Test Bank for Microeconomics Theory and Applications 12th Edition

Browning Zupan 1118758870 9781118758878

Full link download
Test Bank:
https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-microeconomics-theory-and-
applications-12th-edition-browning-zupan-1118758870-9781118758878/

Solution Manual:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-microeconomics-theory-
and-applications-12th-edition-browning-zupan-1118758870-
9781118758878/

Package: Test Bank

Title: Microeconomics: Theory and Application, 12e
Chapter Number: 2

Question Type: Multiple Choice

1. A rise in the quantity demanded of lemons can be attributed to:

a. a leftward shift in the supply curve of lemons.

b. a lower price of lemons.
c. a decline in the number of people drinking lemonade.
d. an increase in the price of lime juice.

Answer: B

Difficulty Level: Easy

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

2. The law of demand states that people:

a. prefer high-quality goods to low-quality goods.

b. buy larger quantities of a good at lower prices.
c. prefer more to less.
d. are willing to pay a higher price only for goods they need.

Answer: B

Difficulty Level: Easy

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

3. Which of the following statements is not true about a demand curve?

a. The demand curve shows the maximum price consumers will pay for various quantities of
a product.
b. Movements along a demand curve reflect changes in consumers' tastes.
c. The demand curve shows the quantities consumers will purchase at various prices.
d. Movements along a demand curve reflect consumers’ response to price changes.
Answer: B

Difficulty Level: Easy

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

4. Which of the following is a valid interpretation of the demand curve?

a. The demand curve identifies the quantities purchased at various prices.

b. The demand curve identifies the taste and preference of the consumers.
c. The demand curve identifies the consumer’s income level.
d. The demand curve identifies the availability of substitute goods.

Answer: A

Difficulty Level: Medium

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

5. Which of the following violates the law of demand?

a. After receiving an annual raise of $10,000, a young man buys more steak than before,
even though the price of steak increased by 5 percent.
b. A woman with a small baby continues to purchase diapers even after the price of diapers went
up.
c. After the price of bowling increases, a woman increases her frequency of bowling.
d. Despite butter being more expensive than margarine, a woman buys more butter after the price of
margarine (a close substitute) increases.

Answer: C

Difficulty Level: Medium

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

6. The negative slope of the demand curve indicates that:

a. more consumers are willing to buy the good as its supply falls.
b. consumption increases as the price falls.
c. consumption is a positive function of income.
d. less consumers are willing to buy the good as the price falls.

Answer: B

Difficulty Level: Medium

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

7. The demand curve for water is downward sloping, indicating that:

a. there are an increasing number of reservoirs.

b. more consumers enter the market as the price falls.
c. there is more consumption per person at lower prices.
d. the production costs for water are very low.

Answer: C

Difficulty Level: Medium

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

8. Which one of the following is held constant along a given demand curve?

a. The consumers’ income

b. The price of the good the demand curve represents
c. The cost of producing the good the demand curve represents d.
The quantity of the good the demand curve represents

Answer: A

Difficulty Level: Easy

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

9. Consider two goods, X and Y. If the price of Y increases and, as a consequence, the
demand curve for X shifts to the left, then:

a. X and Y are substitutes.

b. X and Y are complements.
c. X and Y are unrelated.
d. X and Y are inferior goods.

Answer: B

Difficulty Level: Medium

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

10. A shift in the consumer's demand for a good X cannot result from a change in the:

a. price of a substitute for good X.

b. price of X.
c. consumer's taste.
d. consumer's income.

Answer: B

Difficulty Level: Easy

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

11. Which of the following would cause the demand for coffee to increase?

a. An increase in the price of tea, a substitute for coffee

b. A decrease in the price of tea, a substitute for coffee c.
An increase in the price of cream, a complement to
coffee d. A decrease in the price of coffee

Answer: A

Difficulty Level: Medium

Section Reference: Demand and Supply Curves
Learning Objective: Understand how the behavior of buyers and sellers can be characterized
through demand and supply curves.

12. Which of the following is likely to occur if the demand for housing increases?

a. The price of lumber used to build a house will fall.

b. The interest rate on mortgages needed to purchase a house will rise.
c. The demand for schools will rise.
d. The wages of carpenters who build houses will fall.
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
Turks, and on March 13, 1691, after a siege of forty days, they too were
removed and Valona evacuated and destroyed. The Turks offered no
opposition to the retreating Venetians, and the opinion was freely
expressed that the place could have been defended. Thus, after six
months, ended the Venetian occupation of Valona[852]. When
Pouqueville[853] visited it rather more than a century later, he saw the
remains of the two forts blown up by the Venetians, and found that one
street with porticoes recalled their former residence. In his time the
population was 6000, including a certain number of Jews banished from
Ancona by Paul IV. The place was then, as now, very unhealthy in
summer, but he foretold a brilliant future for it, if the marshes were once
drained.
The Turks neglected Valona, as they neglected all their Albanian
possessions. Sinan Pasha had been so good and popular a governor that,
although a native of Konieh, he was nicknamed “the Arnaut,” and his
descendants long held the appointment as almost a family fief; indeed, as
late as the middle of the eighteenth century, the natives of Valona
besieged and cut to pieces a certain Ismail Pasha, who had endeavoured
to wrest the governorship of the town from one of Sinan’s
descendants[854]. A generation later, however, a sanguinary feud, which
broke out between the members of this governing family, led the other
notables of Valona to invoke the intervention of the famous Ali Pasha of
Joannina, who had already cast covetous eyes on the place, then ruled by
Ibrahim Pasha. But the treacherous “Lion of Joannina” carried off not
only Ibrahim but also the notables of Valona to the dungeons of his lake-
fortress, where they were subsequently put to death. Ibrahim, however,
lingered on, and was forced to address a petition to the Turkish
government begging it, in consideration of his age and infirmities, to
bestow the governorship of Valona and Berat upon his gaoler’s eldest
son, Mouchtar Pasha, who appointed a Naxiote Christian, Damirales, as
his representative in the former town. In 1820 the Turkish authorities,
resolved to crush the too-powerful satrap of Joannina, easily induced the
people of Valona to drive out Mouchtar’s partisans. But the population
repeatedly gave the Turks cause for alarm, and in 1828 Rechid Pasha
treacherously executed a powerful Bey of Valona, who had come to pay
his respects to him at Joannina. Nevertheless the local people continued
to resist any obnoxious Turkish authority[855].
During the first Balkan war, on November 28, 1912, Albanian
independence was proclaimed at Valona, and an Albanian government
formed, of which Ismail Kemal Bey was President[856]. But when an
Albanian principality was created in the following year, and Prince
William of Wied was chosen as its ruler, Valona recognised Durazzo as
the capital. Meanwhile, Italy had intimated that she could not consent to
the inclusion of Valona, to which she attached special importance, within
the new Greek frontier; and insisted on the islet of Saseno, which had
formed part of the Hellenic kingdom since 1864, being ceded to the
Albanian principality. Greece complied with this demand, and on July
15, 1914, the Greek garrison abandoned Saseno at the order of the
Venizelos Cabinet. When the European war broke out, Italy took the
opportunity, on October 30, to occupy Saseno by troops under the
command of Admiral Patris, who found it inhabited by twenty-one
persons, and re-christened the highest point “Monte Bandiera” from the
Italian flag which was hoisted there[857]. She had sent a sanitary mission
to Valona itself and, on December 25, occupied that town. Then, as in
1690 and as in the days of Manfred and his successors, Kanina was
likewise in Italian hands, while for the first time in its long history
Valona has been connected with Great Britain, for the new jetty there
was the work of the British Adriatic Mission, sent to rescue the retreating
Serbian army. But, by the Tirana agreement of August 3, 1920, Italy
renounced Valona (assigned to her by the treaty of London in 1915), and
now holds Saseno alone.

RULERS OF VALONA

Byzantine Empire -1081

Normans of Sicily 1081-4
Byzantine Empire 1084-1204
Despotat of Epeiros 1204-57
Manfred 1257-66
Chinardo 1266
Giacomo di Balsignano 1266-73
Angevins of Naples 1273-(?)97
Byzantine Empire (?) 1297-1345/6
Serbs 1345/6-1417
Turks 1417-1690
Venetians 1690-1
Turks 1691-1912
 Albanians 1912-14
Italians Dec. 25, 1914-Aug. 3, 1920
Albanians 1920-

2. THE MEDIÆVAL SERBIAN EMPIRE

The late Professor Freeman once remarked during a great crisis in the
Balkans, that it was the business of a Minister of Foreign Affairs “to
know something of the history of foreign countries.” The demand,
however unreasonable it may seem, derives special importance from the
fact, that recent events have signally justified the forecasts of the eminent
historian and signally falsified those of the Minister whom he was
criticising. For in the Balkans, and especially in Greece and Serbia,
history is not, as it is apt to be in some western countries, primarily a
subject for examinations, but is, thanks to the popular ballads, an integral
part of the national life and a powerful factor in contemporary politics.
The glories of the Byzantine Empire exercise a continual fascination
upon the Greeks; the conquests of the Tsar Stephen Dushan in
Macedonia have been invoked as one of the Serbian claims to that
disputed land; whereas no Englishman of to-day has been known to
demand a large part of France on the ground that it belonged to the
English Crown in the reign of Dushan’s contemporary, Edward III.
But there is a further reason for the study of Balkan history by
practical men. Our judgments of the Balkan peoples are often harsh and
unjust, because we do not realise the historic fact that they stepped
straight out of the fifteenth century into the nineteenth (and in some
cases into the twentieth), like Plato’s cave-dwellers who emerged
suddenly from darkness into the full light of day. For the centuries of
Turkish rule, interrupted in the case of Northern Serbia by the twenty-
one years of Austrian rule between the treaties of Passarovitz and
Belgrade in the eighteenth century, left them much as it found them—
with their material resources undeveloped, their roads reduced to mule-
tracks, their harbours undredged, their education neglected.
Consequently, it was manifestly unfair to expect those who were
practically contemporaries of our Wars of the Roses to enter the
nineteenth century with the same ideas and the same culture as the
gradually evolved states of Western Europe. The wonder rather is that so
much progress has been accomplished in so short a time, especially when
we remember that the eminent personages who direct the affairs of this
world are apt to regard the Balkan peoples, with their deeply-rooted
historical traditions and aspirations, and their extraordinarily keen sense
of nationality, immensely stimulated by the victories of 1912-13, as
pawns in a game, to be moved about the board as its exigencies demand.
Let us Western Europeans, then, who have had no personal experience of
Turkish rule, be less censorious of those who have lived under it for
nearly four centuries at Semendria and for five at Skopje.
In the following pages I propose to give a general sketch of mediæval
Serbian history, emphasising those points which may help us to
understand the events of the last few years, and referring those who
desire further details to the great (if unpolished and unfinished) work of
the late Constantin Jireček, who for the first time has placed the history
of the Serbs in the Middle Ages upon the impregnable rock of
contemporary documentary evidence.
The Serbs, like the Bulgars, are not original inhabitants of the Balkan
peninsula, where, at the dawn of history, we find three principal races—
the Greeks, the Illyrians (who are perhaps the ancestors of the
Albanians), and the Thracians. But a continuous residence of thirteen
centuries qualifies the Serbs to be considered a Balkan people. The
usually received account of their entry into the peninsula is that given by
the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his treatise “De
Administrando Imperio,” written some three centuries later. He tells us
that the Emperor Herakleios (610-41) gave them the territory which was
later called “Serblia”—a country bounded in the time of Porphyrogenitus
by Croatia on the north, Bulgaria on the south, the river Rashka near
Novibazar on the east, and the present Herzegovina on the west. But a
chain of historical facts proves that Herakleios merely gave to the Serbs
what they had already taken. About a century before his time the Slavs,
whose oldest home was in Poland, had begun to cross the Danube, and
about 578 had actually appeared before Salonika. Herakleios, occupied
with the war against the Persians in the East, could not defend the
Western Balkans. So he made a virtue of necessity, just as, in our own
day, governments have granted autonomy to lost provinces which they
could no longer protect. The Danubian principalities, Bulgaria, Eastern
Roumelia, Crete, and the Lebanon are examples.
This arrangement suited both parties. The Byzantine Court could keep
up a formal suzerainty, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus could point in
proof of it to the quite unscientific etymology of the word “Serboi” from
the Latin servi, because they had become the “slaves” of the Byzantine
Emperor. This national name, which first occurs in the ninth century,
when we find Eginhard, the biographer of Charlemagne, describing in
822 the “Sorabi” as “said to occupy a large part of Dalmatia,” is still
applied not only to the Balkan Serbs but to those of Saxony, whose
language, however, is so different that a Serb of Bautzen cannot
understand a Serb of Belgrade. The later Byzantine historians, full of
classical lore, sometimes call the Serbs Τριβαλλοί after the Thracian
tribe, which occupied in antiquity part of modern Serbia, and the king of
which is brought on the stage and made to talk broken Greek in the Birds
of Aristophanes. Yet, despite this false etymology of their name,
Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself admits what was doubtless the fact,
that the Croats and Serbs were “subject to none.” “Thus,” in the words of
Finlay[858], “the modern history of the eastern shores of the Adriatic
commences with the establishment of the Sclavonian colonies in
Dalmatia.” Of the two pre-existing elements in the population, the
Romans, as Constantine Porphyrogenitus says, retired into the coast-
towns, while the Illyrian aborigines were pushed southward into the
country which since the eleventh century has borne the name of Albania
from the district of Albanon near Kroja. Under the name of Ἀρβανῖται
the Albanians are first mentioned in 1079.
The history of mediæval Serbia falls naturally into three sections: (1)
from the entry of the Serbs into the Balkan peninsula to the close of the
twelfth century—a period during which the Byzantine Empire, after
finally crushing the Bulgarians, dominated the Near East, and the Serbs,
divided into two separate states, played a subordinate but restive part; (2)
from the rise of the Nemanja dynasty towards the close of the twelfth
century to the battle of Kossovo in 1389—a period which saw Serbia rise
to be for a brief space by far the greatest state in the peninsula; (3) the
decline, when Danubian Serbia existed at the pleasure of the Turks, till in
1459 she received her death-blow.
During the first of these periods the only serious resistance to the
Byzantine hegemony of the Balkan peninsula was offered by the
Bulgarians—a Finnish, or, according to others, Tartar tribe, which
entered it in 679, and became gradually absorbed in the Slavonic
population, which it had conquered. The vanquished imposed their
language upon the victors, but the victors, like the Angles in England,
imposed their name upon the vanquished. Two powerful Bulgarian
monarchs, Krum and the Tsar Symeon, in 813 and 913 threatened the
very existence of Constantinople, as did the Tsar Ferdinand in 1913; and
Krum was wont to pledge his nobles out of the silver-set skull of the
Greek Emperor Nikephoros I, whom he had slain in battle. The Serbs,
however, maintained friendly relations with these powerful neighbours
till about the middle of the ninth century, when history registers the first
of the long series of Serbo-Bulgarian wars, of which we have seen three
in our own time. When the Serbs were united, they were able to defeat
the Bulgars. But the rivalry of the hereditary princes, whom we find
ruling over them at this period, led to the formation of pro-Bulgar and
pro-Byzantine parties, so that the native ruler tended to become a
Bulgarian or Byzantine nominee, while there was a pretender in exile at
Prêslav or Constantinople only awaiting the opportunity to be restored by
foreign aid. About 924, however, the Bulgarian Tsar Symeon, instead of
placing a puppet of his own on the throne, carried away almost the whole
Serbian people captive into Bulgaria. Serbia thus remained barren; and
when, after Symeon’s death, the Serbian prince, Tchaslav, escaped from
the Bulgarian court to Serbia, he found there only fifty men, and neither
women nor children. By submitting to the Byzantine Emperor and with
the latter’s help, he restored the scattered Serbs to their own country.
For the rest of the tenth century Serbian history is a blank, save for the
survival of the leaden seal with a Greek inscription belonging to a Prince
of Diokleia, the country called after the town of Doclea, whose ruins still
stand near Podgoritza. This was the time of the great Bulgarian Tsar
Samuel, under whom Bulgaria stretched to the Adriatic; and Durazzo,
the key of the Western Balkans, as Byzantine statesmen considered it,
became a Bulgarian port. In his days there lived on the lake of Scutari a
saintly Serbian prince, John Vladimir. Samuel carried off this holy man
to his own capital on the lake of Prespa. But the Tsar’s daughter,
according to the story, was so greatly moved by his pious speeches and
his beauty while engaged in washing his feet, that she begged her father
to release him. The saint escaped prison but not matrimony; he married
the love-sick Bulgarian princess; but not long after was murdered as he
was leaving church by an usurper of the Bulgarian throne. His remains
repose in the monastery of St John near Elbassan; his cross is still
preserved in Montenegro and carried every Whitsunday in procession at
dawn.
The complete destruction of the first Bulgarian Empire by the
Byzantine Emperor Basil II, “the Bulgar-slayer,” in 1018, removed the
danger of a Bulgarian hegemony in the Balkans, and made the Danube
again the frontier of the Byzantine dominions, which surrounded on
three sides the Serbian lands. Manuel I added Σερβικός to the Imperial
style; Serbian pretenders were kept ready at Constantinople or Durazzo,
in case the Serbian rulers showed signs of independence, while high-
sounding court titles rewarded their servility. The internal condition of
the Serbian people favoured Byzantine policy. For them, as in our own
day, there were two Serb states, and two national dynasties, one ruling
over the South Dalmatian coast, the present Herzegovina, and Dioklitia,
modern Montenegro, with Scutari and Cattaro for its capitals; the other
governing the more inland districts from a central point in the valley of
the Rashka (near Novibazar), whence Serbia obtained the name of
“Rassia,” by which she was largely described in the West of Europe
during the Middle Ages. Of these two dynasties the former assumed the
royal title—Hildebrand addressed a letter to “Michael, King of the
Slavs”—but the latter became the more important, although its head
contented himself with the more modest designation of “Great jupan,”
that is, the first among the jupani, or Counts (Serbian jupa = county).
Whenever opportunity offered, however, the Serbs endeavoured to
emancipate themselves from Byzantium. Kedrenos informs us that “after
the death of the Emperor Romanos III (in 1034) Serbia threw off the
yoke of the Greeks”; Stephen Vojislav, ruler of Dioklitia, not only seized
a cargo of gold, which was thrown up on the Illyrian coast, but saw a
Byzantine army perish in the difficult passes of his country. A second
Imperial invasion, which started from Durazzo, met with the same fate as
that which befell the Austrian “punitive expedition” in December 1914.
The Serbs allowed the invaders to penetrate into the Zeta valley,
occupied the heights and utterly routed them as they returned, laden with
booty, through a narrow gorge. Michael, Vojislav’s son, made peace with
the Emperor, and received the title of protospathários, or “sword-
bearer,” at the Byzantine court, while he assumed at home the title of
king. But, after the crushing defeat of the Byzantines by the Seljuks in
Asia at the battle of Manzikert in 1071, the temptation to rise was too
strong for the Balkan Slavs to resist. Accordingly, at the invitation of the
Bulgarians, Michael sent them a leader in the person of his son,
Constantine Bodin, who was proclaimed at Prizren “Peter, Emperor of
the Bulgarians.” Bodin was, however, captured by the Byzantines, but
escaped and married the daughter of a citizen of Bari—the first example
but not the last of a Serbo-Italian union. At his request Pope Clement III
confirmed the rights of the Archbishopric of Antivari, the ancient See,
which is mentioned as an Archbishopric so early as 1067, and on the
holder of which Leo XIII in 1902 conferred the title of “Primate of
Serbia.” But Bodin, bellicose and crafty as Anna Comnena describes
him, fell again into the power of the Byzantines. Our countryman,
Ordericus Vitalis, describes him as “treating in a friendly fashion” the
Crusaders who passed through his territory. Usually, however, the
Crusaders had difficulty with the Serbs; and William of Tyre tells how at
Nish, then a “fortified town, filled with a valiant and numerous
population,” certain “Germans, sons of Belial,” set fire to the mills, thus
provoking the retaliation of the natives.
The excellent Archbishop, who was sent in 1168 on an embassy to
Monastir, remarks that Serbia was a country “of difficult access”; and
that the Serbs, whose name he also derives from their supposedly
original state of servitude, were “an uncultured and undisciplined people,
inhabiting the mountains and forests, and not practising agriculture, but
possessed of much cattle great and small.... Sometimes their jupani obey
the Emperor: at other times all the inhabitants quit their mountains and
forests ... to ravage the surrounding countries.” Yet the oldest piece of
Serbian literature—a book of the Gospels in Cyrillic letters[859]—dates
from this very period; and a priest of Antivari composed in Latin a
history of the rulers of Diokleia, who were gradually ousted by the
“Great jupani” of Rascia, who in their turn were forced to submit to the
chivalrous Byzantine Emperor, Manuel I. A court poet of the period,
Theodore Prodromos, represents the Serbian rivers Save and Tara, red
with blood and laden with corpses, addressing the conqueror, and the
Serbian jupani trembling at the roar of the lion from the Bosporus.
The death of Manuel I, in 1180, freed the Southern Slavs from
Byzantine rule; and the following decade saw the foundation of the great
Serbian state, which reached its zenith in the middle of the fourteenth
century, and then fell before the all-conquering Turk. As has usually
happened in Balkan history, this national triumph was the work of one
man—Stephen Nemanja, the first great name in Serbian history.
The founder of the Serbian monarchy was a native of what is now
Podgoritza, whence he built up a compact Serbian state, comprising the
Zeta (modern Montenegro), and the Land of Hum (the “Hill” country,
now the Herzegovina), Northern Albania and the modern kingdom of
Serbia, with a sea-frontage on the Bocche di Cattaro, whose municipality
in 1186 passed a resolution describing him as “Our Lord Nemanja, Great
jupan of Rascia.” Of the Serbian lands Bosnia alone evaded his sway,
forming a separate state, which, first under bans, and then under kings,
survived the Serbian monarchy till it, too, fell before the Turks; while in
the land of Hum he set up his brother, Miroslav, as prince. Thus, he
substituted for the aristocratic Serbian federation a single state, embraced
the Orthodox faith, which was that of the majority of his people, and
strove to secure its religious as well as ecclesiastical union by extirpating
the heresy of the Bogomiles, or Babuni (whence the name of the Babuna
pass near Monastir, so famous in the fighting of 1915), then rife in the
Balkans. At the same time he sent presents to St Peter’s in Rome and St
Nicholas’ at Bari.
When Frederick Barbarossa stopped at Nish on the third Crusade in
1189, Nemanja met him with handsome gifts; but we may doubt the
statement of a German chronicler that he did homage for his lands to the
Teutonic ruler. No German Emperor ever set foot in Nish again till the
recent visit of the Kaiser to King Ferdinand, when a modern chronicle,
the Wolffbureau, revived the memory of Barbarossa’s presence there. In
1195 Nemanja retired from the world, at the instigation of his youngest
son, who is known in Serbian history as St Sava; and he died in 1200 as
the monk Symeon in the monastery of Chilandar on Mount Athos. He,
too, received the honours of a saint; his tomb is still revered in the
monastery of Studenitza, which he founded; and his life was written by
his eldest son and successor Stephen, and by Stephen’s brother St Sava—
the beginning of Serbian historical biography.
Nemanja had never assumed the title of king, continuing to style
himself as “Great jupan”; but Stephen won for himself the title of “the
first-crowned king,” by obtaining, in 1217, a royal crown from Pope
Honorius III. There were diplomatic reasons for the assumption of this
title. The Byzantine Empire had now fallen before the Latin Crusaders;
Frankish principalities had arisen all over the Near East; and the Latin
ruler of Salonika had assumed the royal style. Bulgaria had arisen again,
and her sovereigns had revived the ancient title of Tsar; and the King of
Hungary had presumed to call himself king of “Rascia” also. To show
his connection with the former kings of Diokleia, Stephen added that
country to his style; to complete the independence of his kingdom, he
obtained through his saintly and diplomatic brother from the
Œcumenical Patriarch at Nice the recognition of a separate Serbian
Church under Sava himself as “Archbishop of all the Serbian lands.”
Sava was buried in the monastery of Mileshevo in the old sandjak of
Novibazar, whence his remains were removed and burned by the Turks
near Belgrade in 1595. Many a pious legend has grown up around the
name of the founder of the national Church; but, through the haze of
romance and beneath the halo of the saint, we can descry the figure of
the great ecclesiastical statesman, whose constant aim it was to benefit
his country and the dynasty to which he himself belonged, and to
identify the latter with the national religion.
While Stephen’s successor was a feeble character, the second
Bulgarian Empire reached its zenith under the great Tsar John Asên II,
who boasted in a still extant inscription in his capital of Trnovo, then the
centre of Balkan politics, that he had “conquered all the lands from
Adrianople to Durazzo.” The next Serbian King Vladislav was his son-
in-law; St Sava died as his guest. But the hegemony of Bulgaria
disappeared at his death in 1241; there, too, the national resurrection had
been the work of one man. The Greeks regained their influence in
Macedonia, and in 1261 recaptured Constantinople from the Latins.
We have an interesting description of life at the Serbian court in the
time of the next King, Stephen Urosh I[860] (c. 1268), from the Byzantine
historian Pachymeres. There was a project for a marriage between a
daughter of the Greek Emperor, Michael VIII Palaiologos, and a son of
Stephen Urosh. First, however, two envoys were sent to report, and the
Empress specially charged one of them to let her know what sort of a
family it was into which her daughter was about to marry. The pompous
Byzantines were horrified to find “the great King,” as he was called,
living the simple life in a way which would have disgraced a modest
official of Constantinople, his Hungarian daughter-in-law working at her
spindle in an inexpensive gown, and his household eating like a pack of
hunters or sheep-stealers. The lack of security for travellers deepened the
unfavourable impression of the envoys, and the marriage was broken off.
Stephen Urosh II (1281-1321), surnamed Milutin (“the child of grace”),
greatly increased the importance of Serbia. We have different pictures of
this monarch from his Serbian and his Greek contemporaries. One of the
former extols his qualities as a ruler, one of the latter portrays him as
anything but an exemplary husband. But these characters are not
incompatible, as we know from the case of Henry VIII, whom Stephen
Urosh II resembled not only in the number of his wives, but in his
opportunist policy. His chief object was to enlarge his dominions at the
expense of Byzantium; he occupied Skopje, and established his capital
there—the Serbian residence had hitherto fluctuated between Novibazar,
Prishtina and Prizren—and so greatly impressed the Emperor
Andronikos II with his advance towards Salonika that the latter
sacrificed his only daughter, Simonis, to the already thrice-divorced
monarch, giving as her dowry the territories which his son-in-law had
already taken from him. Simonis, however, when she grew up—she was
only a child at the time of her engagement—preferred Constantinople to
the society of her husband; and nothing but his threat to come and take
her by force induced her to return.
Behind this marriage of convenience there lay the project of uniting
the Greek and Serbian dominions under a Serbian sceptre—a project to
which the national party was resolutely opposed. At the same time, he
not only had—what all Serbian rulers have coveted—an outlet on the
sea, but actually occupied for a few years the port of Durazzo, that
much-debated spot, which during the Middle Ages was alternatively
Angevin, Serbian, Albanian and Venetian, till in 1501 it became Turkish.
Nor was this astute ruler only a diplomatist and a politician; he offered
the Venetians to keep open and guard the great trade route which
traversed his kingdom, and led across Bulgaria to the Black Sea. A
munificent founder of churches, his generosity is evidenced in Italy by
the silver altar, bearing the date 1319, which he gave to St Nicholas’ at
Bari, and on which he described himself as ruling from the Adriatic to
the Danube; but his name is better known by the verses of Dante, who
has given him a place in the Paradiso among the evil kings for his issue
of counterfeit Venetian coin[861]—a common offence in the Levant
during the Middle Ages:

e quel di Rascia
Che male ha visto il conio di Vinegia.

A disputed succession soon ended in the enthronement of the late

King’s illegitimate son, Stephen Urosh III, known in history by the
epithet “Detchanski” from the famous monastery of Detchani which he
founded. He had been blinded for conspiring against his father; but on
his father’s death he recovered his sight, which perhaps he had never
entirely lost. His reign is one of the most dramatic in Serbian history, for
it affords an example of those sudden alternations of triumph and
disaster characteristic of the Balkans, alike in the Middle Ages and in our
own day. On June 28, 1330, he utterly routed the Bulgarians at Velbujd,
as Köstendil was then called. Bulgaria became a vassal state of Serbia,
which had thus won the hegemony of the Balkan peninsula. Next year,
he was dethroned by his son, the famous Stephen Dushan, and strangled
in the castle of Zvetchan near Mitrovitza. A contemporary, Guillaume
Adam, Archbishop of Antivari, has left a description of Serbia during
this period. The palaces of the King and his nobles were of wood, and
surrounded by palisades; the only houses of stone were in the Latin
coast-towns. Yet “Rassia” was naturally a very rich land, producing
plenty of corn, wine and oil; it was well watered; its forests were full of
game, while five gold mines and as many of silver were constantly
worked.
The reign of Stephen Urosh IV, better known as Stephen Dushan
(1331-55), marks the zenith of Serbia. As a conqueror and as a lawgiver,
he resembled Napoleon; and his Empire, like that of Napoleon, crumbled
to pieces as soon as its creator had disappeared. In the former capacity,
he aimed at realising the dream of his grandfather, Stephen Urosh II, of
forming a great Serbian Empire on the ruins of Byzantium. The civil war
between the young Emperor John V Palaiologos, aided by his Italian
mother, Anne of Savoy, and the ambitious John Cantacuzene, whose
history is one of the most interesting sources for this period, was
Dushan’s opportunity. Both parties in the struggle made bids for his
support at the unfortified village of Prishtina, which had been the Serbian
capital. His price was nothing less than the whole Byzantine Empire west
of Kavalla, or, at least, of Salonika. Anne of Savoy, less patriotic than
her rival, offered him what he asked, if he would send her Cantacuzene,
then his guest, either alive or dead. But the Council of twenty-four great
officers of state, whom the Serbian Kings were wont to consult, acting
on the Queen’s advice, repudiated the suggestion of assassinating a
suppliant. Dushan allowed the rival Byzantine factions to exhaust
themselves; and, while they fought, he occupied one place after another,
till all Macedonia, except Salonika, was his.
With little exaggeration he wrote from Serres to the Doge of Venice,
which had conferred her citizenship upon him, styling himself “King of
Serbia, Diokleia, the land of Hum, the Zeta, Albania and the Maritime
region, partner in no small part of the Empire of Bulgaria, and lord of
almost all the Empire of Romania.” But for the ruler of so vast a realm
the title of King seemed insignificant, especially as his vassal, the ruler
of Bulgaria, bore the great name of Tsar. Accordingly, on Easter Sunday
1346, Dushan had himself crowned at Skopje, whither he had transferred
his capital, as “Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks.” Shortly before, he had
raised the Archbishop of Serbia to the dignity of Patriarch with his seat
at Petch; and the two Slav Patriarchs, the Bulgarian of Trnovo and the
Serbian of Petch, placed the crown upon his head. At the same time, on
the analogy of the Western Empire with its “King of the Romans,” he
had his son, Stephen Urosh V, proclaimed King. Byzantine emblems and
customs were introduced into the brand-new Serbian Empire; the Tsar
assumed the tiara and the double-eagle, and wrote to the Doge,
proposing an alliance for the conquest of Constantinople. In the papal
correspondence with Serbia we read of a Serbian “Sebastocrator,” a
“Great Logothete,” a “Cæsar,” and a “Despot”; the governors of
important Serbian cities, such as Cattaro and Scutari, were styled
“Counts”; those of minor places, like Antivari, “Captains.” Thus it is
easy to see why the whole Serbian world was thrilled when, in the first
Balkan war of 1912, the Crown Prince Alexander entered Skopje, the
coronation-city of Dushan—at the invitation of the Austrian Consul, “to
restore order”!
Dushan next extended his Empire to the south by the annexation of
Epeiros and Thessaly; and assigned Ætolia and Akarnania to his brother,
Symeon Urosh, and Thessaly and Joannina to the “Cæsar” Preliub. His
dominions now stretched to the Corinthian Gulf, and he thought that it
only remained to annex the independent Serb state of Bosnia, and to
capture Constantinople, establishing what a poetic Montenegrin ruler of
our day has called an “Empire of the Balkans.” This would have
embraced all the races of the variegated peninsula, and perhaps kept the
Turks—who, in 1353, had made their first permanent settlement in
Europe, by crossing the Dardanelles and occupying the castle of Tzympe
—beyond the Bosporus, and the Hungarians beyond the Save. On St
Michael’s day, 1355, he assembled his nobles, and asked whether he
should lead them against Byzantium or Buda-Pesth. To their answer, that
they would follow him, whithersoever he bade them, his reply was “to
Constantinople.” But on the way he fell ill of a fever, and at Diavoli, on
Dec. 20, he died, aged 48. No Serbian ruler had ever approached so near
the Imperial city; had he succeeded, and had another Dushan succeeded
him, the Turkish conquest 98 years later might have been averted.
Great as were his conquests, the Serbian Napoleon was no mere
soldier. His code of law, the “Zakonik,” like the “Code Napoléon,” has
survived the vast but fleeting Empire of its author. Dushan’s law-book is,
indeed, largely based on previous legislation, such as the canon law of
the Greek Church, the statutes of Budua and other Adriatic coast-towns,
and, in the case of trial by jury, on an enactment of Stephen Urosh II. For
us, however, its chief value is the light which it throws upon Serbia’s
political and social condition in the golden age of the Empire.
 Mediæval Serbia resembled neither of the Serb states of our day. It
was not, even under Dushan, an autocracy, like Montenegro before 1905,
nor yet a democratic monarchy, like the modern Serbian kingdom; but
the powers of the monarch were limited by the influence of the great
nobles—a class stamped out at the Turkish conquest and never since
revived. Society consisted of the Sovereign; the ecclesiastical hierarchy,
ranging from the Patriarch to the village priest; the greater and lesser
nobles; the peasants, some free, others serfs bound to the soil; slaves,
servants for hire; and, at Cattaro and in a few inland places, small
communities of burghers. But the magnates were the dominant section;
on two occasions even Dushan had to cope with their rebellions, and
they formed a privy council of twenty-four, which he consulted before
deciding important questions of public policy. Their lands were
hereditary; and they enjoyed the privilege of killing their inferiors with
comparative impunity, for a graduated tariff (as in Saxon England)
regulated the punishment for wilful murder—hanging for that of a priest
or monk, burning for parricide, fratricide, or infanticide, the loss of both
hands and a fine for that of a noble by a commoner, a simple fine for that
of a commoner by a noble. But the law secured to the peasant the fruits
of his labour; no village might be laid under contribution by two
successive army-corps; but, if the peasant organised or even attended a
public meeting, he lost his eyes and was branded on the face, while for
theft or arson, the culprit’s village was held collectively responsible.
Next to the nobles the Orthodox Church was the most influential class;
indeed, the early Archbishops of Serbia were drawn from junior
members of the Royal family, and their interests were consequently
identical with those of the Crown, of which they were the apologists in
literature, like the “official” journals of to-day.
While the great Serbia of Dushan, like the smaller Serbia of our days,
was pre-eminently an agricultural state, it possessed the enormous
advantage of a coastline, which facilitated trade. Dushan allowed foreign
merchants to circulate freely, and showed special favour to those of
Ragusa whose argosies (or ragusies) were welcomed in his ports. He
allowed a Saxon colony to work the silver-mines of Novo Brdo, and to
burn charcoal. His bodyguard was composed of Germans, whose captain,
Palmann, obtained great influence with him. He sent missions to foreign
countries to obtain information; with Venice, of which he was a citizen,
his relations were particularly close—as those of Italians and Serbs ought
by nature to be; while foreign ambassadors were favourably impressed
with his hospitality by receiving free meals in every village through
which they passed. Already—so Nikephoros Gregoras tells us—the
Serbs had begun to commemorate the great deeds of their champions in
their national ballads, which attained their full development after the
fatal battle of Kossovo and have inspired the Serbian soldiers in their
three last wars. We hear, too, of architects from Cattaro, which was the
Serbian mint in the reigns of Dushan and his son. The Queen of Italy
possesses a collection of the coinage of the mediæval Serbian monarchy.
Dushan’s Empire crumbled away at his death. Like that of Napoleon,
it had been made too fast to weld together the four races which it
contained—Serbs, Greeks, Albanians and Koutso-Wallachs. The creation
of a Serbian Patriarchate alienated the Greek Church, just as the creation
of a Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 sowed the seeds of disunion between
Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia. Thus to the four different races
there were added four different creeds—the Serbian Patriarchists, the
Greek Patriarchists, the Albanian Catholics, and the Bogomile heretics,
these last always ready to invoke a foreign invader against domestic
persecution, even though that foreigner were a Mussulman. Even this
strongest of Serbian monarchs, whose foot every one who entered his
presence must kiss and who was “of all men of his time the tallest, and
withal terrible to look upon,” as the papal legate called him, was barely
equal to the task of checking the great nobles; and it was doubtless
distrust of them which led him to surround himself with a foreign guard.
The eminent Serbian historian and statesman, the late M. Novakovich,
sums up the failure of Dushan to found a permanent state in the
judgment: “Everything about his Empire was personal; the Serbian
creations were only personal.”
The dying Tsar had made his nobles swear to maintain the rights of his
son, Stephen Urosh V, then a boy of nineteen. But the lad’s uncle,
Symeon Urosh, the viceroy of Akarnania and Ætolia, disputed the
succession; some nobles supported him, while others, availing
themselves of the family quarrel, set up as independent princes in their
particular satrapies. Symeon made Trikkala the capital of a brief Greco-
Serbian Empire; and his son ended as abbot of the famous monastery of
Meteoron. After four decades Serbian sway over Thessaly and Epeiros
ceased to exist. An inscription at Trikkala and a church at Meteoron are
now almost its only memories. Of the independent satraps the most
important were the brothers Balsha (by some erroneously connected with
the French house of Baux), who established themselves in the Zeta, the
present Montenegro, with a seaboard on the Adriatic at Budua and
Antivari, and with Scutari as their “principal residence”—“principale
eorum domicilium,” as a Latin document of 1369 says. This is the
historical basis of the Montenegrin claim to Scutari, where the Balsha
family remained till (in 1396) it sold that city to Venice. The rest of
Albania was occupied by native chiefs, the most famous of them being
Carlo Topia at Durazzo, who boasted his descent from the Angevins—a
fact commemorated by the French lilies on his still extant tomb near
Elbassan—and from whom Essad Pasha Toptani derived his origin.
Still more famous was Vukashin, guardian and cup-bearer of the
young Tsar, who drove his master from the throne in 1366, and assumed
the title of king, with the government of the specially Serbian lands and
Prizren as his capital. A later legend makes the usurper murder his
sovereign during a hunting-party on the plain of Kossovo. But it has now
been proved that Stephen Urosh V survived his supposed murderer, who
fell by the hand of his own servant, fighting against the Turks at the
battle of the Maritza in 1371—the first great blow that Serbia received
from her future conqueror. His son, Marko Kraljevich, “the King’s son,
Marko,” that great hero of South Slavonic poetry, whose exploits were
portrayed by M. Meshtrovich in the Serbian pavilion of the Rome
exhibition in 1911, retained Prilip; and it is recorded that, when in 1912
the Serbian army attacked that place, their officers appealed to them in
the name of the national hero to liberate his residence from the Turks.
Two months after Vukashin Stephen Urosh V died also, and Lazar
Grbljanovich, a connection of the Imperial family, ascended the throne of
an Empire so diminished that he preferred the style of “Prince” to that of
Tsar, which was conferred upon him in the ballads. Serbia was no longer
the leading Slav state of the peninsula—for the great Bosnian ruler
Stephen Tvrtko I (1353-91) had won the hegemony of the Southern
Slavs, and in 1376 had himself crowned on the grave of St Sava at
Mileshevo as “King of the Serbs, and of Bosnia, and of the coast.” To
secure the latter, he founded the present fortress of Castelnuovo at the
entrance of the Bocche di Cattaro; and in 1385 Cattaro itself was his.
Meanwhile the nation destined to destroy both the Serbian and the
Bosnian Kingdoms was rapidly advancing. The Turks took Nish in 1386,
and in 1389 Lazar set out, attended by all his paladins, from his capital of
Krushevatz—for the Serbian royal residence had receded within the
limits of Danubian Serbia—to do battle with Murad I on the fatal field of
Kossovo.
 A Serbian ballad tells how on the eve of the battle the prophet Elijah
in the guise of a falcon flew with a letter from the Virgin into Lazar’s
tent, offering him the choice between the Empire of this world and the
Heavenly kingdom, and how he chose the latter. The armies met on St
Vitus’ day, June 15 ( . .), 1389. Seven nationalities composed that of the
Christians; at least one Christian vassal helped to swell the smaller forces
of the Turks. While Murad was arraying himself for the fight, a noble
Serb, Milosh Kobilich[862], presented himself as a deserter and begged to
have speech of the Sultan. His request was granted, he entered the royal
tent, and stabbed Murad to the heart, paying with his own life for this
act, but gaining thereby immortality in Serbian poetry. None the less, the
Turks went undismayed into battle. At first, the Bosniaks drove back one
Turkish wing; but Bayezid I, the young Sultan, held his own on the other,
and threw the Christians into disorder. A rumour of treachery increased
their confusion; whether truly or no, it is still the popular tradition that
Vuk Brankovich, Lazar’s son-in-law, betrayed the Serbian cause at
Kossovo. Lazar was taken prisoner, and slain in the tent where the dying
Murad lay, and with him fell the Serbian Empire.
At first Christendom believed that the Turks had been defeated. A Te
Deum was sung in Paris to the God of battles; Florence wrote to
congratulate the Bosnian king, Tvrtko, on the supposed victory. But
Lazar’s widow, Militza, as a ballad beautifully tells the tale, soon learnt
the truth in her “white palace” at Krushevatz from the crows that had
hovered over the battlefield. The name of Kossovo is remembered
throughout the Serbian lands, as if it had been fought but yesterday.
Every year the anniversary is kept, in 1916, for the first time in England;
and it was the fact that the late Archduke Franz Ferdinand chose this day
of all days to make his entry into Sarajevo, which perhaps contributed to
his assassination. Although the battle of Kumanovo in 1912 avenged
Kossovo, yet the Montenegrins still wear a black band on their caps in
sign of mourning for it; in many a lonely village the minstrel sings to the
sound of the gusle the melancholy legend of Kossovo. On the field itself
Murad’s heart is still preserved, while the Hungarian Serbs treasure in
the monastery of Vrdnik the shroud of Lazar.
A diminished Serbian principality lingered on for another seventy
years. Bayezid recognised the late ruler’s eldest son, Stephen Lazarevich,
with the title of “Prince” (exchanged in 1404 for that of “Despot,”
thenceforth borne by the Serbian princes) on condition that he paid
tribute and came every year with a contingent to join the Turkish troops,
and gave him the hand of his youngest sister; while Vuk Brankovich
received the reward of his treachery by holding the old capital of
Prishtina as a vassal of the Sultan. For a time the Turkish defeat at
Angora by the Tartars in 1402 enabled the Serbian Despot to play off one
Turkish pretender against another, while he purchased domestic peace by
making Brankovich’s son George his heir. Thus he could devote himself
to organising his country and patronising literature in the person of
Constantine “the Philosopher,” who repaid his hospitality by writing his
biography. He appointed a species of Cabinet, with which he discussed
affairs of state, founded the monastery of Manassia, obtained Belgrade
by diplomacy from the Hungarians, fortified it and adorned it with
churches. In his time Venice began her colonies in Albania and what is
now Montenegro—at Durazzo in 1392, Alessio in 1393, Drivasto and
Scutari in 1396, Antivari and Dulcigno in 1421 (the former, however, not
definitely till 1444), while in 1420 Cattaro placed herself under the
protection of the Lion of St Mark, then master of most of the Dalmatian
coast, save where the Ragusan Republic formed an enclave in his
territory.
Serbia under George Brankovich, who succeeded as “Despot” in 1427,
was thus practically a Danubian principality. The new Despot, a man of
sixty years, was an experienced diplomatist; but there are times in the
Balkans when force is more valuable than the subtlest diplomacy. A
warlike Sultan, in the person of Murad II, sat on the Turkish throne; and
he soon showed his intentions by demanding the whole of Serbia, and
invading that country. Brankovich had to move his capital from
Krushevatz to the bank of the Danube, where at Semendria he built the
fine castle with the red brick cross in its walls which is still a memorial
of Serbia’s past, while in order to secure himself an eventual refuge in
Hungary, he handed over Belgrade to the Hungarian monarch,
notwithstanding the protests and tears of its citizens. Brankovich in vain
tried to purchase peace by giving his daughter with a regal outfit to the
Sultan. Ere long, however, the Sultan, incited by a fanatic who accused
him of sinning against Allah by allowing the Serbian unbeliever to bar
the way to Hungary and Italy, demanded the surrender of Semendria.
Brankovich fled to Hungary, thence to his last maritime possessions of
Antivari and Budua, and thence to Ragusa; but the victories of John
Hunyady, “the white knight of Wallachia,” induced Murad in 1444 to
restore to the Despot the whole of Serbia, on payment of half its annual
revenue.
 Brankovich by his “enlightened egoism” managed to maintain a
precarious autonomy till after the capture of Constantinople (1453).
Then, Mohammed II resolved to end what remained of Serbian
independence, and to capture the famous silver mines of Novo Brdo,
which, as his biographer, Kritoboulos, remarked, had not only largely
contributed to the splendour of the Serbian Empire, but had also aroused
the covetousness of its enemies. Indeed, the picture which the Imbrian
writer draws of Serbia on the eve of the Turkish conquest is almost
idyllic, with her “cities many and fair,” her “strong forts on the Danube,”
her “productive soil, swine and cattle, and abundant breed of goodly
steeds.” But the flower of the Serbian youth had been drafted into the
corps of Janissaries to fight against their fellow-Christians, the prince
was a man of ninety and a fugitive, while Mohammed, like the Germans
of to-day, had marvellous artillery. Still Belgrade, then a Hungarian
fortress, resisted, thanks to the skill of Hunyady and the fiery eloquence
of the Franciscan Capistrano. But the nonagenarian Despot was wounded
in a quarrel with the Hungarian governor, and on Christmas-eve, 1456,
died. Of his sons the two elder had been blinded by the late Sultan, so
that his third son, Lazar III, succeeded him. His speedy death resulted, at
this eleventh hour of Serbian history, in the union of both Serbia and
Bosnia by the marriage of one of his daughters with the Bosnian Crown
Prince, Stephen Tomashevich—an arrangement which even Dushan, in
all his glory, had never achieved. The Bosnian Despot of Serbia took up
his abode at Semendria; but the inhabitants, regarding their new master
with disfavour, as a Catholic and a Hungarian nominee, opened their
gates to the Turks; before the summer of 1459 was over, all Serbia had
become a Turkish pashalik, except Belgrade, which remained a
Hungarian fortress till 1521. Four years after the fall of Serbia her last
Despot, then King of Bosnia, was beheaded at Jajce, and his kingdom
annexed by the Turks. Twenty years after Bosnia, the Duchy of St Sava,
the modern Herzegovina, met with the same fate.
Thus the history of mediæval Serbia was closed. But members of the
Brankovich family continued to bear the title of Despot in their
Hungarian exile, whither many of their adherents had followed them, till
the extinction of their house two centuries ago; the Serbian Patriarchate,
abolished in 1459, but revived by the Turks in 1557, existed till 1767;
but from the time of Mohammed II to that of Black George in 1804,
when Danubian Serbia rose from her long enslavement, the noblest
representatives of the Serbs maintained their freedom in the Republics of
Ragusa, “the South Slavonic Athens,” and Poljitza, “the South Slavonic
San Marino,” and among the barren rocks of free Montenegro.

AUTHORITIES

1. Geschichte der Serben. Von Constantin Jireček, Erster Band (Bis

1371); Zweiter Band, erste Hälfte (1371-1537). Gotha: Perthes,
1911, 1918.
2. Serbes, Croates et Bulgares. Par Louis Leger. Paris: Maisonneuve,
1913.
3. Les problèmes serbes. Par Stojan Novakovich. In Archiv für slavische
Philologie, Bände .- . Berlin, 1912.
4. Listine. By S. Ljubich. In Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum
Meridionalium. Eleven vols. Agram, 1868-93.
5. Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniæ mediæ ætatis illustrantia. Ed. L. de
Thallóczy, C. Jireček, E. de Sufflay. Vol. . (344-1343); Vol. .
(1344-1406). Vindobonæ, 1913-18.
6. Poésies populaires serbes. Tr. by A. Dozon. Paris, 1877.

APPENDIX
THE FOUNDER OF MONTENEGRO

The parentage of Stephen Crnojevich, the founder of the like-named

Montenegrin dynasty, has hitherto rested merely on conjecture. The two
oldest writers on South Slavonic history, Orbini[863] and Luccari[864],
identified him with Stefano Maramonte, an adventurer from Apulia, who
is known from Venetian sources[865] to have been a totally different
person. Subsequent writers, such as Ducange[866], Fallmerayer[867],
Milakovich[868], and Lenormant[869], have usually adopted without
question this identification; while the first native historian of
Montenegro, the Vladika Vasilj Petrovich[870], made him the son of a
certain John Crnojevich, who was descended from the Serbian royal
family of Nemanja. According to these respective theories, he first
appeared in Montenegrin history in 1419, 1421 or 1423. Hopf[871], and
Count de Mas Latrie[872], who were far nearer the truth, asserted him to
have been a son of Raditch Crnoje, who is described as “lord of the Zeta
and Budua and of the other parts of Slavonia” in 1392, as “baron of the
parts of the Zeta” in 1393, and as having fallen in battle in 1396, after
having been a “very powerful man” and an honorary citizen of
Venice[873].
The Venetian documents, published by Ljubich, prove beyond all
doubt that Stephen Crnojevich was the son of George Jurash, or
Jurashevich—a name first mentioned[874] in a Ragusan document of
1403. Three years later George Jurashevich and his brother Alexius
dominated the Upper Zeta; in 1420 they were “barons of the Zeta” and
were promised the possession of Budua[875]—the very same places that
Raditch Crnoje had held. These facts might have suggested that they
were his next-of-kin, not, as Hopf[876] and Miklosich[877] supposed,
members of a distinct clan. The identity of the two families is proved by
a document[878] of 1426, which mentions for the first time Stefaniza fiol
del Zorzi Juras, while subsequent documents prove conclusively that this
Stefaniza was none other than Stephen Crnojevich. He had three
brothers, one “lately dead” in 1443, and in the next year mention is made
of the three survivors as Jurassin, Stefanice, et Coicini, fratrum de
Zernoievich[879].
The exact relationship of Stephen’s father, George Jurashevich, to
Raditch Crnoje can only be surmised. We know however that Raditch
had several brothers[880]; if we assume that one was called George, or
Jurash, this man’s son would then be called Jurashevich; thus Stephen
would be Raditch’s grand-nephew—a degree of relationship which
would correspond with his death[881] in 1466, two generations after that
of his great-uncle. As the legitimate heirs of Raditch, the Jurashevich
naturally reverted to the more distinguished surname of Crnojevich, a
name found in that region in 1351, while Crnagora, the Serb name for
Montenegro, occurs in a Ragusan document[882] of 1362. There is a
tradition[883] that the family came originally from Zajablje in the
Herzegovina.

3. BOSNIA BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST[884]

I. T H B 1180.

The earliest known inhabitants of Bosnia and the Herzegovina

belonged to that Illyrian stock which peopled the western side of the
Balkan peninsula at the close of the fifth century . . At that period we
find two Illyrian tribes, the Ardiæi and the Autariatæ, in possession of
those lands. The former occupied West Bosnia, while the latter extended
to the south and gave their name to the river Tara, which forms for some
distance the present frontier between Montenegro and the Herzegovina.
Few characteristics of these remote tribes have been preserved by the
Greek and Roman writers, but we are told that the Ardiæi were noted
even among the Illyrians for their drunken habits, and that they were the
proprietors of a large body of slaves, who performed all their manual
offices for them. Of the Autariatæ we know nothing beyond the fact of
their power at that epoch.
But the old Illyrian inhabitants had to acknowledge the superiority of
another race. About 380 . . the Celts invaded the peninsula, and, by
dint of continual pushing, ousted the natives of what is now Serbia, and
so became neighbours of the Ardiæi. Their next step was to drive the
latter southward into the modern Herzegovina, and to seize their
possessions in North Bosnia. Instead of uniting against the Celtic
invaders the Illyrian tribes fell to quarrelling among themselves over
some salt springs, which were unfortunately situated at the spot where
their confines met. This fratricidal struggle had the effect of so
weakening both parties that they fell an easy prey to the common foe.
The victorious Celts pursued their southward course, and by 335 . .
both Bosnia and the Herzegovina were in their power, and the Illyrians
either exiles or else subject to the Celtic sway. This is the first instance of
that fatal tendency to disunion which has throughout been the curse of
these beautiful lands. The worst foes of Bosnia and the Herzegovina
have been those of their own household.
The Celtic supremacy left few traces behind it. While in the south a
powerful Illyrian state was formed, which offered a stubborn resistance
to Rome herself, the Celtic and Illyrian inhabitants of Bosnia and the
Herzegovina remained in the happy condition of having no history. But
when the South Illyrian state fell before the Romans, in 167 . ., and the
legionaries encamped on the river Narenta, upon which the present
Herzegovinian capital stands, the people who dwelt to the north felt that
the time had come to defend themselves. One of their tribes had already
submitted to the Romans, but the others combined in a confederation,
which had its seat at Delminium, a fortress near the modern town of Sinj,
in Dalmatia, from which the confederates took the common name of
Dalmatians. The first struggle lasted for nearly a century, in spite of the
capture and destruction of Delminium by Scipio Nasica in 155 . ., and
it was reserved for Caius Cosconius in 78 . . to subdue the Dalmatian
confederates and bring Bosnia and the Herzegovina for the first time
beneath the Roman sway. Those lands were then merged in the Roman
province of Illyricum, which stretched from the Adriatic to the western
frontier of modern Serbia and from the Save into North Albania. But the
spirit of the brave Dalmatians was still unbroken, and they never lost an
opportunity of rising against their Roman masters. Aided by their winter
climate, they resisted the armies of Cæsar’s most trusted lieutenants, and
the Emperor Augustus was twice wounded in his youthful campaign
against them. One of their revolts in the early years of the Christian era
was, in the words of Suetonius, “the greatest danger which had
threatened Rome since the Punic wars.” Under their chiefs Bato and
Pines they defied the legions of Tiberius for four long years, and it was
only when their last stronghold had fallen, and Bato had been taken
captive, that they submitted. Their power as an independent nation was
broken for ever, their country was laid waste, and in . . 9 finally
incorporated with the Roman Empire. North Bosnia became part of the
province of Pannonia; the Herzegovina and Bosnia south of a line drawn
from Novi through Banjaluka and Doboj to Zvornik, were included in
the province of Dalmatia. The Romans divided up the latter in their usual
methodical manner into three districts, grouped round three towns, where
was the seat of justice, and whither the native chieftains came to confer
with the Roman authorities. Thus Salona, near Spalato, once a city half
as large as Constantinople, but now a heap of ruins, was made the centre
of government for South Bosnia, while the Herzegovina fell within the
jurisdiction of Narona, a fortress which has been identified with Vid,
near Metkovich.
The Roman domination, which lasted till the close of the fifth century,
has left a permanent mark upon the country. The interior, it is true, never
attained to such a high degree of civilisation as the more accessible
towns on the Dalmatian coast, and no such magnificent building as the
palace at Spalato in which Diocletian spent the evening of his days
adorned the inland settlements. But the conquerors developed, much as
the Austrians have done in our own time, those natural resources which
the natives had neglected. Three great Roman roads united Salona and
the sea with the principal places up country. One of these highways
skirted the beautiful lake Jezero, traversed the now flourishing town of
Banjaluka, which derives its modern name, “the Baths of St Luke,” from
the ruins of a Roman bath, and ended at Gradishka, on the Save. Another
connected Salona with the plain of Sarajevo, even then regarded as the
centre of the Bosnian trade, and the valley of the Drina, while a branch
penetrated as far as Plevlje, in the sandjak of Novibazar, then a
considerable Roman settlement. The third, starting also from Salona,
crossed the south of the Herzegovina, where traces of it may still be
seen. Then, too, the mineral wealth of Bosnia was first exploited—the
gold workings near the source of the river Vrbas and the rich deposits of
iron ore in the north-west. The natives, hitherto occupied in fighting or
farming, were now forced to work at the gold diggings. Roman authors
extolled the Bosnian gold, the “Dalmatian metal” of Statius, of which as
much as 50 lbs. were obtained in a single day, and a special functionary
presided at Salona over the administration of the Bosnian gold mines.
The salt springs of Dolnja Tuzla, now a busy manufacturing town, were
another source of wealth, and the numerous coins of the Roman period
discovered up and down the country show that a considerable amount of
money was in circulation there. Many a Roman colonist must have been
buried in Bosnian soil, for numbers of tombstones with Latin inscriptions
have been found, and the national museum at Sarajevo is full of Roman
cooking utensils, Roman vases, and Roman instruments of all kinds.
Most important of all, it was during the Roman period that the first seeds
of Christianity were sown in these remote Balkan lands. The exact date
of this event, which was to exercise paramount influence for evil as well
as good upon the future history of Bosnia, is unknown, but we may
safely assume that the Archbishopric of Salona was the seat of the new
doctrine, from which it rapidly spread throughout the Dalmatian
province. Several bishoprics, which are mentioned as subordinate to the
archiepiscopal See of Salona in the sixth century, are to be found in
Bosnia, and one in particular, the bishopric of Bistue, lay in the very
heart of that country.
But the power of Rome on the further shore of the Adriatic and in the
mountains behind it did not long survive the break-up of the Western
Empire in 476. Bosnia and the Herzegovina experienced the fate of the
provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, of which they had so long formed a
part. Twenty years earlier Marcellinus, a Roman general, had carved out
for himself an independent principality in Dalmatia, and his nephew and
successor, Julius Nepos, maintained his independence there for a short
space after the fall of the Empire. But Odoacer soon made himself
master of the old Roman province, and in 493 the Ostrogoths under
Theodoric overran the country, and for the next forty years Bosnia and
the Herzegovina owned their sway. This change of rulers made little
difference in the condition of the people. The Ostrogoths did not
interfere with the religious institutions which they found already in
existence. Under their government two ecclesiastical councils were held
at Salona, and two new bishoprics founded, bringing the total number up
to six. Theodoric, like the Romans before him, paid special attention to
the mineral wealth of Bosnia, and a letter is extant in which he appoints
an overseer of “the Dalmatian iron ore mines.” But in 535 began the
twenty years’ war between the Ostrogoths and the Emperor Justinian.
These lands at once became the prey of devastating armies, the battle-
field of Gothic and Byzantine combatants. In the midst of the general
confusion a horde of new invaders appeared, probably at the invitation of
the Gothic King, and in 548 we hear of the Slavs for the first time in the
history of the country. Further Slavonic detachments followed in the next
few years, and before the second half of the sixth century was far
advanced there was a considerable Slav population in the western part of
the Balkan peninsula. Even when the war had ended with the overthrow
of the Gothic realm, and Bosnia and the Herzegovina had fallen under
the Byzantine sway, the inroads of the Slavs did not cease. Other savage
tribes came too, and the Avars in particular were the terror of the
inhabitants. This formidable race, akin to the Huns, whom they rivalled
in ferocity, soon reduced the once flourishing province of Dalmatia to a
wilderness. During one of their marches through Bosnia they destroyed
nearly forty fortified places on the road from the Save to Salona, and
finally reduced that prosperous city to the heap of ruins which it has ever
since remained, while the citizens formed out of Diocletian’s abandoned
palace the town which bears the name of Spalato, or the Palace, to this
day. But the Avars were not to have an unchallenged supremacy over the
country. In the first half of the seventh century the Emperor Herakleios
summoned to his aid two Slavonic tribes, the Croats and Serbs, and
offered them the old Illyrian lands as his vassals if they would drive out
the Avars. Nothing loth they at once accepted the invitation, and, after a
fierce struggle, subdued the barbarians, whose hands had been as heavy
upon the Slavonic as upon the Roman settlers. The Croats, who came
somewhat earlier than the Serbs, took up their abode in what is still
known as Croatia, and in the northern part of Dalmatia, as far as the river
Cetina; the Serbs occupied the coast line from that river as far south as
the present Albanian town of Durazzo, and inland the whole of modern
Serbia (as it was before 1912), Montenegro, Bosnia, the Herzegovina,
and the sandjak of Novibazar. From that time onwards these regions
have, under various alien dominations, never lost their Slavonic
character, and to this day even the Bosniaks who profess the faith of
Islâm, no less than their Orthodox brothers, are of Serbian stock.
The history of Bosnia and the Herzegovina from this Slavonic
settlement in the first half of the seventh down to the middle of the tenth
century is very obscure. We have few facts recorded, and nothing is
gained by repeating the names of mythical rulers, whose existence has
been disproved by the researches of critical historians. But it is possible
to form some general idea of the state of the country during this period of
transition. Nominally under the suzerainty of the Byzantine Empire,
much in the same sense as modern Bulgaria was till 1908 under that of
the Sultan, Bosnia and its neighbouring lands were practically
independent and formed a loose agglomeration of small districts, each of
which was called by the Slavonic name of jupa and was governed by a
headman known as a jupan. The most important of these petty chiefs was
awarded the title of great jupan, and the various districts composed a sort
of primitive confederation under his auspices. Two of the districts
received names which attained considerable importance in subsequent
history. The Slavonic settlers in the valley of the Upper Bosna adapted
the Latin designation of that river, Basante, to their own idiom by calling
the stream Bosna and themselves Bosniaks, and the name of the river
was afterwards extended to the whole country, which from that time
onwards was known as Bosnia—a term first found in the form “Bosona,”
of Constantine Porphyrogenitus[885]. Similarly Mount Hum, above the
present town of Mostar, gave its name to the surrounding district, which
was called the Land of Hum, or Zahumlje, until in the middle of the
fifteenth century it was re-christened the “Land of the Duke,” or the
Herzegovina, from the German Herzog. These derivations are much
more probable than the alternatives recently offered, according to which
Bosnia means the “land of salt” in Albanian, and the Herzegovina means
the “land of stones” in Turkish[886].
The Slavs, with the adaptability of many other conquerors, soon
accepted the religion which they found already established in these
countries. The Serbs, who settled at the mouth of the Narenta, alone
adhered to paganism, and erected on the ruins of the old Roman town of
Narona a shrine of their god Viddo, from whom the modern village of
Vid derives its name. Here heathen rites were celebrated for more than
two hundred years, and as late as the beginning of the last century the
inhabitants of Vid cherished ancient idols, of which the original
significance had long passed away.
 The political history of Bosnia was determined for many generations
by its geographical position on the boundary line between the Croatian
and Serbian settlements. It was here that these two branches of the
Slavonic race met, and from the moment when two rival groups were
formed under Croatian and Serbian auspices Bosnia became the coveted
object of both. That country accordingly submitted to Croatian and
Serbian rulers by turns. Early in the tenth century it seems to have
acknowledged the sway of Tomislav, first King of the Croats, and was
administered as a dependency by an official known as a ban, the
Croatian name for a “governor,” which survived to our own day. A little
later the Serbian Prince Tchaslav incorporated it in the confederation
which he welded together, and defended it against the Magyars, who
now make their first appearance in its history. Under a chieftain named
Kés these dangerous neighbours had penetrated as far as the upper
waters of the river Drina, where the Serbian Prince inflicted a crushing
defeat upon them. But, in his zeal to carry the war into the enemy’s
country, he perished himself, and with his death his dominions fell
asunder, and Bosnia became for a brief period independent. But
Kreshimir, King of the Croats, recovered it in 968, and for the next half-
century it belonged to the Croatian crown. But about 1019 the Emperor
Basil II restored for a time the dormant Byzantine sovereignty over the
whole Balkan peninsula. After the bloody campaigns which earned him
the title of “the Bulgar-slayer” and ended in the destruction of the first
Bulgarian Empire, he turned his arms against the Serbs and Croats,
forcing the latter to receive their crown from Constantinople and
reducing Bosnia to more than nominal subjection to his throne.
Meanwhile the Herzegovina, or the “Land of Hum,” as it was then
called, had had a considerable history of its own. Early in the tenth
century, at the time when the Croatian King Tomislav was extending his
authority over Bosnia, we hear of a certain Michael Vishevich, who ruled
over the sister land and held his court in the ancient fortress of Blagaj,
above the source of the river Buna. Vishevich was evidently a prince of
considerable importance. The Pope addressed him as “the most excellent
Duke of the people of Hum”; the Byzantine Emperor awarded him the
proud titles of “proconsul and Patrician.” The Republic of Ragusa paid
him an annual tribute of thirty-six ducats for the vineyards of her citizens
which lay within his territory. His fleet, starting from the seaport of
Stagno, then the seat of a bishopric as well as an important haven,
ravaged the Italian coast opposite, and made the name of “Michael, King
of the Slavs,” as a chronicler styles him, a terror to the inhabitants of
Apulia. The great Bulgarian Tsar Symeon was his ally, and on two
occasions during his struggle with the Byzantine Empire he received aid
or advice from him. We find him seconding Tomislav’s proposal for
summoning the famous ecclesiastical council which met at Spalato in
925 and prohibited the use of the Slavonic liturgy. In short, nothing of
importance occurred in that region during his reign in which he had not
his say[887]. But after his death his dominions seem to have been
included, like Bosnia, in the Serbian confederation of Tchaslav; and,
when that collapsed, they were annexed by the King of Dioklitia, whose
realm derived its name from the town of Doclea in what is now
Montenegro, and took its origin in the valley of the Zeta, which divides
that kingdom in two. About the end of the tenth century however, the
powerful Bulgarian Tsar Samuel established his supremacy over the
Kingdom of Dioklitia, and the treacherous murder of its King a few
years later completed the incorporation of Dioklitia, and consequently of
the Herzegovina, in the Bulgarian Empire. But its connexion with
Bulgaria was short-lived. When Basil “the Bulgar-slayer” destroyed the
sovereignty of the Bulgarian Tsars he added the Herzegovina as well as
Bosnia to his own domains. Thus the twin provinces fell at the same
moment beneath the Byzantine sway, and from 1019 remained for a
space parts of that Empire, governed sometimes by imperial governors,
sometimes by native princes acting as imperial viceroys. Bosnia was the
first to raise the standard of revolt, and no sooner was the Emperor Basil
II dead than it regained its independence under bans of its own, who
raised it to an important position among the petty states of that time. The
Herzegovina, less fortunate, only exchanged the sovereignty of the
Emperor at Constantinople for that of the King of Dioklitia, who in 1050
made himself master of the land. For exactly a century it remained an
integral portion of that kingdom, and had therefore no separate history.
Even Bosnia succumbed a generation later to the monarchs of Dioklitia,
for about 1085 all the three neighbouring lands, Serbia, Bosnia and the
Herzegovina, had to accept governors from King Bodin of the Zeta, and
thus a great Serb state existed under his sceptre.
But in the early years of the twelfth century a new force made itself
felt in South Slavonic lands, a force which even in our own day has till
lately exercised a powerful influence over the fortunes of the Balkan
peninsula. Since their unsuccessful incursion in the time of Tchaslav the
Hungarians had never abandoned their cherished object of gaining a
foothold there. But it was not till the union of Croatia in 1102, and of
Dalmatia in 1105, with the Hungarian Crown by Koloman, that this
object was attained. The Hungarian Kings thus came into close contact
with Bosnia, and were not long in extending their authority over that
country. So far from meeting with opposition they were regarded by the
people as valuable allies in the common struggle against the Byzantine
Emperors of the family of the Comnenoi, who aimed at restoring the past
glories and dimensions of their realm. Accordingly in 1135 we find an
Hungarian King, Béla II, for the first time styling himself “King of
Rama”—the name of a river in Bosnia, which Magyar chroniclers
applied first to the surrounding district and then to the whole country.
From that time onward, whoever the actual possessors of Rama, or
Bosnia, might be, it was always included among the titles of the
Hungarian monarchs, and, till our own time, the Emperor Francis Joseph
in his capacity of King of Hungary called himself also “King of Rama.”
In his case the phrase had certainly a more practical significance than it
possessed in earlier centuries.
The precise manner in which this close connexion between Hungary
and Bosnia was formed is obscure. According to one theory Béla
received the country as the dowry of his Serbian wife; according to
another the Bosnian magnates, seeing the increasing power of Hungary
and the revived pretensions of the Byzantine Emperors, decided to seek
the protection of the former against the latter. At any rate a little later
Béla assigned Bosnia as a duchy to his second son, Ladislaus, leaving,
however, the actual government of that land in the hands of native bans.
It is now that we hear the name of one of these rulers for the first time.
Hitherto the Bosnian governors have been mere shadowy figures, flitting
unrecognised and almost unnoticed across the stage of history. But ban
Borich, who now comes into view, is a man of flesh and blood. In the
wars between the Emperor Manuel Comnenos and the Hungarians he
was the staunch ally of the latter, and when a disputed succession to the
Hungarian throne took place he aspired to play the part of a king-maker
and supported the claims of Ladislaus, the titular “duke” of Bosnia. But
he made the mistake of choosing the losing side and, after being
conquered by the troops of the successful candidate, disappeared
mysteriously in 1163. Short, however, as was his career, he had extended
the eastern borders of Bosnia to the river Drina, and we learn from the
contemporary Greek historian Cinnamus[888] that his country was
“independent of Serbia and governed in its own fashion.” Three years
after his disappearance from the scene Bosnia shared the fate of Croatia
and Dalmatia, and fell into the hands of Manuel Comnenos. But upon the
death of that powerful Emperor in 1180 the fabric which he had
laboriously erected collapsed; the Balkan peoples had nothing more to
fear from the Byzantine Empire, and Bosnia under her famous ban Kulin
attained to greater freedom and prosperity than she had yet enjoyed. But
the same period which witnessed this political and material progress
witnessed also the development of that ecclesiastical schism which was
one day destined to cause the loss of all freedom and the suspension of
all progress by facilitating the Turkish conquest of the land.

II. T G B B (1180-1376).

Kulin is the first great figure in Bosnian history. By nature a man of

peace, he devoted his attention to the organisation of the country, which
in his time was a ten days’ journey in circumference, the development of
its commerce, and the maintenance of its independence. He allowed
foreigners ready access to his dominions, employed two Italian painters
and goldsmiths at his court, and gave liberal mining concessions to two
shrewd burghers of Ragusa, which during the middle ages was the chief
emporium of the inland trade. He concluded in 1189 a treaty of
commerce with that city—the earliest known Bosnian document—in
which he swore to be its “true friend now and for ever, and to keep true
peace and genuine troth” with it all his life. Ragusan merchants were
permitted to settle wherever they chose in his territory, and no harm was
to be done them by his officials. Agriculture flourished under his rule,
and years afterwards, whenever the Bosnian farmer had a particularly
prosperous year, he would say to his fellows, “The times of Kulin are
coming back again.” Even to-day the people regard him as a favourite of
the fairies, and his reign as a golden age, and to “talk of ban Kulin” is a
popular expression for one who speaks of the remote past, when the
Bosnian plum-trees always groaned with fruit and the yellow corn-fields
never ceased to wave in the fertile plains. Kulin’s position was
strengthened too by his powerful connections; for his sister was the wife
of Miroslav, Prince of the Herzegovina, which, as we have seen, had
formed part of the Kingdom of Dioklitia down to 1150, when it was
conquered by the Serbian great jupan, Desa. Some twenty years later
Stephen Nemanja made his brother Miroslav its prince, and thus was
closely connected with Kulin. The latter, like Nemanja in Serbia, threw
off all ties of allegiance to the Byzantine Empire on the death of Manuel