[Footnote 11: Before I enter on the siege of Constantinople,
I shall observe, that except the short hints of Cantemir and
Leunclavius, I have not been able to obtain any Turkish
account of this conquest; such an account as we possess of
the siege of Rhodes by Soliman II., (Memoires de l'Academie
des Inscriptions, tom. xxvi. p. 723 - 769.) I must therefore
depend on the Greeks, whose prejudices, in some degree, are
subdued by their distress. Our standard texts ar those of
Ducas, (c. 34 - 42,) Phranza, (l. iii. c. 7 - 20,)
Chalcondyles, (l. viii. p. 201 - 214,) and Leonardus
Chiensis, (Historia C. P. a Turco expugnatae. Norimberghae,
1544, in 4to., 20 leaves.) The last of these narratives is
the earliest in date, since it was composed in the Isle of
Chios, the 16th of August, 1453, only seventy-nine days
after the loss of the city, and in the first confusion of
ideas and passions. Some hints may be added from an epistle
of Cardinal Isidore (in Farragine Rerum Turcicarum, ad
calcem Chalcondyl. Clauseri, Basil, 1556) to Pope Nicholas
V., and a tract of Theodosius Zygomala, which he addressed
in the year 1581 to Martin Crucius, (Turco-Graecia, l. i. p.
74 - 98, Basil, 1584.) The various facts and materials are
briefly, though critically, reviewed by Spondanus, (A.D.
1453, No. 1 - 27.) The hearsay relations of Monstrelet and
the distant Latins I shall take leave to disregard.
Note: M. Von Hammer has added little new information on the
siege of Constantinople, and, by his general agreement, has
borne an honorable testimony to the truth, and by his close
imitation to the graphic spirit and boldness, of Gibbon. -
M.]