Chapter III: Part 3

In the 16th century when Bohemia was in a state of comparative tranquillity, the native literature was largely developed. Besides the writers of the community of the Bohemian Brethren, we meet at this period with three historians of merit. Of these far the best-known is Wenceslas Hajek of Libocan. The year of his birth is uncertain, but we read of him as a priest in 1524; he died in 1553. His great work _Kronika ceska_ was dedicated to the emperor Ferdinand I., king of Bohemia, and appeared under the auspices of government officials. It has therefore a strong dynastic and Romanist tendency, and its circulation was permitted even at the time when most Bohemian books were prohibited and many totally destroyed. Hajek's book was translated into several languages and frequently quoted. We find such second-hand quotations even in the works of many writers who had probably never heard of Hajek. His book is, however, inaccurate and grossly partial. Very little known on the other hand are the works of Bartos, surnamed "pisar" (the writer), as he was for many years employed as secretary by the city of Prague, and those of Sixt of Ottersdorf. The work of Bartos (or Bartholomew) entitled the _Chronicle of Prague_ has great historical value. He describes the troubles that befell Prague and Bohemia generally during the reign of the weak and absentee sovereign King Louis. The year of the birth of Bartos is uncertain, but it is known that he died in 1539. The somewhat later work of Sixt of Ottersdorf (1500-1583) deals with a short but very important episode in the history of Bohemia. It is entitled _Memorials of the Troubled Years 1546 and 1547_. The book describes the unsuccessful rising of the Bohemians against Ferdinand I. of Austria. Sixt took a considerable part in this movement, a fact that greatly enhances the value of his book.

Though the life of Chelcicky, who has already been mentioned, was an isolated one, he is undoubtedly the indirect founder of the community of the "Bohemian Brethren," who greatly influenced Bohemian literature. Almost all their historical and theological works were written in the national language, which through their influence became far more refined and polished. Before referring to some of the writings of members of the community we should mention the famed translation of the Scriptures known as the _Bible of Kralice_. It was the joint work of several divines of the brotherhood, and was first printed at Kralice in Moravia in 1593. Brother Gregory, surnamed the patriarch of the brotherhood, has left a large number of writings dealing mainly with theological matters. Most important are the _Letters to Archbishop Rokycan_ and the book _On good and evil priests_. After the death of Brother Gregory in 1480 discord broke out in the community, and it resulted in very great literary activity. Brothers Lucas, Blahoslav and Jaffet, as well as Augusta, a bishop of the community, have left us numerous controversial works. Very interesting is the account of the captivity of Bishop Augusta, written by his companion the young priest Jan Bilek. We have evidence that numerous historical works written by members of the brotherhood existed, but most of them perished in the 17th century when nearly all anti-Roman books written in Bohemia were destroyed. Thus only fragments of Blahoslav's _History of the Unity_ (i.e. the brotherhood) have been preserved. One of the historians of the brotherhood, Wenceslas Brezan, wrote a _History of the House of Rosenberg_, of which only the biographies of William and Peter of Rosenberg have been preserved. The greatest writer of the brotherhood is John Amos Komensky or Comenius (1592-1670). Of his many works written in his native language the most important is his _Labyrinth of the World_, an allegorical tale which is perhaps the most famous work written in Bohemian.[4] Many of the numerous devotional and educational writings of Comenius,--his works number 142,--are also written in his native tongue.

The year 1620, which witnessed the downfall of Bohemian independence, also marks the beginning of a period of decline of the national tongue, which indeed later, in the 18th century, was almost extinct as a written language. Yet we must notice besides Comenius two other writers, both historians, whose works belong to a date later than 1620. Of these one was an adherent of the nationalist, the other of the imperialist party. Paul Skala ze Zhore (1582-c. 1640) was an official in the service of the "winter king" Frederick of the Palatinate. He for a time followed his sovereign into exile, and spent the last years of his life at Freiberg in Saxony. It was at this period of his life, after his political activity had ceased, that he wrote his historical works. His first work was a short book which is a mere series of chronological tables. Somewhat later he undertook a vast work entitled _Histoire cirkevni_ (history of the church). In spite of its title the book, which consists of ten enormous MS. volumes, deals as much with political as with ecclesiastical matters. The most valuable part, that dealing with events of 1602 to 1623, of which Skala writes as a contemporary and often as an eye-witness, has been edited and published by Prof. Tieftrunk. A contemporary and a political opponent of Skala was William Count Slavata (1572-1652). He was a faithful servant of the house of Habsburg, and one of the government officials who were thrown from the windows of the Hradcany palace in 1618, at the beginning of the Bohemian uprising. In 1637 Slavata published his _Pamety_ (memoirs) which deal exclusively with the events of the years 1618 and 1619, in which he had played so great a part. During the leisure of the last years of his long life Slavata composed a vast work entitled _Historicke Spisovani_ (historical works). It consists of fourteen large MS. volumes, two of which contain the previously-written memoirs. These two volumes have recently been edited and published by Dr Jos. Jirecek.

19th-century revival.

After the deaths of Skala, Slavata and Comenius, no works of any importance were written in the Bohemian language for a considerable period, and the new Austrian government endeavoured in every way to discourage the use of that language. A change took place when the romantic movement started at the beginning of the 19th century. The early revival of the Bohemian language was very modest, and at first almost exclusively translations from foreign languages were published. The first writer who again drew attention to the then almost forgotten Bohemian language was Joseph Dobrovsky (1753-1829). His works, which include a grammar of the Bohemian language and a history of Bohemian literature, were mostly written in German or Latin, and his only Bohemian works are some essays which he contributed to the early numbers of the _Casopis Musea Kralovstvi Ceskeho_ (Journal of the Bohemian Museum) and a collection of letters.

It is, however, to four men belonging to a time somewhat subsequent to that of Dobrovsky that the revival of the language and literature of Bohemia is mainly due. They are Jungmann, Kolar, Safarik and Palacky. Joseph Jungmann (1773-1847) published early in life numerous Bohemian translations of German and English writers. His most important works are his _Dejepes literatury ceska_ (history of Bohemian literature), and his monumental German and Bohemian dictionary, which largely contributed to the development of the Bohemian language. John Kolar (1793-1852) was the greatest poet of the Bohemian revival, and it is only in quite recent days that Bohemian poetry has risen to a higher level. Kolar's principal poem is the _Slavy dcera_ (daughter of Slavia), a personification of the Slavic race. Its principal importance at the present time consists rather in the part it played in the revival of Bohemian literature than in its artistic value. Kolar's other works are mostly philological studies. Paul Joseph Safarik (1795-1861) was a very fruitful writer. His _Starozitnosti Slovanske_ (Slavic antiquities), an attempt to record the then almost unknown history and literature of the early Slavs, has still considerable value. Francis Palacky (1798-1876) is undoubtedly the greatest of Bohemian historians. Among his many works his history of Bohemia from the earliest period to the year 1526 is the most important.

Other Bohemian writers whose work belongs mainly to the earlier part of the 19th century are the poets Francis Ladislav Celakovsky, author of the _Ruze stolistova_ (the hundred-leaved rose), Erben, Macha, Tyl, to mention but a few of the most famous writers. The talented writer Karel Havlicek, the founder of Bohemian journalism, deserves special notice.

During the latter part of the 19th century, and particularly after the foundation of the national university in 1882, Bohemian literature has developed to an extent that few perhaps foresaw. Of older writers Bozena Nemceva, whose _Babicka_ has been translated into many languages, and Benes Trebizky, author of many historical novels, should be named. John Neruda (1834-1891) was a very fruitful and talented writer both of poetry and of prose. Perhaps the most valuable of his many works is his philosophical epic entitled _Kosmicke basne_ (cosmic poems). Julius Zeyer (1841-1901) also wrote much both in prose and in verse. His epic poem entitled _Vysehrad_, which celebrates the ancient glory of the acropolis of Prague, has great value, and of his many novels _Jan Maria Plojhar_ has had the greatest success. Of later Bohemian poets the best are Adolf Heyduk, Svatopluk Cech and Jaroslav Vrchlicky (b. 1853). Of Svatopluk Cech's many poems, which are all inspired by national enthusiasm, _Vaclav z Michalovic, Lesetinsky Kovar_ (the smith of Lesetin) and _Basne otroka_ (the songs of a slave) are the most notable. While Vrchlicky (pseudonym of Emil Frida) has no less strong patriotic feelings, he has been more catholic in the choice of the subjects of his many works, both in poetry and in prose. Of his many collections of lyric poems _Rok na jihu_ (a year in the south), _Poute k Eldoradu_ (pilgrimages to Eldorado) and _Sonety Samotare_ (sonnets of a recluse) have particular value. Vrchlicky is also a very brilliant dramatist. Bohemian novelists have become very numerous. Mention should be made of Alois Jirasek, also a distinguished dramatic author; Jacob Arbes, whose _Romanetta_ have great merit; and Vaclav Hladik, whose _Evzen Voldan_ is a very striking representation of the life of modern Prague. Like so many Bohemian authors, Hladik also is a copious dramatic author.

Bohemia has been very fruitful in historic writers. Wenceslas Tomek (1818-1905) left many historical works, of which his _Dejepis miesta Prahy_ (history of the town of Prague) is the most important. Jaroslav Goll (b. 1846) is the author of many historical works, especially on the community of the Bohemian Brethren. Professor Joseph Kalousek has written much on the early history of Bohemia, and is also the author of a very valuable study of the ancient constitution (_Statni pravo_) of Bohemia. Dr Anton Rezek is the author of important historical studies, many of which appeared in the Journal of the Bohemian Museum and in the _Cesky Casopis Historicky_ (Bohemian Historical Review), which he founded in 1895 jointly with Professor Jaroslav Goll. More recently Dr Vaclav Flajshans has published some excellent studies on the life and writings of John Huss, and Professors Pic and Niederle have published learned archaeological studies on the earliest period of Bohemian history.

See Count Lutzow, _A History of Bohemian Literature_ (London, 1899);
W.R. Morfill, _Slavonic Literature_ (1883); A.N. Pypin and V.D.
Spasovic, _History of Slavonic Literature_ (written in Russian,
translated into German by Trangott Pech, _Gesch. der slav.
Literaturen_, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1884). There are modern histories
of Bohemian literature written in the national language by Dr Karel
Tieftrunk, Dr Vaclav Flajshans and Mr Jaroslav Vlaek. (L.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] As a guide to the English-speaking reader, the following notes on
the pronunciation of Bohemian names are appended. The Czech (Cech)
alphabet is the same as the English, with the omission of the letters
q, w and x. Certain letters, however, vary in pronunciation, and are
distinguished by diacritical marks, a device orginated by John Huss.
The vowels a, e, i, (y), o, u, are pronounced as in Italian; but e =
Eng. ye in "yet," and [ou] = Eng. oo.

The consonants, b, d, f, k, l, m, n, p, r, v, z, are as in English; g
= Eng. g in "gone"; s = Eng. initial s. But n = Span. n (in _canon_);
r = rsh; s = sh; z = zh (i.e. the French j); k before d = g; v before
k, p, s, t = f. Of the other consonants c = Eng. ts; c = ch; ch =
Germ. ch; j = Eng. y, but is not pronounced before d, m, s. Accents
on vowels lengthen them; on d and t they are softening marks. H is
always pronounced in Czech. At the end of words and before k and t it
= Germ, ch; in other places, as in _bahno_ (morass) its pronunciation
is somewhat softer.

[2] _Protestatio Bohemorum_, frequently printed in English and
German, as well as in the Latin original.

[3] Laurence of Brezova's (contemporary) _Kronika Husitska_.

[4] This work has been translated into English by Count Lutzow for
the "Temple Classics."

BOHEMUND, the name of a series of princes of Antioch, afterwards counts of Tripoli. Their connexion is shown in the following table:--

Robert Guiscard = (1)Alberida: (2)Sicelgaeta.
|
Bohemund I. = Constance, daughter of Philip I. of France.
|
Bohemund II. = Alice, daughter of Baldwin II. of
| Jerusalem.
(1)Raymund = Constance = (2)Raynald of Chatillon.
|
Bohemund III. = (2)Orguilleuse.
|
Bohemund IV. = (1)Plaisance.
| (2)Melisinda, daughter of Amalric II.
|
Bohemund V. = (1)Alice, widow of Hugh of Cyprus.
= (2)Luciana, daughter of count of
|_________ Segni.
| |
Henry I. = Plaisance Bohemund VI. = Sibylla,
of Cyprus | | sister of Leo
| |of Armenia. III.
Hugh II. Bohemund VII.--_o.s.p._

BOHEMUND I. (c. A.D. 1058-1111), prince of Otranto and afterwards of Antioch, whose first name was Marc, was the eldest son of Robert Guiscard, _dux Apuliae et Calabriae_, by an early marriage contracted before 1059. He served under his father in the great attack on the East Roman empire (1080-1085), and commanded the Normans during Guiscard's absence (1082-1084), penetrating into Thessaly as far as Larissa, but being repulsed by Alexius Comnenus. This early hostility to Alexius had a great influence in determining the course of his future career, and thereby helped to determine the history of the First Crusade, of which Bohemund may be regarded as the leader. On the death of Guiscard in 1085, his younger son Roger, born "in the purple" of a Lombard princess Sicelgaeta, succeeded to the duchy of Apulia and Calabria, and a war arose between Bohemund (whom his father had destined for the throne of Constantinople) and Duke Roger. The war was finally composed by the mediation of Urban II. and the award of Otranto and other possessions to Bohemund. In 1096 Bohemund, along with his uncle the great count of Sicily, was attacking Amalfi, which had revolted against Duke Roger, when bands of crusaders began to pass, on their way through Italy to Constantinople. The zeal of the crusader came upon Bohemund: it is possible, too, that he saw in the First Crusade a chance of realizing his father's policy (which was also an old Norse instinct) of the _Drang nach Osten_, and hoped from the first to carve for himself an eastern principality. He gathered a fine Norman army (perhaps the finest division in the crusading host), at the head of which he crossed the Adriatic, and penetrated to Constantinople along the route he had tried to follow in 1082-1084. He was careful to observe a "correct" attitude towards Alexius, and when he arrived at Constantinople in April 1097 he did homage to the emperor. He may have negotiated with Alexius about a principality at Antioch; if he did so, he had little encouragement. From Constantinople to Antioch Bohemund was the real leader of the First Crusade; and it says much for his leading that the First Crusade succeeded in crossing Asia Minor, which the Crusades of 1101, 1147 and 1189 failed to accomplish. A _politique_, Bohemund was resolved to engineer the enthusiasm of the crusaders to his own ends; and when his nephew Tancred left the main army at Heraclea, and attempted to establish a footing in Cilicia, the movement may have been already intended as a preparation for Bohemund's eastern principality. Bohemund was the first to get into position before Antioch (October 1097), and he took a great part in the siege, beating off the Mahommedan attempts at relief from the east, and connecting the besiegers on the west with the port of St Simeon and the Italian ships which lay there. The capture of Antioch was due to his connexion with Firuz, one of the commanders in the city; but he would not bring matters to an issue until the possession of the city was assured him (May 1098), under the terror of the approach of Kerbogha with a great army of relief, and with a reservation in favour of Alexius, if Alexius should fulfil his promise to aid the crusaders. But Bohemund was not secure in the possession of Antioch, even after its surrender and the defeat of Kerbogha; he had to make good his claims against Raymund of Toulouse, who championed the rights of Alexius. He obtained full possession in January 1099, and stayed in the neighbourhood of Antioch to secure his position, while the other crusaders moved southward to the capture of Jerusalem. He came to Jerusalem at Christmas 1099, and had Dagobert of Pisa elected as patriarch, perhaps in order to check the growth of a strong Lotharingian power in the city. It might seem in 1100 that Bohemund was destined to found a great principality in Antioch, which would dwarf Jerusalem; he had a fine territory, a good strategical position and a strong army. But he had to face two great forces--the East Roman empire, which claimed the whole of his territories and was supported in its claim by Raymund of Toulouse, and the strong Mahommedan principalities in the north-east of Syria. Against these two forces he failed. In 1100 he was captured by Danishmend of Sivas, and he languished in prison till 1103. Tancred took his place; but meanwhile Raymund established himself with the aid of Alexius in Tripoli, and was able to check the expansion of Antioch to the south. Ransomed in 1103 by the generosity of an Armenian prince, Bohemund made it his first object to attack the neighbouring Mahommedan powers in order to gain supplies. But in heading an attack on Harran, in 1104, he was severely defeated at Balich, near Rakka on the Euphrates. The defeat was decisive; it made impossible the great eastern principality which Bohemund had contemplated. It was followed by a Greek attack on Cilicia; and despairing of his own resources, Bohemund returned to Europe for reinforcements in order to defend his position. His attractive personality won him the hand of Constance, the daughter of the French king, Philip I., and he collected a large army. Dazzled by his success, he resolved to use his army not to defend Antioch against the Greeks, but to attack Alexius. He did so; but Alexius, aided by the Venetians, proved too strong, and Bohemund had to submit to a humiliating peace (1108), by which he became the vassal of Alexius, consented to receive his pay, with the title of _Sebastos_, and promised to cede disputed territories and to admit a Greek patriarch into Antioch. Henceforth Bohemund was a broken man. He died without returning to the East, and was buried at Canossa in Apulia, in 1111.

LITERATURE.--The anonymous _Gesta Francorum_ (edited by H. Hagenmeyer)
is written by one of Bohemund's followers; and the _Alexiad_ of Anna
Comnena is a primary authority for the whole of his life. His career
is discussed by B. von Kugler, _Bohemund und Tancred_ (Tubingen,
1862); while L. von Heinemann, _Geschichte der Normannen in Sicilien
und Unteritalien_ (Leipzig, 1894), and R. Rohricht, _Geschichte des
ersten Kreuzzuges_ (Innsbruck, 1901), and _Geschichte des Konigreichs
Jerusalem_ (Innsbruck, 1898), may also be consulted for his history.

BOHEMUND II. (1108-1131), son of the great Bohemund by his marriage with Constance of France, was born in 1108, the year of his father's defeat at Durazzo. In 1126 he came from Apulia to Antioch (which, since the fall of Roger, the successor of Tancred, in 1119, had been under the regency of Baldwin II.); and in 1127 he married Alice, the younger daughter of Baldwin. After some trouble with Joscelin of Edessa, and after joining with Baldwin II. in an attack on Damascus (1127), he was defeated and slain on his northern frontier by a Mahommedan army from Aleppo (1131). He had shown that he had his father's courage: if time had sufficed, he might have shown that he had the other qualities of the first Bohemund.

BOHEMUND III. was the son of Constance, daughter of Bohemund II., by her first husband, Raymund of Antioch. He succeeded his mother in the principality of Antioch in 1163, and first appears prominently in 1164, as regent of the kingdom of Jerusalem during the expedition of Amalric I. to Egypt. During the absence of Amalric, he was defeated and captured by Nureddin (August 1164) at Harenc, to the east of Antioch. He was at once ransomed by his brother-in-law, the emperor Manuel, and went to Constantinople, whence he returned with a Greek patriarch. In 1180 he deserted his second wife, the princess Orguilleuse, for a certain Sibylla, and he was in consequence excommunicated. By Orguilleuse he had had two sons, Raymund and Bohemund (the future Bohemund IV.), whose relations and actions determined the rest of his life. Raymund married Alice, a daughter of the Armenian prince Rhupen (Rupin), brother of Leo of Armenia, and died in 1197, leaving behind him a son, Raymund Rhupen. Bohemund, the younger brother of Raymund, had succeeded the last count of Tripoli in the possession of that county, 1187; and the problem which occupied the last years of Bohemund III. was to determine whether his grandson, Raymund Rhupen, or his younger son, Bohemund, should succeed him in Antioch. Leo of Armenia was naturally the champion of his great-nephew, Raymund Rhupen; indeed he had already claimed Antioch in his own right, before the marriage of his niece to Raymund, in 1194, when he had captured Bohemund III. at Gastin, and attempted without success to force him to cede Antioch.[1] Bohemund the younger, however, prosecuted his claim with vigour, and even evicted his father from Antioch about 1199: but he was ousted by Leo (now king of Armenia by the grace of the emperor, Henry VI.), and Bohemund III. died in possession of his principality (1201).

BOHEMUND IV., younger son of Bohemund III. by his second wife Orguilleuse, became count of Tripoli in 1187, and succeeded his father in the principality of Antioch, to the exclusion of Raymund Rhupen, in 1201. But the dispute lasted for many years (Leo of Armenia continuing to champion the cause of his great-nephew), and long occupied the attention of Innocent III. Bohemund IV. enjoyed the support of the Templars (who, like the Knights of St John, had estates in Tripoli) and of the Greek inhabitants of Antioch, to whom he granted their own patriarch in 1207, while Leo appealed (1210-1211) both to Innocent III. and the emperor Otto IV., and was supported by the Hospitallers. In 1216 Leo captured Antioch, and established Raymund Rhupen as its prince; but he lost it again in less than four years, and it was once more in the possession of Bohemund IV. when Leo died in 1220. Raymund Rhupen died in 1221; and after the event Bohemund reigned in Antioch and Tripoli till his death, proving himself a determined enemy of the Hospitallers, and thereby incurring excommunication in 1230. He first joined, and then deserted, the emperor Frederick II., during the crusade of 1228-29; and he was excluded from the operation of the treaty of 1229. When he died in 1233, he had just concluded peace with the Hospitallers, and Gregory IX. had released him from the excommunication of 1230.

BOHEMUND V., son of Bohemund IV. by his wife Plaisance (daughter of Hugh of Gibelet), succeeded his father in 1233. He was prince of Antioch and count of Tripoli, like his father; and like him he enjoyed the alliance of the Templars and experienced the hostility of Armenia, which was not appeased till 1251, when the mediation of St Louis, and the marriage of the future Bohemund VI. to the sister of the Armenian king, finally brought peace. By his first marriage in 1225 with Alice, the widow of Hugh I. of Cyprus, Bohemund V. connected the history of Antioch for a time with that of Cyprus. He died in 1251. He had resided chiefly at Tripoli, and under him Antioch was left to be governed by its bailiff and commune.

BOHEMUND VI. was the son of Bohemund V. by Luciana, a daughter of the count of Segni, nephew of Innocent III. Born in 1237, Bohemund VI. succeeded his father in 1251, and was knighted by St Louis in 1252. His sister Plaisance had married in 1250 Henry I. of Cyprus, the son of Hugh I.; and the Cypriot connexion of Antioch, originally formed by the marriage of Bohemund V. and Alice, the widow of Hugh I., was thus maintained. In 1252 Bohemund VI. established himself in Antioch, leaving Tripoli to itself, and in 1257 he procured the recognition of his nephew, Hugh II., the son of Henry I. by Plaisance, as king of Jerusalem. He allied himself to the Mongols against the advance of the Egyptian sultan; but in 1268 he lost Antioch to Bibars, and when he died in 1275 he was only count of Tripoli.

BOHEMUND VII., son of Bohemund VI. by Sibylla, sister of Leo III. of Armenia, succeeded to the county of Tripoli in 1275, with his mother as regent. In his short and troubled reign he had trouble with the Templars who were established in Tripoli; and in the very year of his death (1287) he lost Laodicea to the sultan of Egypt. He died without issue; and as, within two years of his death, Tripoli was captured, the county of Tripoli may be said to have become extinct with him.

LITERATURE.--The history of the Bohemunds is the history of the
principality of Antioch, and, after Bohemund IV., of the county of
Tripoli also. For Antioch, we possess its _Assises_ (Venice, 1876);
and two articles on its history have appeared in the _Revue de
l'Orient Latin_ (Paris, 1893, fol.), both by E. Rey ("Resume
chronologique de l'histpire des princes d'Antioche," vol. iv., and
"Les dignitaires de la principaute d'Antioche," vol. viii.). R.
Rohricht, _Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusalem_ (Innsbruck, 1898),
gives practically all that is known about the history of Antioch and
Tripoli. (E. Br.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] During the captivity of Bohemund III. the patriarch of Antioch
helped to found a commune, which persisted, with its mayor and
_jurats_, during the 13th century.

BOHMER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH (1795-1863), German historian, son of Karl Ludwig Bohmer (d. 1817), was born at Frankfort-on-Main on the 22nd of April 1795. Educated at the universities of Heidelberg and Gottingen, he showed an interest in art and visited Italy; but returning to Frankfort he turned his attention to the study of history, and became secretary of the _Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde_. He was also archivist and then librarian of the city of Frankfort. Bohmer had a great dislike of Prussia and the Protestant faith, and a corresponding affection for Austria and the Roman Catholic Church, to which, however, he did not belong. His critical sense was, perhaps, somewhat warped; but his researches are of great value to students. He died unmarried, at Frankfort, on the 22nd of October 1863. Bohmer's historical work was chiefly concerned with collecting and tabulating charters and other imperial documents of the middle ages. First appeared an abstract, the _Regesta chronologico-diplomatica regum atque imperatorum Romanorum 911-1313_ (Frankfort, 1831), which was followed by the _Regesta chronologico-diplomatica Karolorum. Die Urkunden samtlicher Karolinger in kurzen Auszugen_ (Frankfort, 1833), and a series of _Regesta imperii_. For the period 1314-1347 (Frankfort, 1839) the _Regesta_ was followed by three, and for the period 1246-1313 (Frankfort, 1844) by two supplementary volumes. The remaining period of the _Regesta_, as edited by Bohmer, is 1198-1254 (Stuttgart, 1849). These collections contain introductions and explanatory passages by the author. Very valuable also is the _Fontes rerum Germanicarum_ (Stuttgart, 1843-1868), a collection of original authorities for German history during the 13th and 14th centuries. The fourth and last volume of this work was edited by A. Huber after the author's death. Other collections edited by Bohmer are: _Die Reichsgesetze 900-1400_ (Frankfort, 1832); _Wittelsbachische Regesten von der Erwerbung des Herzogtums Bayern bis zu 1340_ (Stuttgart, 1854); and _Codex diplomaticus Moeno-Francofurtanus. Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt_ (Frankfort, 1836; new edition by F. Law, 1901). Other volumes and editions of the _Regesta imperii_, edited by J. Ficker, E. Muhlbacher, E. Winkelmann and others, are largely based on Bohmer's work. Bohmer left a great amount of unpublished material, and after his death two other works were published from his papers: _Acta imperii selecta_, edited by J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1870); and _Regesta archiepiscoporum Maguntinensium_, edited by C. Will (Innsbruck, 1877-1886).

See J. Janssen, _J.F. Bohmers Leben, Briefe und kleinere Schriften_
(Freiburg, 1868).

BOHN, HENRY GEORGE (1796-1884), British publisher, son of a German bookbinder settled in England, was born in London on the 4th of January 1796. In 1831 he started as a dealer in rare books and "remainders." In 1841 he issued his "Guinea" Catalogue of books, a monumental work containing 23,208 items. Bohn was noted for his book auction sales: one held in 1848 lasted four days, the catalogue comprising twenty folio pages. Printed on this catalogue was the information: "Dinner at 2 o'clock, dessert at 4, tea at 5, and supper at 10." The name of Bohn is principally remembered by the important _Libraries_ which he inaugurated: these were begun in 1846 and comprised editions of standard works and translations, dealing with history, science, classics, theology and archaeology, consisting in all of 766 volumes. One of Bohn's most useful and laborious undertakings was his revision (6 vols. 1864) of _The Bibliographer's Manual of English Literature_ (1834) of W.T. Lowndes. The plan includes bibliographical and critical notices, particulars of prices, &c., and a considerable addition to the original work. It had been one of Bohn's ambitions to found a great publishing house, but, finding that his sons had no taste for the trade, he sold the _Libraries_ in 1864 to Messrs. Bell and Daldy, afterwards G. Bell & Sons. Bohn was a man of wide culture and many interests. He himself made considerable contributions to his _Libraries_: he collected pictures, china and ivories, and was a famous rose-grower. He died at Twickenham on the 22nd of August 1884.

BOHTLINGK, OTTO VON (1815-1004) German Sanskrit scholar, was born on the 30th of May (11th of June O.S.) 1815 at St Petersburg. Having studied (1833-1835) Oriental languages, particularly Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, at the university of St Petersburg, he continued his studies in Germany, first in Berlin and then (1839-1842) in Bonn. Returning to St Petersburg in 1842, he was attached to the Royal Academy of Sciences, and was elected an ordinary member of that society in 1855. In 1860 he was made "Russian state councillor," and later "privy councillor" with a title of nobility. In 1868 he settled at Jena, and in 1885 removed to Leipzig, where he resided until his death there on the 1st of April 1904. Bohtlingk was one of the most distinguished scholars of the 19th century, and his works are of pre-eminent value in the field of Indian and comparative philology. His first great work was an edition of Panini's _Acht Bucher grammatischer Regeln_ (Bonn, 1839-1840), which was in reality a criticism of Franz Bopp's philological methods. This book Bohtlingk again took up forty-seven years later, when he republished it with a complete translation under the title _Paninis Grammatik mit Ubersetzung_ (Leipzig, 1887). The earlier edition was followed by _Vopadevas Grammatik_ (St Petersburg, 1847); _Uber die Sprache der Jakuten_ (St Petersburg, 1851); _Indische Spruche_ (2nd ed. in 3 parts, St Petersburg, 1870-1873, to which an index was published by Blau, Leipzig, 1893); a critical examination and translation of _Chhandogya-upanishad (St Petersburg, 1889) and a translation of Brihadaranyaka-upanishad_ (St Petersburg, 1889). In addition to these he published several smaller treatises, notably one on the Sanskrit accents, _Uber den Accent im Sanskrit_ (1843). But his _magnum opus_ is his great Sanskrit dictionary, _Sanskrit-Worterbuch_ (7 vols., St Petersburg, 1853-1875; new ed. 7 vols., St Petersburg, 1879-1889), which with the assistance of his two friends, Rudolf Roth (1821-1895) and Albrecht Weber (b. 1825), was completed in twenty-three years.

BOHUN, the name of a family which plays an important part in English history during the 13th and 14th centuries; it was taken from a village situated in the Cotentin between Coutances and the estuary of the Vire. The Bohuns came into England at, or shortly after, the Norman Conquest; but their early history there is obscure. The founder of their greatness was Humphrey III., who in the latter years of Henry I., makes his appearance as a _dapifer_, or steward, in the royal household. He married the daughter of Milo of Gloucester, and played an ambiguous part in Stephen's reign, siding at first with the king and afterwards with the empress. Humphrey III. lived until 1187, but his history is uneventful. He remained loyal to Henry II. through all changes, and fought in 1173 at Farnham against the rebels of East Anglia. Outliving his eldest son, Humphrey IV., he was succeeded in the family estates by his grandson Henry. Henry was connected with the royal house of Scotland through his mother Margaret, a sister of William the Lion; an alliance which no doubt assisted him to obtain the earldom of Hereford from John (1199). The lands of the family lay chiefly on the Welsh Marches, and from this date the Bohuns take a foremost place among the Marcher barons. Henry de Bohun figures with the earls of Clare and Gloucester among the twenty-five barons who were elected by their fellows to enforce the terms of the Great Charter. In the subsequent civil war he fought on the side of Louis, and was captured at the battle of Lincoln (1217). He took the cross in the same year and died on his pilgrimage (June 1, 1220). Humphrey V., his son and heir, returned to the path of loyalty, and was permitted, some time before 1239, to inherit the earldom of Essex from his maternal uncle, William de Mandeville. But in 1258 this Humphrey fell away, like his father, from the royal to the baronial cause. He served as a nominee of the opposition on the committee of twenty-four which was appointed, in the Oxford parliament of that year, to reform the administration. It was only the alliance of Montfort with Llewelyn of North Wales that brought the earl of Hereford back to his allegiance. Humphrey V. headed the first secession of the Welsh Marchers from the party of the opposition (1263), and was amongst the captives whom the Montfortians took at Lewes. The earl's son and namesake was on the victorious side, and shared in the defeat of Evesham, which he did not long survive. Humphrey V. was, therefore, naturally selected as one of the twelve arbitrators to draw up the ban of Kenilworth (1266), by which the disinherited rebels were allowed to make their peace. Dying in 1275, he was succeeded by his grandson Humphrey VII. This Bohun lives in history as one of the recalcitrant barons of the year 1297, who extorted from Edward I. the _Confirmatio Cartarum_. The motives of the earl's defiance were not altogether disinterested. He had suffered twice from the chicanery of Edward's lawyers; in 1284 when a dispute between himself and the royal favourite, John Giffard, was decided in the latter's favour; and again in 1292 when he was punished with temporary imprisonment and sequestration for a technical, and apparently unwitting, contempt of the king's court. In company, therefore, with the earl of Norfolk he refused to render foreign service in Gascony, on the plea that they were only bound to serve with the king, who was himself bound for Flanders. Their attitude brought to a head the general discontent which Edward had excited by his arbitrary taxation; and Edward was obliged to make a surrender on all the subjects of complaint. At Falkirk (1298) Humphrey VII. redeemed his character for loyalty. His son, Humphrey VIII., who succeeded him in the same year, was allowed to marry one of the king's daughters, Eleanor, the widowed countess of Holland (1302). This close connexion with the royal house did not prevent him, as it did not prevent Earl Thomas of Lancaster, from joining the opposition to the feeble Edward II. In 1310 Humphrey VIII. figured among the Lords Ordainers; though, with more patriotism than some of his fellow-commissioners, he afterwards followed the king to Bannockburn. He was taken captive in the battle, but exchanged for the wife of Robert Bruce. Subsequently he returned to the cause of his order, and fell on the side of Earl Thomas at the field of Boroughbridge (1322). With him, as with his father, the politics of the Marches had been the main consideration; his final change of side was due to jealousy of the younger Despenser, whose lordship of Glamorgan was too great for the comfort of the Bohuns in Brecon. With the death of Humphrey VIII. the fortunes of the family enter on a more peaceful stage. Earl John (d. 1335) was inconspicuous; Humphrey IX. (d. 1361) merely distinguished himself as a captain in the Breton campaigns of the Hundred Years' War, winning the victories of Morlaix (1342) and La Roche Derrien (1347). His nephew and heir, Humphrey X., who inherited the earldom of Northampton from his father, was territorially the most important representative of the Bohuns. But the male line was extinguished by his death (1373). The three earldoms and the broad lands of the Bohuns were divided between two co-heiresses. Both married members of the royal house. The elder, Eleanor, was given in 1374 to Thomas of Woodstock, seventh son of Edward III.; the younger, Mary, to Henry, earl of Derby, son of John of Gaunt and afterwards Henry IV., in 1380 or 1381. From these two marriages sprang the houses of Lancaster and Stafford.

See J.E. Doyle's _Official Baronage of England_ (1886), the _Complete
Peerage_ of G. E. C(okayne), (1867-1898); T.F. Tout's "Wales and the
March during the Barons' War," in Owens College Historical Essays, pp.
87-136 (1902); J.E. Morris' _Welsh Wars of King Edward I._, chs. vi.,
viii. (1901). (H. W. C. D.)

BOIARDO, MATTEO MARIA, COUNT (1434-1404), Italian poet, who came of a noble and illustrious house established at Ferrara, but originally from Reggio, was born at Scandiano, one of the seignorial estates of his family, near Reggio di Modena, about the year 1434, according to Tiraboschi, or 1420 according to Mazzuchelli. At an early age he entered the university of Ferrara, where he acquired a good knowledge of Greek and Latin, and even of the Oriental languages, and was in due time admitted doctor in philosophy and in law. At the court of Ferrara, where he enjoyed the favour of Duke Borso d'Este and his successor Hercules, he was entrusted with several honourable employments, and in particular was named governor of Reggio, an appointment which he held in the year 1478. Three years afterwards he was elected captain of Modena, and reappointed governor of the town and citadel of Reggio, where he died in the year 1494, though in what month is uncertain.

Almost all Boiardo's works, and especially his great poem of the _Orlando Inamorato_, were composed for the amusement of Duke Hercules and his court, though not written within its precincts. His practice, it is said, was to retire to Scandiano or some other of his estates, and there to devote himself to composition; and Castelvetro, Vallisnieri, Mazzuchelli and Tiraboschi all unite in stating that he took care to insert in the descriptions of his poem those of the agreeable environs of his chateau, and that the greater part of the names of his heroes, as Mandricardo, Gradasse, Sacripant, Agramant and others, were merely the names of some of his peasants, which, from their uncouthness, appeared to him proper to be given to Saracen warriors. Be this as it may, the _Orlando Inamorato_ deserves to be considered as one of the most important poems in Italian literature, since it forms the first example of the romantic epic worthy to serve as a model, and, as such, undoubtedly produced Ariosto's _Orlando Furioso_. Gravina and Mazzuchell have said, and succeeding writers have repeated on their authority, that Boiardo proposed to himself as his model the _Iliad_ of Homer; that Paris is besieged like the city of Troy; that Angelica holds the place of Helen; and that, in short, the one poem is a sort of reflex image of the other. In point of fact, however, the subject-matter of the poem is derived from the _Fabulous Chronicle_ of the pseudo-Turpin; though, with the exception of the names of Charlemagne, Roland, Oliver, and some other principal warriors, who necessarily figure as important characters in the various scenes, there is little resemblance between the detailed plot of the one and that of the other. The poem, which Boiardo did not live to finish, was printed at Scandiano the year after his death, under the superintendence of his son Count Camillo. The title of the book is without date; but a Latin letter from Antonia Caraffa di Reggio, prefixed to the poem, is dated the kalends of June 1495. A second edition, also without date, but which must have been printed before the year 1500, appeared at Venice; and the poem was twice reprinted there during the first twenty years of the 16th century. These editions are the more curious and valuable since they contain nothing but the text of the author, which is comprised in three books, divided into cantos, the third book being incomplete. But Niccolo degli Agostini, an indifferent poet, had the courage to continue the work commenced by Boiardo, adding to it three books, which were printed at Venice in 1526-1531, in 4to; and since that time no edition of the _Orlando_ has been printed without the continuation of Agostini, wretched as it unquestionably is. Boiardo's poem suffers from the incurable defect of a laboured and heavy style. His story is skilfully constructed, the characters are well drawn and sustained throughout; many of the incidents show a power and fertility of imagination not inferior to that of Ariosto, but the perfect workmanship indispensable for a great work of art is wanting. The poem in its original shape was not popular, and has been completely superseded by the _Rifacimento_ of Francesco Berni (q.v.).

The other works of Boiardo are--(1) _Il Timone_, a comedy, Scandiano, 1500, 4to; (2) _Sonnetti e Canzoni_, Reggio, 1499, 4to; (3) _Carmen Bucolicon_, Reggio, 1500, 4to; (4) _Cinque Capitoli in terza rima_, Venice, 1523 or 1533; (5) _Apulejo dell' Asino d'Oro_, Venice, 1516, 1518; (6) _Asino d'Oro de Luciano tradolto in volgare_, Venice, 1523, 8vo; (7) _Erodoto Alicarnasseo istorico, tradotto di Greco in Lingua Italiana_, Venice, 1533 and 1538, 8vo; (8) _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores_.

See Panizzi's _Boiardo_ (9 vols., 1830-1831).

BOIE, HEINRICH CHRISTIAN (1744-1806), German author, was born at Meldorf in the then Danish province of Schleswig-Holstein on the 19th of July 1744. After studying law at Jena, he went in 1769 to Gottingen, where he became one of the leading spirits in the Gottingen "Dichterbund" or "Hain." Boie's poetical talent was not great, but his thorough knowledge of literature, his excellent taste and sound judgment, made him an ideal person to awake the poetical genius of others. Together with F.W. Gotter (q.v.) he founded in 1770 the Gottingen _Musenalmanach_, which he directed and edited until 1775, when, in conjunction with C.W. von Dohm (1751-1820), he brought out _Das deutsche Museum_, which became one of the best literary periodicals of the day. In 1776 Boie became secretary to the commander-in-chief at Hanover, and in 1781 was appointed administrator of the province of Suderditmarschen in Holstein. He died at Meldorf on the 3rd of March 1806.

See K. Weinhold, _Heinrich Christian Boie_ (Halle, 1868).

BOIELDIEU, FRANCOIS ADRIEN (1775-1834), French composer of comic opera, was born at Rouen on the 15th of December 1775. He received his first musical education from M. Broche, the cathedral organist, who appears to have treated him very harshly. He began composing songs and chamber music at a very early age-his first opera, _La Fille coupable_ (the libretto by his father), and his second opera, _Rosalie et Myrza_, being produced on the stage of Rouen in 1795. Not satisfied with his local success he went to Paris in 1795. His scores were submitted to Cherubini, Mehul and others, but met with little approbation. Grand opera was the order of the day. Boieldieu had to fall back on his talent as a pianoforte-player for a livelihood. Success came at last from an unexpected source. P.J. Garat, a fashionable singer of the period, admired Boieldleu's touch on the piano, and made him his accompanist. In the drawing-rooms of the Directoire Garat sang the charming songs and ballads with which the young composer supplied him. Thus Boieldieu's reputation gradually extended to wider circles. In 1796 _Les Deux lettres_ was produced, and in 1797 _La Famille suisse_ appeared for the first time on a Paris stage, and was well received. Several other operas followed in rapid succession, of which only _Le Calife de Bagdad_ (1800) has escaped oblivion. After the enormous success of this work, Boieldieu felt the want of a thorough musical training and took lessons from Cherubini, the influence of that great master being clearly discernible in the higher artistic finish of his pupil's later compositions. In 1802 Boieldieu, to escape the domestic troubles caused by his marriage with Clotilde Aug. Mafleuroy, a celebrated ballet-dancer of the Paris opera, took flight and went to Russia, where he was received with open arms by the emperor Alexander. During his prolonged stay at St Petersburg he composed a number of operas. He also set to music the choruses of Racine's _Athalie_, one of his few attempts at the tragic style of dramatic writing. In 1811 he returned to his own country, where the following year witnessed the production of one of his finest works, _Jean de Paris_, in which he depicted with much felicity the charming coquetry of the queen of Navarre, the chivalrous _verve_ of the king, the officious pedantry of the seneschal, and the amorous tenderness of the page. He succeeded Mehul as professor of composition at the Conservatoire in 1817. _Le Chapeau rouge_ was produced with great success in 1818. Boieldieu's second and greatest masterpiece was his _Dame blanche_ (1825). The libretto, written by Scribe, was partly suggested by Walter Scott's _Monastery_, and several original Scottish tunes cleverly introduced by the composer add to the melodious charm and local colour of the work. On the death of his wife in 1825, Boieldieu married a singer. His own death was due to a violent attack of pulmonary disease. He vainly tried to escape the rapid progress of the illness by travel in Italy and the south of France, but returned to Paris only to die on the 8th of October 1834.

Lives of Boieldieu have been written by Pougin (Paris, 1875), J.A.
Refeuvaille (Rouen, 1836), Hequet (Paris, 1864), Emile Duval (Geneva,
1883). See also Adolphe Charles Adam, _Derniers souvenirs d'un
musicien_.

BOIGNE, BENOIT DE, COUNT (1751-1830), the first of the French military adventurers in India, was born at Chambery in Savoy on the 8th of March 1751, being the son of a fur merchant. He joined the Irish Brigade in France in 1768, and subsequently he entered the Russian service and was captured by the Turks. Hearing of the wealth of India, he made his way to that country, and after serving for a short time in the East India Company, he resigned and joined Mahadji Sindhia in 1784 for the purpose of training his troops in the European methods of war. In the battles of Lalsot and Chaksana Boigne and his two battalions proved their worth by holding the field when the rest of the Mahratta army was defeated by the Rajputs. In the battle of Agra (1788) he restored the Mahratta fortunes, and made Mahadji Sindhia undisputed master of Hindostan. This success led to his being given the command of a brigade of ten battalions of infantry, with which he won the victories of Patan and Merta in 1790. In consequence Boigne was allowed to raise two further brigades of disciplined infantry, and made commander-in-chief of Sindhia's army. In the battle of Lakhairi (1793) he defeated Holkar's army. On the death of Mahadji Sindhia in 1794, Boigne could have made himself master of Hindostan had he wished it, but he remained loyal to Daulat Rao Sindhia. In 1795 his health began to fail, and he resigned his command, and in the following year returned to Europe with a fortune of L400,000. He lived in retirement during the lifetime of Napoleon, but was greatly honoured by Louis XVIII. He died on the 21st of June 1830.

See H. Compton, _European Military Adventurers of Hindustan_ (1892).

BOII (perhaps = "the terrible"), a Celtic people, whose original home was Gallia Transalpina. They were known to the Romans, at least by name, in the time of Plautus, as is shown by the contemptuous reference in the _Captivi_ (888). At an early date they split up into two main groups, one of which made its way into Italy, the other into Germany. Some, however, appear to have stayed behind, since, during the Second Punic War, Magalus, a Boian prince, offered to show Hannibal the way into Italy after he had crossed the Pyrenees (Livy xxi. 29). The first group of immigrants is said to have crossed the Pennine Alps (Great St Bernard) into the valley of the Po. Finding the district already occupied, they proceeded over the river, drove out the Etruscans and Umbrians, and established themselves as far as the Apennines in the modern Romagna. According to Cato (in Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ iii. 116) they comprised as many as 112 different tribes, and from the remains discovered in the tombs at Hallstatt, La Tene and other places, they appear to have been fairly civilized. Several wars took place between them and the Romans. In 283 they were defeated, together with the Etruscans, at the Vadimonian lake; in 224, after the battle of Telamon in Etruria, they were forced to submit. But they still cherished a hatred of the Romans, and during the Second Punic War (218), irritated by the foundation of the Roman colonies of Cremona and Placentia, they rendered valuable assistance to Hannibal. They continued the struggle against Rome from 201 to 191, when they were finally subdued by P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, and deprived of nearly half their territory. According to Strabo (v. p. 213) the Boii were driven back across the Alps and settled on the land of their kinsmen, the Taurisci, on the Danube, adjoining Vindelicia and Raetia. Most authorities, however, assume that there had been a settlement of the Boii on the Danube from very early times, in part of the modern Bohemia (anc. _Boiohemum_, "land of the Boii"). About 60 B.C. some of the Boii migrated to Noricum and Pannonia, when 32,000 of them joined the expedition of the Helvetians into Gaul, and shared their defeat near Bibracte (58). They were subsequently allowed by Caesar to settle in the territory of the Aedui between the Loire and the Allier. Their chief town was Gorgobina (site uncertain). Those who remained on the Danube were exterminated by the Dacian king, Boerebista, and the district they had occupied was afterwards called the "desert of the Boii" (Strabo vii. p. 292). In A.D. 69 a Boian named Mariccus stirred up a fanatical revolt, but was soon defeated and put to death. Some remnants of the Boii are mentioned as dwelling near Bordeaux; but Mommsen inclines to the opinion that the three groups (in Bordeaux, Bohemia and the Po districts) were not really scattered branches of one and the same stock, but that they are instances of a mere similarity of name.

The Boii, as we know them, belonged almost certainly to the Early Iron age. They probably used long iron swords for dealing cutting blows, and from the size of the handles they must have been a race of large men (cf. Polybius ii. 30). For their ethnological affinities and especially their possible connexion with the Homeric Achaeans see W. Ridgeway's _Early Age of Greece_ (vol. i., 1901).

See L. Contzen, _Die Wanderungen der Kelten_ (Leipzig, 1861); A.
Desjardins, _Geographie historique de la Gaule romaine_, ii.
(1876-1893); T.R. Holmes, _Caesar's Conquest of Gaul_ (1899), pp.
426-428; T. Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. (Eng. trans. 5 vols., 1894),
p. 373 note; M. Ihm in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_, iii. pt. 1
(1897); A. Holder, _Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz_.