219. Beside Francus, Hispanus, or
Britannicus219 bis, the Humanist historiography made its choice in the
Wallachian case for this Flaccus or Flachus. This option was different than the
other ones by the fact that, while the others ‘founders’ were considered as
descending from the Trojans, Flaccus had been a Roman dignitary. There is
also an evidence that the Humanists discovered that the respective population
had Roman origins. Unfortunately, instead of speculating this appreciation, the
entire Romanian historiography has confined itself to consider this tradition as
‘naivety’220. There is certitude that the explanations about the etymology and
the appearance of the term of ‘Vlach’, ‘Wallachian’ and about its ethnical
connotations must be searched for somewhere else221, but this does not justify
to obstinately avoid a tradition.
At least in the period when Paul Ramusio lived, the Wallachian
population’s descent from that hypothetical general Flaccus was an idea
embraced by some Humanists, among whom we mention Enea Silvio

219
See Arno BORNST, Der Turmbau von Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen über Ursprung
und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Völker, 4 vols., Stuttgart, 1957-1963 cf. Adolf
ARMBRUSTER, Romanitatea românilor. Istoria unei idei, Bucharest: Editura
enciclopedică, 1993 (1972).
219 bis
It is somehow original the ‘solution’ selected for the Venice’s origins, which are
connected with a certain Homeric character, namely with Antenor.
220
See for example Paul CERNOVODEANU, Societatea feudalè românească văzută
de călători străini (secolele XV-XVIII), Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1973: 46.
221
See Stelian BREZEANU, “Românii şi izvoarele scrise”, in Ligia B§RZU and Stelian
BREZEANU, Originea şi continuitatea românilor. Arheologie şi tradiţie istorică,
Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 1991: 231-351 (321-351); Adolf ARMBRUSTER, op.
cit.: 18-23; P. P. PANAITESCU, “Numele neamului şi al ţării noastre”, in idem, Interpretări
româneşti. Studii di istorie economică şi socială, Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicè,
1994: 65-82 (75-78).
Piccolomini222, the Saxon George Reycherstorffer (around 1495 - after 1554)223,
and later Mark Bandini (?-
p. 102
224 225
1650) . With the exception of Adolf Armbruster , the Romanian
historiography rather confined itself to enumerate the authors who had denied
this legend than to follow its evolution.

Conclusions
Since its beginning, the present paper had in intention to analyse one of
the Humanist texts referring to the Fourth Crusade. Often called as ‘the strange
crusade’, it occupied an apart place, both by the events’ evolution, and by the
implications that it has generated. Among them, it indirectly implied the contact
with what is regarded in history as the State of the Assenides.
We consider that the chronicle written by Paul Ramusio on the second
half of the 16th century brought new determinations regarding this state. The
erudition, and also the desire to do not leave any uncovered ground determined
Paul Ramusio to enter into the essence of this new reality. He followed the
geography, the structures, and especially the past of the three components that
caused the Crusader knights’ immobilisation and explicit the end of the
Crusade: the Wallachian, the Bulgarian, and the Cuman ones. He raised
questions and offered solutions, especially respecting the building of the State
of the Assenides’ or of its leader’s image, the placement of Johannitza
Kaloyan’s Wallachia, the name given to the inhabitants from the North of the
Danube, or the placement of different populations that the Crusaders got into
contact with. In a region such as the Balkan Peninsula, whose heterogeneity and
complexity were and still are keywords, there is a real adventure to attempt the
deciphering of the different peoples that live in. As much as the instruments
utilised by Paul Ramusio in his investigations were not at all at the present day
222
See above: 44, note 217. See A. ARMBRUSTER, op. cit.: 57-58. The Italian humanist’s
opinion were familiar to the 17th century Moldavian chronicler Miron COSTIN, De neamul
moldovenilor (edited by C. GIURESCU), Bucharest, 1914: 7-8.
223
REYCHERSDORFER, Chorographia Transylvaniae, quae Dacia olim appellata…,
Viena, 1550: 5: “Huius nationis genus ex Italis profectum esse lingua arguit … a Flacco
quodam Romano cive … pro Flaccia Valachiam”. See A. ARMBRUSTER, op. cit.: 99-100.
224
Codex Bandinus, written after March, 1648, cf. V. A. URECHIA, “Codex Bandinus.
Memoria asupra scrierii lui Bandinus de la 1646”, in Analele Academiei Române, the 2nd
Series, Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice, 16 (1895): CXXVIII-CXXXI; A. VERESS, “Scrisorile
misionarului Bandini din Moldova (1644-1650)”, in Analele Academiei Române, the 3rd
Series, Memoriile Secàiunii Istorice, 6 (1927): 333-352; A. ARMBRUSTER, op. cit.: 170-
173.
225
A. ARMBRUSTER, op. cit.
level. All of these determined us to focus our research upon this particular
chronicle.
Undoubtedly, the possibilities of analysing the Ramusian text remain
open to many other respects. Since the research in the Venetian chronicles’
domain is still at an incipient level and the numerous codex could offer new
data and information regarding the State of the Assenides’ image in the Western
space, we express our confidence that the proposed application is nothing more
than a starting point.
p. 104

APPENDIX No. 2. Denominations given to different


populations by Paul Paolo Ramusio (according to the
manuscript Lat. X. 79 (=3077) from Biblioteca Nazionale
Marciana) and by Jerome Ramusio (according to Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli, edition 1604)

Population’s Name Paul Ramusio Jeremy Ramu


Bulgarians Triballi Bulgari

Triballi

Triballi antichi
Crusaders Cruciati Crocesegnati

Galli Francesi

Franci

Latini
Cumans Scythas Tartari

Cumanos (homines generis Scythici) Cumani, che so


schiatta de’ Sc
Cumani ex Scytharum
i Cumani (dalla
Cumani, quos esse Scythas ante
diximus Barbari

Cumani, quos Scythas diximus Cumani, che co


erano Sciti
Dacians Dacos Daci
Flemings Flandri Fiamengi
Frenchmen Galli Francesi

Franci
Genoese Liguri Genovesi

Genuates
Germans Germani Tedeschi
Goths Gotthi Gothi
Greeks Graeci Greci
p. 105
Hungarians Hungari Ongari
Huns Hunni Unni
Italians Itali Italiani
Latins Latini Latini
Legendary populations from the Hyperborei Hiperborei
extreme North
Muslims Sarraceni Saraceni
Normans Normani Normanni
Pisans Pisani Pisani
Poles Sarmatae Sarmati, che so
Populations between the Danube and Getae Greci
the Carpathians
Geti
Populations from the Baltic area Livoni Livoni
Populations from the Caspian area Hircani Hircani
Populations from the Caucasus area Albani Albani
Populations from the Caucasus Area Iberii Iberii
(Georgia)
Populations from the Central Asia Corasmis Sogdianae populis Corasmi, popo
Populations from the Dalmatian area Dardanos Dardani
Populations from the North of the Alanos Scythas quidam i Taurosciti, ov
Black Sea’s steppes
Sciti velint Tauroscythia gli Sciti, hoggi
Tauro
Prussians, Baltic population Pruteni Pruteni
Romans populus Romanus Romani

popolo Roman
Russians Roxolani Russi

Roxolanii iidem Russi Ruteni


p. 106
Mosci i Ruteni, detti a

Moscoviti
Slavs Sarmati Sarmati

Sauromati Sauromati
Spaniards Hispani Spagnuoli
Tartars Tartari Tartari
Turks Turci Turchi
Venetians Veneti Venetiani
Wallachians Mysi Valacchi

Mysi seu Valacchi

Valacchi

Barbari
p. 106

APPENDIX No. 2. Denominations given to some


geographical places by Paul Ramusio (according to the
manuscript Lat. X. 79 (=3077) from Biblioteca Nazionale
Marciana) and by Jerome Ramusio (according to Della
Guerra di Costantinopoli, edition 1604)
pp. 106-113

Place’s Name Paul Ramusio Jeremy Ramus


Adramition, city in the historical Adramyttio Andremita
region of Misia (Asia Minor)
the AEgean Sea mare Aegaeum l’Arcipelago

Aegaeum Arcipelago, alla


Aigre, castle in France (Champagne) Circus Agrii Aicris
Alopetia, legendary islands Alopetia insula l’Isola Alopetia
Ancona, city in Italy Ancona Ancona
Andrinople, Edirne Adrianopoli Andrinopoli
the Apenin Mountains Apenninus Apennino
settlement in the Balkans; ex- Aquila Aquilo
residence of the Bulgarian tzars;
Pliska?
the Athos Mountains Atho Atos
settlement in Turkey, Athyra, Propontidem Atera, Città del
p. 107
near the Marmara Sea urbs Propontida
the Azov Sea Meotida Meotida
Azov, the marshes from the region Moeoticae paludi Palude Meotide
of ~
Baeothia, region in the Central Boeotia Beotia
Greece
the Balcan Mountains Haemus mons il monte Hemo
the Baltic Sea Roxolanorum mare mare de’ Ruteni
Belgrade, Beograd Taurnus Belgrado
Bithynia, ancient region in the Bithynia la Bitinia
North-Western Minor Asia
the Black Sea Euxinus il mar Negro

Pontus il Ponto

Euxinus Pontus Mare Maggiore

Roxolanorum Mare mare di Ruteni

Euxinus Mare il mar maggiore


the Black Sea, the steppe from the Scytharum deserta i deserti di Tarta
North of ~
Scythia Tartaria
Bosna, river in Bosnia-Herzegovina Bosna Bosna
Bosnia Bosna Bosna

Mysia superior Misia superiore


Bosphorus, the gorge of ~ Bosphorum Bosforo
Bregenz, lake in Austria Brigantino Lacus Briganza
Brindisi, city in the Southern Italy Brudusium Brandizzo
Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria
Bursa, city in Turkey, near the Prusaeos Prusa
Olympus Mountain
(Upper) Calabria, region in the magna Graecia Calavria Superi
Southern Italy
the Caspian Sea Caspio mare mar Caspio

Hyrcani mare mare Hircano


p. 108
the Caucasus Mountains Caspiis montis Monti Caspii
Champagne, region in France Campania Campagna
Chioggia, settlement in the region of Clodioe Chioggia
Veneto
Chrysopolis Chrysopolis Chrisopoli
Constantinople, Istanbul Constantinopoli Costantinopoli

Byzantium Bizantio

nova Roma Roma nova


Corinthus, city in Greece Corinthus Corinto
(Peloponesus)
Crimea, the preisland of ~ Tauricam Chersonesus Taurica Cherson
Tartaria minore
Croatia Croatia Crovatia
‘Cumania’ Cumania Cumania

Cumaniae regio regione di Cuma

Scythia Scitia
Dalmatia, region in Croatia Dalmatia Dalmatia
the Danube Istrus Istro

Danubius Danubio
Danube, the territory between the Mysia inferior Misia inferiore
Balcans and the ~
Valacchia Valacchia

Mysia
Dardanelles (Čanakkale) Hellesponto Hellesponto

Gallipoli
Dardanelles, the Asian shore of ~ ultra Hellespontum dall’ altra banda
Dardania, historical region in Serbia; Dardania Dardania
also, the name of the ancient Troy
p. 109
Develt, medieval city in Thracia Develtus Develto
Dhidhymotichon, city in Northern Didymotichum Dimot
Greece
Dnieper, river in Belarus, Ukraine Borysthenis Boristene
Dniester, river in Ukraine, Moldova Tyras
Durrës, city in Albania Dyrachium Durazzo

Epidamnum
Efes, ancient city in the South- Ephesus Efeso
Western Asia Minor
England Britannia Inghilterra
Egypt AEgyptus Egitto
Ethna, volcano in Sicilia AEtna l’Etna
Etolia, region in the Central Greece AEtholia Etolia
Euboea, island in the Aegean Sea Euboea Negroponte
Florence Florentia Fiorenza
France Francia Francia
Genua Genua Genova
Germany Germania Alamagna

Alemagna
Greece Graecia Grecia
Hungary Hungaria Ongaria

Pannonia
Igmon, mountains in Bosnia, Imaus mons Imano
unidentified
the Ionian Sea mare Jonium il Ionio
Istria, the preisland of ~ Histria Istria
Italy Italia Italia
Izmir, city in Asia Minor Smyrna Smirna
Iznik, city in the North-Western Nicaea Nicea
Asia Minor
Jerusalem Hierosolymi Gierusalemme
p. 110
Judaea, historical region in Israel Iudea Giudea
the Ligurian Sea Ligusticum mare mar di Genova
Lydia, historical region in Asia Lydos Lidia
Minor
Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia
Maritza, river in Bulgariam Greece, Mariza Marizza
European Turkey
Hebrum Ebro

Hebro
the Marmara Sea Propontida Mar di Marmara

Propontide Propontide hogg


Marseille, city in the Southern Massilia Marsilia
France
Moldavia Moldavia Moldavia
Moscow Moscha Mosca
settlement in Bulgaria, unidentified Mosynopolis Mesinopoli
Mysia, ancient region in Asia Minor Mysia Misia

Valacchia
Nauplion, city in Greece Nauplium Napoli di Roma
(Peloponesus)
Neapolis Thracum
Navpaktos, settlement in the Central Naupactos Lepanto
Greece
Nicaea, the Empire of ~ (1204-1261) Niceae Despotia il ducato di Nice
Olympus, the Mountain ~ Olympus Olimpo
Otranto, city in the Southern Italy Hydruntinum Otranto
(Puglia)
Palestine, historical region in the Pallestina Terra Santa
Near East
Paris Parisiis Parigi
Parnasus, mountain in Parnasus Parnaso
p. 111
Central Greece
Peloponesus, preisland in the Peloponnesus Morea
Southern Greece
Persia Persida Persia
unidentified settlement Peucem Peutates
Philadelphia, ancient city in Asia Philadelphios Filadelfia
Minor
unidentified settlement Phileam Filen
unidentified settlement Phinopolis Finopoli
Phocidae, general name for the Phocide Focide
Central Greece
Plovdiv, city in Bulgaria Philippoli Filoppopoli

Philippopolis
Preslav, city in Bulgaria Pristhlabam Prtistlaba
Rialto, the ancient denomination for Rivoalto Rialto
the Venetian lagoon
Rodopi, mountains in Bulgaria Rhodope i monti Rodope
Rodosto, medieval settlement in Rhoedestum Rodostò
Thracia
unidentified settlement, at the North Paucis Topyris la Rosa
of the Balcan Mountains
Rusium Rodestine

Topyris

Rusocastrum
Russia Moscha Mosca
unidentified settlement Salmydesso Salmicleso
Sarajevo Sinderoviam Sinderoviam
Sava, river in Slovenia, Croatia, Savus il Savo
Serbia
Savona, city on the Ligurian coast Sabatia Savona
Scardos, mountains in Dalmatia Scardus montes il Monte Scardo
Selimbria, ancient city in Bulgaria Selimbria Silivrea
p. 112
Serbia Servia Servia
Serrai, city in the Northern Greece Serras Serra
Sicilia Sicilia Sicilia
Siria Syria Soria
‘Slavia’ Sarmatia Sarmatia
Slavonia, historical region in the Illyriis Schiavonia
North-Eastern Croatia
Sofia Sardica Sardicca
Sogdiana, ancient region in the Sogdiana Sogdiana
Central Asia
Spain Hispania Spagna
Staniman, city in Bulgaria Stenimachi Stanimac
Sucova, river in Bulgaria, Serbia Ciabri Ciabi

Sucova Sucova
Switzerland Rhetia superiore Retia superiore
Taranto, city in the Southern Italy Tarentinum Taranto
(Puglia)
Thessalonic, city in Greece Thessalonicum Salonichi

Thessalonica Terma

Therma
Thessaly, region in Greece Thessalia Tessaglia
Thracia, region in the Balcan Thracia Tracia
Peninsula (Greece and Turkey)
Thraciae regni Regno della Tra

Romania

Tracia, ò Roman
Trabzon, city in Turkey Trapezunte Pontica Trabisonda
Trento, city in Northern Italy Tridentus Trento
p. 113
Treviso, city in the region of Veneto Farvisiense Trevigi
Tyr, ancient city in Phoenicia Tyrus Tiro
Veliko Târnovo, city in Bulgaria Ternobo Ternovizza

Ternobo Haemi Ternovizza nell

Ternobo
Venice Veneta Civitas Città di Venetia

Venetia Venetia
Verona, city in the Veneto region Gallorum Caenomanorum vetus Verona
colonia
Volga, river in Russia Bolga Bolga

Rha Ra
Rha fluvio il fiume Rhà

Hedilum Hedilo

Volga
Wallachia Bogdania Bogdania

Carabogdania minor Carabogdania m


‘the White Lakes’ (the White Sea ?) Candidi Lacus Laghi bianchi
Zagora, region in Bulgaria Zagora Zagora
Zara, city in Croatia (Dalmatia) Jadera Zara
p. 114

APPENDIX No. 4. Denominations given to some historical


characters by Paul Ramusio (according to the manuscript Lat.
X. 79 (=3077) from Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana) and by
Jerome Ramusio (according to Della Guerra di
Costantinopoli, edition 1604)

Character’s Name Paul Ramusio Jeremy Ramus


Alexander III, pope (1159-1181) Alexandro Tertio Pontifice Maximo Papa Alessandro
Alexius III Angelos, Byzantine Alexius Alessio Angelo
emperor (1195-1203)
Tyranno il Tiranno

Alexius tyrannus Alessio tirano d


Constantinopolitanum
Alexius IV, Byzantine emperor iuniores Alexius Alessio il giova
(1203-1204)
Alexius Caesar adolescens il Prencipe Ales

Alexius adolescentes filius il fanciullo Ales

il Giovanetto
Alexius V Ducas ‘Murtzouphlos’, Murtzufli Murcufle
Byzantine emperor (1204)
Andrew Dandolo, Venetian Doge Dandulo Imperatore il Prencipe Dand
(1343-1354)
Asen, Assenide sovereign (1186- Azan Azan
1196)
Baldwin I of Flanders, crusader, Balduinus Flandriae et Hannoniae Baldovino Cont
Latin emperor of Constantinople Comes
(1204-1205) l’Imperatore Ba
Balduinus imperator
il conte Baldovi
Basil II the ‘Bulgaroctonus’, Basilius Porphyrogenitus Basilio Porfirog
Byzantine emperor
p. 115
(963-1025) Bulgaroctonus Bulgarottono
Belà III, Hungarian king (†1196) Hungariae Rex quarto Bela III. R di U

Hungarorum rex R d’Ongaria


Boniface of Montferrat, crusader, Bonifacius Bonifacio
king of Thessalonic (1204-1207)
Monferatensis il Marchese

Bonifacius Monferatensis il Marchese di M

Bonifacius Marchiones il Marchese Bon


Charles the Great, Frankish king Carolus magnus Carlo Magno
(768-800), Roman emperor (800-
814)
Clarivaux, the Abbot of ~, crusader Abbates Vallensem Cisterciensis l’Abbate de Chi
cisterciense
Constantine the Great, Roman Constantinus magnus gran Costantino
emperor (306-337)
Constantinus Imperator Costa
Frederick I ‘Barbarossa’, Roman- Caesare Federici Aenobarbi Imperator Feder
German emperor (1152-1190)
Fulk of Neuilli (?-1201), preacher Fulco Folco

Fulcones
Geoffrey of Villehardouin (c.1150- Gotthofredus Villharduinus Gottifredo di Vi
after 1222), crusader, Franch
chronicler and diplomat
George Acropolites (1217-1282), Acropolitas Acropolita
Byzantine historian and
p. 116
diplomat
Guy of Lusignan, king of Jerusalem Guidones Luscinianum Guido Lusignan
(1186-1192) and of Cyprus (1192-
1194)
Henry I of Hainaut, crusader, Latin Henricus Bailyvus Imperii Enrico Bailo de
emperor of Constantinople (1206- Imperatores Henricus l’Imperatore En
1216)
Henricus Enrico
Henry Dandolo, Venetian doge Henricus Dandulus Venetorum Dux Enrico Dandolo
(1192-1205)
Dandulus Dandolo

il Doge

il Doge di Vene
Hugue, count of Saint Paul, crusader comtes Sampauli il conte di San P

Hugo Ugo
Innocent III, pope (1198-1216) Innocentius Tertius Innocentio Terz

Romanus Pontifex maximus Papa Innocentio

Summo Pontefice il sommo Ponte

Christi vicarius il Romano pont


Irene, Alexius IV’s sister and Philip Irene Irene
of Swabia’s wife
Isaac II Angelos, Byzantine emperor Isaacius Constantinopolitanus Isacio Imperato
(1185-1195, 1203-1204)
Isaacius Angelus Comnenus Isacio Angelo C
Constantinopolitanus Imperator di Costantinopo
Johannitza Kaloyan, Assenide tsar Rex Joannissa il Rè Giovannis
(1197-
p. 117
1207) Mysus il Valacco

Joannissa Mysorum Rex Giovannissa Rè

Joannissa Rex Giovannissa Rè

Joannissa Rex Mysorum Giovannissa Rè


Bulgaria
rex Mysorum
Rè di Valacchia
Joannissa rex Mysorum, et
Triballorum Giovanni Rè de

Joannissa Rè de’ Valacchi

Mysiae rex Rè della Valacc

Joannissa Mysorum et Triballorum Giovannissa Rè


Rex Bulgari

Joannisa Mysoryum ac Triballorum


Rex

Rex Mysorum et Triballorum

rex Mysiae Joannissa

Joannissa Tyrannus
John the Sebastocrator, Byzantine Joannis sevastocratoris Giovanni Sevas
military commander (12th-13th
centuries)
John VII Paleologus, Byzantine Joannis Palaeologi Giovanni Paleol
emperor (1341-1391)
John of Blois, crusader Joannes Blesensis Giovanni di Ble
John of Noyon, crusader Joannes Noviodunensi Giovanni di No
Krum, Bulgarian khan (803-814) Crumo, Bulgarorum Principe Crumo lor Capi
Leo Sgouros, Byzantine military Leone Sguro Leonsguro
commander (12th-13th centuries)
p. 118
Louis I of Anjou, Hungarian king Ludovicus Hungarorum rex Lodovico Rè d’
(1341-1382)
Louis of Blois, crusader Aloysius Belesensium et Carnutum Luigi Conte di B
et Claromontanorum Comes di Chiaramonte

Blesensis Comes il Comte di Bles

Comes Blesensis il conte di Bles

Aloysius Blesensis
Blesensis
Manuel I Comnenus, Byzantine Emanueles Constantinopolitanum Emanuelle Impe
emperor (1143-1180) Imperatore Costantinopoli
Matthew of Montmorency, crusader Matthaeus Montmorentiacus Mattei di Momo
Michael VIII Paleologus, Byzantine Michaele Paleologo (Chier Michel Paleolog
emperor (1261-1282) Michalim appelabant) Michalim
Michael Choniates (c.1140-c.1222), Michael Choniata Michele Coniate
metropolitan bishop of Athens,
Byzantine theologian and writer
Muhammad (571-632), prophet Mahometis Macometto
Muhammad II, Ottoman sultan Mahomete Turcarum imperatore Maomet Impera
(1451-1481)
Mahomete secundo Turcarum Imperator de’ T
Imperatore Secondo
Nicetas Choniates (?-1213), Niceta Choniata Niceta Coniate
Byzantine historian and statesman
Nicholas of Mailly, crusader Nicolaus Maillius Nicolò di Mailly
Nubilon, bishop of Soissons, Nubilonus Suessorum episcopus il Vescovo di So
crusader
Nur al-Din (1118-1174), Muslim Noradinum Aegypti Sulthanus Norandino Sulta
p. 119
military commander
Pausanias, Spartian king (446/445- Pausanias Spartanorum Rex Pausania Rè deg
427/426 and 408/407-395/394 b.C.)
Peter, Assenide sovereign (1196- Petrus Pietro
1197)
Peter of Bréchieux, crusader Petrus Braiaquellos Pietro di Braiaq
Peter of Capua, Papal legate (13th Petrus Capuanus Cardinalus Pietro Cardinale
century)
Peter the Hermit (c.1050-1115), Petrus Heremitus Pietro Eremita
preacher
Philip of Swabia, German king Philippo Svevo Filippo Svevo
(1198-1208)
Theutorum rex Rè di Alamagna

Philippus Svevus Germanorum Rex Filippo Svevo, R


Philip II August, French king (1180- Philippus Augustus Filippo
1223)
Pippin the Short, Frankish king Pipinus Pipino
(751-768)
Polybius (c.200-c.118 b.C.), Greek Polybius Polibio
historian
Renier of Trit, crusader Rhaynerius Traiectensis Rainier
Richard I the Lionheart, English Richardo Riccardo
king (1189-1199)
Robert I Guiscard, Normand duke of Guiscardus Guiscardo
Sicily and of the Southern Italy
(1059-1085)
Robert of Boves, crusader Robertus Bonnam Roberto Conte d
Roger I, Norman king of Sicily Rogerius Ruggieri
(1130-1154)
p. 120
Saladin, sultan of Egypt (1171-1193) Saladinus Saladino
and of Syria (1174-1193)
Samuil, Bulgarian tsar (980-1014) Samuele Bulgarorum principe Samuele Prenci
Sebastian Ziani, Venetian doge Sebastianus Zianus Sebastiano Zian
(1172-1178)
Selim I, Ottoman sultan (1566-1574) Selymus Turcarum Imperatoris Selim, Imperato
Simon of Montfort, crusader Symon Monfortensis Simone di Mon
Strabo (64/63 b.C.-c. 21 a.C.), Greek Strabone Strabo
historian and geographer
Tancred, Norman prince (?-1112) Tancredus Tancredi
Theodore I Lascaris, Byzantine Theodorus Lascaris Teodore Lascar
emperor of Nicaea (1204-1222)
il Lascari
Theobald of Champagne, crusader Theobaldus Campaniae et Briae Teobaldo, Cont
Comes, idemque Trecensis Comes Campagna, et d
Palatinus Langres

Theobaldus Campaniae Comes


Theodore of Deremonde, crusader Theodoricus Teneromondanus Tierris di Derem
Urban II, pope (1088-1099) Urbanus Secundus Pontifex Papa Urbano II
opportunity for the participants to this crusade to act in the Near East; the
disappearing of some of the main Crusader leaders14; the confusion of the
Crusader knights; the reinforcement of a Greek empire at Nicaea as a reply to
the Latin one in Constantinople15; the reorganisation of the Venetian camp by
the creation of the new institution of podestà16 - demonstrating the imminent
danger for the Venetian interests in the

sancti Albani Chronica Majora (edited by H. R. LUARD), 4 (1876), Nendeln, Liechtenstein:


Kraus Reprint, 1964: 625-626.
14
Some of them disappeared even during the battle, among them Baldwin of Flanders (that is
the first Latin Empire's emperor himself, 1204-1205), captured, Louis of Blois, Stephen of
Perche, Renaud of Montmirail, killed in the battle, etc. Regarding the Doge Henry Dandolo
of Venice (1192-1205), he would decease in a short time after the event, while Boniface of
Montferrat, the Crusade's commander and King of Thessalonic, he would be killed in an
ambush of the Vlachs two years later.
15
That is the empire created by Theodore Lascaris; for the Nicaean Empire, see Alice
GARDNER, The Lascarids of Nicaea. The Story of an Empire in Exile, Amsterdam: Hakkert,
1964 (1912); Michael ANGOLD, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society
under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204-1261), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975; Stelian
BREZEANU, "Le premier traité économique entre Venise et Nicée", Revue Historique du
Sud-Est Européennes, 12 (1974): 143-146.
16
See G. B. RAMUSIO, Historia, o espositione di ms. Gio. Battista Ramusio sopra la
cagione, perche in Constantinopoli anticamente stesse un Podesta per nome del Serenissimo
Doge di Venetia tratta da molti antichissimi libri, in the manuscript Ottob. lat. 2204 from
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: 1-13. For rich enough information about the Venetian
dignitaries that occupied the function of podestà, see the chronicle of Lorenzo de
MONACIS, entitled Chronicon de rebus Veneti ab U. C. ad Annum MCCCLIV [1354] sive
ad conjurationem Ducis Faledro (edited by Flaminius CORNELIUS), Venice: ex
Typographia Remondiniana, MDCCLVIII [1758], who records Marino Zeno (ibidem: 142),
James Tiepolo (ibidem: 145), Marino Michiel (ibidem: 146), Teophilus Zeno (ibidem: 147),
Mark Gradenigo (ibidem: 148) or the one of Martin da CANAL, Les Estoires de Venise.
Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275 (edited by Alberto
LIMENTANI), Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1972: 68-69, 84-85, 180-181, 196-197) with
information about another podestà: John Michiel (ibidem: 84-87). Marino Zeno, the first
podestà, is recorded in Andreae Danduli Ducis Venetorum. Chronica per extensium
descripta aa. 46-1280 (edited by Ester PASTORELLO), Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1728:
282 (while the note from the chronicle presents the subtitle "Electio potestatis
Constantinopolis") and by Marcantonio ERIZZO, in his Cronaca Veneta dal principio della
Città sino al 1495, the inventory Ital. VII. 56 (= 8636) at Biblioteca Marciana: 113r, but
without any supplementary commentary, while the so called Barbo Chronicle, Cronica
antiquissima, transcritta da diverse, et antique: qual tratta del nascimento di Attila
Flagellum Dei, con le destruttion que lui fatte nelli Italia de Città, et Luochi, et gente, con la
sua morte, in the manuscript Ital. VII. 66 (=7766) from Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana
records another Venetian dignitary who had occupied the respective function: Marin Michiel,
on the occasion of the crowning of Robert of Courtenay (1221-1228) as emperor of
Constantinople. There is also interesting Cronaca Veneta detta Veniera sino al 1479
(attributed to Anthony DONÀ), inventory Ital. VII. 10 (=8607): 31v, which also informs
about the exact duration of the existence of this function. For more details about this respect,
see R. L. WOLFF, "A new Document from the Period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople:
p. 56
region; the ruining of the Papal plans of the integration of the Byzantine space
in the Roman Church’s orbit17; but also it paradoxically conducted to the
regaining of the Papal prestige upon the Latins in the East18. All these
consequences also represent arguments to prove that the Crusade came to an
end only from that moment (April 1205) on, losing its dynamic feature to the
favour of a static one. There is needless to append that it also emerged the
failure of this crusade.
There is certitude that, after only one year of existence, the general policy
of the Latin Empire of Constantinople was radically modified: from an
offensive feature to an almost totally defensive one. As a result of only one
battle, the surviving began to be the keyword for this state.
Beside all of these, the battle of Andrinople also meant the appearance of
a new factor in the Westerners’ perspective, meaning the person of Johannitza
p. 57
Kaloyan (1197-1207). Thus, the State of the Assenides brutally irrupted into the
stage.

the Oath of the Venetian Podestà", Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire


Orientales et Slaves, 12 (1953): 539-574. The problems in connection to the podestà
institution, as the ones respecting the new title adopted by the Venetian Doges opened to a
certain extent the way to new theoretical pretensions, for instance "Venice - the third Rome",
see Andrea MOROSINI, L'Imprese, et espeditioni di Terra Santa, et l'Acquisto fatto
dell'Imperio di Constantinopoli dalla Serenissima Republica di Venetia, Venice: Antonio
Pinelli, MDCXXVII [1627]: 270-279; Barbara MARX, Venezia altera Roma? Ipotesi sull'
Umanesimo veneziano, Venice: Centro Tedesco di studi veneziani, 1978. There is certain that
between April and August, 1205, meaning the period between the death of Henry Dandolo
and the election of Peter Ziani in Venice, the Venetian colony in Constantinople acted
independently regarding the metropolis, taking the titles of podestà and of Romania's
dominator into possession, along with the 'imperial' pretensions.
17
Understood in the sense that Innocent III becomes conscious of the fact that the Greeks are
definitely lost for his cause, see Patrologia, vol. 215, doc. CXXXIII, colls. 710-714(712).
18
See Patrologia, vol. 215, doc. CXXXII (addressed to Henry I), col. 710: "Nobilitati tuae
per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, ad liberationem fratris tui diligenter intendens,
veram et firmam pacem stabilias cum charissimo filio nostro, Calojoanne, rege Bulgarorum
et Blachorum illustri, ut inter Bulgaris et Latinos fidelis et stabilis amicitia de cetero
perseveret […]", and also ibidem: doc. CXXVI, colls. 699-702; ibidem: doc. CXXXIII, colls.
710-714.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen