[Footnote 119: Nimis alta et perplexa sunt, (Vit. Alexandri III. p. 460,
461,) says the cautious pope.]

[Footnote 120: (Cinnamus, l. iv. c. 14, p. 99.)]

[Footnote 121: In his vith book, Cinnamus describes the Venetian war,
which Nicetas has not thought worthy of his attention. The Italian
accounts, which do not satisfy our curiosity, are reported by the
annalist Muratori, under the years 1171, &c.]

[Footnote 122: This victory is mentioned by Romuald of Salerno, (in
Muratori, Script. Ital. tom. vii. p. 198.) It is whimsical enough, that
in the praise of the king of Sicily, Cinnamus (l. iv. c. 13, p. 97, 98)
is much warmer and copious than Falcandus, (p. 268, 270.) But the Greek
is fond of description, and the Latin historian is not fond of William
the Bad.]

[Footnote 123: For the epistle of William I. see Cinnamus (l. iv. c.
15, p. 101, 102) and Nicetas, (l. ii. c. 8.) It is difficult to affirm,
whether these Greeks deceived themselves, or the public, in these
flattering portraits of the grandeur of the empire.]

[Footnote 124: I can only quote, of original evidence, the poor
chronicles of Sicard of Cremona, (p. 603,) and of Fossa Nova, (p. 875,)
as they are published in the viith tome of Muratori's historians.
The king of Sicily sent his troops contra nequitiam Andronici.... ad
acquirendum imperium C. P. They were.... decepti captique, by Isaac.]

[Footnote 125: By the failure of Cinnamus to Nicetas (in Andronico,
l.. c. 7, 8, 9, l. ii. c. 1, in Isaac Angelo, l. i. c. 1-4,) who now
becomes a respectable contemporary. As he survived the emperor and the
empire, he is above flattery; but the fall of Constantinople exasperated
his prejudices against the Latins. For the honor of learning I shall
observe that Homer's great commentator, Eustathias archbishop of
Thessalonica, refused to desert his flock.]

The sceptre of Roger successively devolved to his son and grandson:
they might be confounded under the name of William: they are strongly
discriminated by the epithets of the bad and the good; but these
epithets, which appear to describe the perfection of vice and virtue,
cannot strictly be applied to either of the Norman princes. When he was
roused to arms by danger and shame, the first William did not degenerate
from the valor of his race; but his temper was slothful; his manners
were dissolute; his passions headstrong and mischievous; and the monarch
is responsible, not only for his personal vices, but for tho