Part 6

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.