The relics of antiquity still remaining consist of part of the cathedral church of St Mary, the nunnery, some small chapels, a building called the bishop’s house, and a number of ancient tombs or crosses. The cathedral, dating from the 13th century, is built in the usual form of a cross, and consists of nave, transept, and choir, with a sacristy on the north side and chapels on the south. A great portion of the walls and the central tower, about 75 feet in height, are still standing. It contains a number of old tombs. To the north are the remains of the conventual buildings which from a Norman arcade still standing appear to have been of an older date than the cathedral. The chapel of St Oran or Odhrain situated in the cemetery, on the south side of the monastery, dates probably from the 11th century, and its western doorway presents a Norman arch with the beak-head ornament. The cemetery, called in Gaelic Peilig Oiran, the burial-place of kings, and said to contain the remains of forty-eight Scottish, four Irish, and eight Danish or Norwegian monarchs, possesses a largo number of monumental stones. The remains of the nunnery exhibit traces of Norman architecture. Of the numerous crosses erected in the island the finest are Maclean’s cross and St Martin’s cross, which are still almost entire. Both are richly carved with Runic knots and various emblematic devices and fanciful scrolls.

The original form of the name Iona was Hy, Hii, or I, the Irish for island. By Adamnan in his Life of St Columba it is called loua insula, and the present name Iona originated in some transcriber mistaking the u in loua for an n. It also received the name of Hu-colum-kill (Icolmkill), that is, the island of Columba of the Cell, while by the Highlanders it has been known as Innis nan Druidhneah, the island of the Druids. It was in the year 563 that Columba, after leaving the shores of Ireland, entered the creek of Iona noW known as Port-a-churraich, the port of the coracle, and, having satisfied himself of the suitability of the island for his . purpose, founded there his famous monastery. The island was then inhabited by a Pictish population, but it has been disputed whether Columba obtained the grant of it from Conall, king of Dalriada, or from Brude, king of the Picts. Columba was buried in Iona, but between 802 and 807 his remains were transferred from it to the church of St Patrick in the county Down, Ireland. For a long time the monastery of Iona held the supremacy among all the monasteries and churches founded by Columba and his disciples. It was several times plundered and burned by the Norsemen, and its inmates on more than one occasion put to death. The Western Isles having come into the possession of Scotland in 1072, the monastery ot Iona was rebuilt and endowed by Queen Margaret. In 1092 they were, however, ceded to Magnus Barefoot of Norway, who after the renewal of the cession by Edgar in 1097 visited Iona and allowed the people to retain their possessions. The diocese of the Isles, founded about 838, of which Iona was the seat, was united by Magnus to the bishopric of Man, and made subject to the archbishopric of Drontheim in Norway. A new monastery as well as a nunnery was founded by the Benedictines in 1203, and the Benedictine order either absorbed or expelled the Celtic community. About 1507 the island again became the seat of the bishopric of the Isles. The monastery was demolished in accordance with the Act passed by the Convention of Estates in 1561. For many centuries it was much frequented on account of its facilities for learning, and, as may be supposed, became after the death of Columba a great resort of pilgrims, many of whom came in order to die on the island that their remains might be interred in its sacred soil; while the remains of persons illustrious in rank or in piety were brought to it for burial from all parts of northern Europe. The site of the old monastery was about a quarter of a mile north from the present ruins.

See, in addition to the article Columba, and the old authorities therein cited, Montalernbert’s Monks of the West, vol. iii.; The Cathedral or Abbey Church of Iona, by Bishop Ewing, 1866; Iona, by the Duke of Argyll, 1870; Skene’s Celtic Scotland, vol. ii, 1877; and Sculptured Monuments in Iona and the West Highlands, by James Drummond, 1881.

According to the tradition universally received among the Greeks, the cities of Ionia were founded by emigrants from Greece on the other side of the Aegean, and their settlement was connected with the legendary history of the Ionic race in Attica and other parts of European Greece, by the statement that the colonists were led by Neleus and Androclus, the two sons of Codrus, the last king of Athens. In accordance with this view a definite date was assigned to the Ionic migration, as it was called by later chronologers, who placed it one hundred and forty years after the Trojan war, or sixty years after the return of the Heraclidae into the Peloponnese. It is hardly necessary to remark that no reliance can be placed upon this chronological statement; and it is altogether improbable that the colonization of the whole of this important district took place at the same period. All analogy would lead us to suppose that the foundation of the different cities which ultimately constituted the Ionic League took place at different times, and was perhaps spread over a long period of time. It is, however, not improbable that the great Dorian invasion of the Peloponnese, which gave rise to such extensive changes in the population of European Greece, may have given the first impulse to the migration of a large part of the Ionian inhabitants to the opposite shores of the Aegean. Nor is there anything unlikely in the fact that a body so composed should have put themselves under the command of a leader or cekist from Athens, which was generally looked upon as the special representative of the Ionian race. But Herodotus himself tells us (i. 146) that they were very far from being of unmixed Ionic descent, and comprised settlers from many different tribes and cities of Greece (a fact indicated also by the local traditions of the different cities), as well as by intermarriage with the native races whom they found in possession of the country. A striking proof of this was to be found in the fact that so late as the time of the historian several distinct dialects were spoken by the inhabitants of different cities within the limits of so restricted an area.

Some modern critics have supposed that the population of this part of Asia was originally of Ionic race, and that the settlers from Greece found the country in the possession of a kindred people. But no trace is found in any ancient writers of such a fact, or of the distinction established by these modern scholars between the so-called Old Ionians and New Ionians. All that we know upon anything like historical evidence is that at the earliest period when we hear of any Greek population as existing on the east coasts of the Aegean we find there a large group of cities, distinct in dialect and institutions from those to the north and south of them, and generally regarded both by themselves and their neighbours as derived by direct immigration from the people who bore the name of Ionians in European Greece. Of the period of their settlement in Asia we have no trustworthy evidence; but it appears to have been anterior to the rise of the Lydian monarchy, which gradually became their most formidable neighbour.

The cities comprised under this name in historical times were twelve in number,—an arrangement copied as it was supposed from the constitution of the Ionian cities in Greece, which had originally occupied the territory in the north of the Peloponnese subsequently held by the Achaians. These were (proceeding from south to north)— Miletus, Myus, Priene, Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedus, Teos, Erythrae, Clazomenae, and Phocaea, together with the two important islands of Samos and Chios. Smyrna, which subsequently assumed so prominent a position among the cities of this part of Asia, was originally an Aeolic colony, but was afterwards occupied by a band of Ionians from Colophon, and became thenceforth an Ionian city,—an event which had taken place before the time of Herodotus. But at what period it was admitted as a member of the Ionian League we have no information.

The cities above enumerated unquestionably formed a kind of league or confederacy among themselves, of which their participation in the Pan-Ionic festival was the distinguishing characteristic. But, like the Amphictyonie League in Greece itself, this was rather of a sacred than a political character; every city, as usual among the Greeks, enjoyed absolute autonomy, and, though common interests often united them for a common political object, they never formed a real confederacy like that of the Achaians or Boeotians; and the advice of Thales of Miletus to combine in a more intimate political union found no approval among them.

The territory thus occupied was of small extent, not exceeding 90 geographical miles in direct length from north to south, with a breadth varying from 20 to 30 miles, but to this must be added the remarkable peninsular promontory of Mimas, together with the two large islands. So intricate indeed is the coast-line that the periplus or voyage along its shores was estimated at 340 geographical miles, or nearly four times the direct distance. A great part of this area was, moreover, occupied by mountains, none of them attaining to any great elevation, but filling up a considerable space. Of these the most lofty and striking were— Mounts Mimas and Corycus, in the peninsula which stands out to the west, facing the island of Chios; Mount Sipylos, to the north of Smyrna; Mount Corax, extending to the south-west from the Gulf of Smyrna, and descending to the sea between Lebedus and Teos; and the strongly marked range of Mount Mycale, which is in fact a kind of continuation of the chain known as Mount Messogis in the interior, and forms the bold headland of Trogilium or Mycale, opposite to the island of Samos. None of these mountains attain a height of more than from 3000 to 4000 feet; but they for the most part form abrupt and detached ranges, intersecting the country in different directions. Confined as it thus was, the narrow district in question had the advantage of comprising three broad valleys, formed by the outflow of three rivers, among the most considerable in Asia Minor:—the Hermus in the north, flowing into the Gulf of Smyrna, though at a considerable distance from the city of that name; the Cayster, which flowed under the walls of Ephesus; and the Maeander, which in ancient times discharged its waters into the deep gulf that bathed the walls of Miletus, which has been gradually filled up by its continued action. These valleys were all of them extremely fertile, and besides them many smaller tracts were to be found between the mountains and the sea, of great fertility, and enjoying the advantage of a peculiarly fine climate, for which this part of Asia Minor has been famous in all ages. The consequence is that Ionia enjoyed the reputation in ancient times of being the most fertile of all the rich provinces of Asia Minor; and even in modern times, though very imperfectly cultivated, it produces abundance of fruit of all kinds, and the raisins and figs of Smyrna supply almost all the markets of Europe.

The colonies founded in such a favoured land speedily rose to opulence and prosperity. Miletus especially was at an early period one of the most important commercial cities of Greece, and in its turn became the parent of numerous other colonies, which extended all around the shores of the Euxine and the Propontis, from Abydus and Cyzicus to Trapezus and Panticapaeum. Phocaea also was one of the first Greek cities whose mariners explored the distant shores of the western Mediterranean, where they founded on the coast of Gaul the important colony of Massilia. Ephesus also, though it did not send out any colonies of importance, from an early period became a flourishing and opulent city, and gradually attained to a position in this part of Asia corresponding in some measure to that of Smyrna at the present day.

The first event in the history of these Ionian cities of which we have any trustworthy account is the invasion, or rather inroad, of the Cimmerians, a nomad people from beyond the Euxine, who ravaged a great part of Asia Minor, including the neighbouring Lydia, and even sacked Magnesia on the Maeander, but were foiled in their attack upon Ephesus. This event may be referred to the middle of the 7th century b.c. A more formidable danger soon threatened the Ionian Greeks from the rising power of the Lydian monarchy. Gyges, the first king of the Mermnad dynasty (about 700 B. c. ), already invaded the territories of Smyrna and Miletus, and is even said to have taken Colophon, as his son Ardys did Priene. But neither conquest was durable, and it was not till the reign of Croesus (560-545 b.c.) that the cities of Ionia successively fell under the dominion of the Lydian monarch. The defeat of Croesus by Cyrus was followed by the conquest of all the Ionian cities by the Persian general Harpagus, and they henceforth became subject to the Persian monarchy, in common with all the other Greek cities of Asia. In this position they enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy, but were for the most part subject to the rule of local despots. It was at the instigation of one of these, Histiaeus of Miletus, that in about 500 b.c. the principal cities broke out into insurrection against Persia, in which they were at first assisted by the Athenians, with whose aid they even penetrated into the interior, and burnt the important city of Sardis, an event which ultimately led to the Persian invasion of Greece. But this first success was of little avail; the fleet of the Ionians was defeated in a great battle off the little island of Lade, and the capture and destruction of Miletus, after a long protracted siege, was followed by the reconquest of all the Asiatic Greeks, insular as well as continental (494 b.c. ).

The victories of the Greeks during the great Persian war had the effect of enfranchising their kinsmen on the other side of the Aegean; and the battle of Mycale (479 b,c.), in which the defeatof the Persians was in great measure owing to the revolt of the Ionians, secured their emancipation from the Persian yoke. They henceforth became, like most of the inhabitants of the islands, the dependent allies of Athens, though still retaining their autonomy, which they preserved until the peace of Antalcidas in 388 b.c. once more placed them, as well as the other Greek cities in Asia, under the nominal dominion of Persia. They appear, however, to have retained a considerable amount of freedom until the invasion of Asia Minor by Alexander the Great brought about a fresh change. After the battle of the Granicus most of the Ionian cities submitted at once to the conqueror; Miletus alone held out, and was not reduced till after a long siege, 334 B.c. From this time they passed successively under the dominion of the Macedonian rulers of Asia, but continued to enjoy a state of great prosperity, both under these Greek dynasties and after they had been united as a part of the province of Asia with the all-absorbing empire of Rome.

There was indeed one striking exception to this prosperity. Miletus, so long one of the chief cities of Ionia, gradually sank into complete decay, a circumstance owing not so much to political as to physical causes, the mass of alluvial matter brought down by the river Maeander having gradually filled up the Latmian Gulf, on which it was situated, so that the island of Lade was ultimately joined to the mainland, and Miletus itself altogether ceased to be a seaport. The same cause has at a later period produced the same effect, though in a less degree, with the city of Ephesus; while the continually advancing deposits of the Hermus threaten, at no distant period, unless prevented by the skill of modern engineers, to close up the still more extensive Gulf of Smyrna.

It has been mentioned that the Ionian cities were accustomed to celebrate in common a festival called the Pan-Ionia; the sanctuary at which this was celebrated, and which was also called the Panionium, was situated on the northern slope of Mount Mycale, in the territory of Priene. But, besides this common religious centre, Ionia contained also two of the most celebrated shrines in all Asia, the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, and that of Apollo at Branchidae near Miletus. It is probable that both sites were connected with local centres of more ancient religious worship, and were adopted by the Ionian Greeks when they first settled in Asia.

Corfu has a denser population than any other part of Greece, more than 350 inhabitants to the square mile; and Zante ranks next with about 300. The city of Corfu, with its 25,000 inhabitants, is the third in size of the Greek towns, being exceeded only by Patras (Patrai) and Athens.

As the Ionian Islands have no geographical unity, their political unity is of comparatively modern date. A Septinsular or Heptanesian history, as distinguished from the individual histories of the seven islands, is consequently in its earlier chapters a mere conventional composition produced by gathering together a variety of scarcely connected facts. To a certain extent indeed the various islands have passed under the same succession of influences; they have been subjected to the same invasions, and have received accessions to their populations from the same currents of migration or conquest; but in the degree in which even what may be considered as common experiences have affected the individual islands there has been no small diversity. In the matter of population, for instance, the island of Corfu has undergone much more important modifications than the island of Ithaca. For such facts as the establishment of Ulysses in Ithaca, the settlement of a Corinthian colony in Corfu, and the origin of the Peloponnesian War in a dispute between the colony and the “metropolis,” the reader will consult the separate articles Corfu, Ithaca, &c.

The beginning of Heptanesian history may be said to date from the 15th century. Though it is true that Leo the Philosopher (about 890 A.i>.) formed all or most of the islands into a distinct province under the title of the Tema of Cephallenia, and that in this condition they belonged to the Eastern empire after Italy had been divided into various states, this political or administrative unity could not last long in the case of islands situated, as they were, in the very meeting place of opposite currents of conquest. Robert Guiscard, having captured Corfu (1081) and Cephalonia, might have become the founder of a Norman dynasty in the islands but for his early death at Cassopo. Amid the struggles between Greek emperors and Western crusaders that continued to fill the 12th century, Corfu, Cephalonia, Zante, &c., emerge from time to time; but it was not till the Latin empire was established at Constantinople that the Venetians, who were destined to give the Ionian Islands their place in history, obtained possession of Corfu. They were afterwards robbed of the island by Leon Vetrano, a famous Genoese corsair; but he was soon defeated and put to death, and the senate, to secure their position, granted fiefs in Corfu to ten noble families in order that they might colonize it (1206). The conquest of Cephalonia and Zante followed, and we find five counts of the family of Tocco holding certainly the former island, and probably the latter as well as Santa Maura, as tributary to the republic. But the footing thus gained by the Venetians was afterwards lost, and through the closing part of the 13th and most of the 14th century the islands were a prey by turns to corsairs and to Greek and Neapolitan claimants. In 1386, however, the people of Corfu made voluntary submission to the republic which had now risen to be the first maritime power in the Mediterranean, and in 1401 (August 16th) the senate, with mercantile caution, secured their possession of the island from any claim which might be asserted by the kings of Naples through the duchy of Taranto by obtaining a ratification of their title from Ladislaus for the sum of 30,000 ducats. In 1485 Zante was purchased from the Turks in a very depopulated condition; and in 1499 Cephalonia was captured from the same masters; but Santa Maura, though frequently occupied for a time, was not finally attached to Venice till 1684, and Cerigo was taken only in 1717.

On the fall of the Venetian republic in 1797, the treaty of Campo Formio, which gave Venice to Austria, annexed the Ionian Islands to France; and in 1798 the French Government ratified the arrangement, and their division into three departments. But a Russo-Turkish force came to drive out the French at the close of that year; and in the spring of 1799 Corfu capitulated. By treaty with the Porte in 1800, the emperor Paul erected the Republic of the Seven United Islands, which, with various modifications, was but another name for anarchy and confusion, till a secret article in the treaty of Tilsit, in 1807, declared the Ionian Islands an integral part of the French empire. They were incorporated with the province of Illyria, and in this condition they remained till the decline of the French power. The British forces, under General Oswald, took Zante, Cephalonia, and Cerigo in 1809, and Santa Maura in 1810; Colonel Church reduced Paxo in 1814; and after the abdication of Napoleon, Corfu, which had been well defended by General Donzelot, was, by order of Louis XVIII., ceded to Sir James Campbell. By the treaty of Paris (9th November 1815) the contracting powers— Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia—agreed to place the “United States of the Ionian Islands” under the exclusive protection of Great Britain, and to give Austria the right of equal commercial advantage with the protecting country, a plan strongly approved by Count Capodistrias, the famous Corfiot noble who afterwards became president of the new republic of Greece.

The terms of the treaty were unfortunately not only of indefinite import, but, if not actually self-contradictory, at least susceptible of contradictory interpretation. And, still more unfortunately, instead of interpreting the other articles in harmony with the first, which declared the islands one “sole free and independent state,” the protecting power availed itself of all that they contained in support of the extension of its authority. The first lord high commissioner, Sir Thomas Maitland, who as governor of Malta had acquired the sobriquet of “King Tom,” was not the man to foster the constitutional liberty of an infant state. The treaty required, with questionable wisdom, that a constitution should be established, and this was accordingly done; but its practical value may be judged of from the fact that the budget presented to the assembly of representatives in 1840, without risk of discovery, consisted of so much blank paper,—duly bound, it is true, in purple velvet. The constitution, which came into force in January 1818, placed the administration in the hands of a senate of six members and a legislative assembly of forty members; but the real authority was vested in the commissioner, who was able directly to }τrevent anything, and indirectly to effect almost anything. Sir Thomas Maitland was not slow to exercise the control thus permitted him, though on the whole he did so for the benefit of the islands. The construction of roads, the abolition of direct taxes and of the system of farming the church lands, the securing of impartial administration of justice, and the establishment of educational institutions are among the services ascribed to his efforts. These, however, made less impression on the Heptanesians than his despotic character and the measures which he took to prevent them giving assistance in the Greek war of independence in 1821. He was succeeded in 1823 by General Sir Frederick Adams, who in the main carried out the same policy, though he showed more favour to the aristocracy. It was under his government that the new fortifications of Corfu began to be constructed, and that some of the most important public works which still do honour to the English protectorate were undertaken. In Cephalonia the credit belongs, however, to Colonel Napier, one of the most able and arbitrary Englishmen who had to do with the islands. Lord Nugent, who became commissioner in 1832, began by allowing the parliament greater freedom, but was afterwards compelled to revert to the previous method of management. Sir Howard Douglas, his successor (1835-1841), had a stormy reign. He ruled with a firm, too often with a high hand; and he was met by continual intrigues, contentions, and calumnies. The parliament was prorogued in 1831, 1841, and 1842, the principal exponent of the opposition being the famous Mustoxidi (who died in 1861). A complete change of policy was inaugurated by Mr Mackenzie (1841-43), but his relations to the home Government, rendered more embarrassing by a bold act of his own, led to his speedy resignation. Lord Seaton (1843-49) was induced by the European disturbances of 1848 to propose and urge on a number of important reforms in the constitution; and in 1848 liberty of the press was granted by statute. Freedom of election, both parliamentary and municipal, a large extension of the franchise, and the restoration of voting by ballot were among the concessions of 1849. The assembly (the ninth) first elected under the extended franchise had to be twice prorogued by Sir Henry Ward (1849-1855), and was finally dissolved in 1851; and the growing hostility to the Government was vainly met by banishment of members of assembly and editors of papers. The party which wished for union with Greece was rapidly growing in vigour and voice. Serious insurrections of the peasantry, especially in Cephalonia, had to be put down by military force both by Lord Seaton and Sir Henry Ward. Sir John Young (1855-1859) found the tenth parliament of the same temper as the ninth: in its first session it passed a resolution in favour of immediate union with Greece. The hostility of the unionist party to the commissioner himself was increased by the publication (1858) of one of his despatches (stolen from the colonial office), in which he recommended that “Corfu and Paxo should, with the consent of their inhabitants, be converted into English colonies, and that only the southern islands should be handed over to Greece.” About the same time, however, the hopes of the unionists were roused by the appointment of Mr Gladstone as high commissioner extraordinary to investigate into the condition of the islands. From his eminence in Greek scholarship, and his known sympathy with Greek independence, it was their expectation that he would support if he did not satisfy their pretensions. But after a tour through the principal islands Mr Gladstone came to the conclusion that the abolition of the protectorate was not the wish of the mass of the people, and the cordial reception which he owed to his own reputation and character was too much ascribed by him to the general goodwill of the Ionians to the English Government. For a few days in 1859 he held office as lord high commissioner, and in that capacity he proposed for the consideration of the assembly a series of reforms. These reforms were, however, declared inadmissible by the assembly; and Sir Henry Storks (February 16, 1859), who succeeded to the difficult post which Mr Gladstone resigned, began his rule by a prorogation. The contest continued in the same style between the assembly and the protectorate. The English Government was slow to realize the true position of affairs: as late as May 1861 Mr Gladstone spoke of the cession of the islands as “a crime against the safety of Europe,” and Sir Henry Storks continued to report of tranquillity and contentment. The assembly of 1862 accused the commissioner of violation of the constitution and of the treaty of Paris, and complained that England remained in ignorance of what took place in the islands. During this time there had been considerable agitation in Greece owing to the disfavour in which King Otto (of Bavaria) was held. On the abdication of that prince in 1862 the Greek people by universal suffrage voted Prince Alfred of England to the throne, and when he declined to accept the crown England was asked to name a successor. The prince proposed was William, brother of the Princess of Wales; and the English Government declared to the provisional Government of Greece that if they accepted him (which they did) his power would be strengthened by the long-refused cession of the Ionian Islands. In 1863 the commissioner laid before the parliament (the thirteenth) the conditions on which the cession would be carried out. The rejection of one of those conditions— the demolition of the fortifications of Corfu—led to a new prorogation; but none the less (on November 14, 1863) the plenipotentiaries of the five great powers signed the protocol by which the protectorate was brought to a close. The neutrality which they attributed to the whole of the islands was afterwards (January 1864) confined to Corfu and Paxo. On May 30 of that year the lord high commissioner handed over the archives of the state to General Zaimis, the Greek plenipotentiary; and on the following day he left Corfu with the English troops and men-of-war. King George (Prince William of Schleswig-Holstein) made his entry into the capital on June 6th. The eighty representatives of the Ionian Islands took their places in the national parliament in July.

Bibliography.— Bondelmonte, Liber insularum Archipelagi (written about 1500; published by Sinner, 1824); Benedetto Bordonè, I solario, venice, 1528-34-62; T. Porcacchi da Castiglione, L'isole piu famose del mondo, Venice, 1590; Rul-hières, Essai sur les îles de Zante, de Cerigo, <fcc., Paris, 1799; Castellan, Lettres sur la Morée et les îles de Cerigo, Idra, et Zante, Paris, 1808; Holland, Travels in the I. I., «fcc., London, 1815; Vaudoncourt, Mémoires sur les îles Ioniennes, English translation, London, 1820; De Bosset, Parga and the I. I., London, 1822; C. J. Napier, The Colonies, London, 1833; Gifford, Visit to the 1.1., London, 1837; Sir George Bowen, The 1.1, under British Protection, London, 1850; Dr Davy, 1.1., London, 1842, containing many physical observations; H. Cook, The I. I., London, 1851; Liebetnit, Reise nach den Ionischen Inseln, Hamburg, 1850; Lunzi, Bella republica settinsulare, and various other works on the history of the islands by the same author; Ansted, The 1.1., London, 1863; Viscount Kirkwall, Four Years in the I. I., London, 1864, vol. i. containing a chronological history of the British protectorate; F. Lenormant, La Grice et les îles Ioniennes, Paris, 1865; P. Hiotis (Xιωτις), Hist, des îles Ioniennes, Zante, 1815-64. Mardo’s Saggio di una descrizione geografico·storica delie Isole, Corfu, 1865, is mainly geographical. De Bosset’s Description des monnaies dl Ithaque et de Cephalonie, London, 1815, is an early, contribution to the subject, fully treated by Postolakas, Κατάλογος τών αρχαίων νομισμάτων τών νήσων Κέρκυρας, Λευκάδας, <fcc., Athens, 1868. For the linguistic peculiarities of the islands reference may be made to Tsitβelis, Γλωσσάριου Keφαλληviαs, Athens, 1876.