diff --git "a/C015/Y01410.json" "b/C015/Y01410.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/C015/Y01410.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+[
+{"source_document": "", "creation_year": 1410, "culture": " English\n", "content": "Produced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive)\n  Transcriber\u2019s note:\n  Notes and their anchors are shown by numbers surrounded by\n  parantheses while numbers for footnotes and their anchors\n  are surrounded by square brackets.\n  WORKS ISSUED BY\n  The Hakluyt Society.\n  THE BONDAGE AND TRAVELS OF\n  JOHANN SCHILTBERGER.\n  No. LVIII.\n  THE\n  BONDAGE AND TRAVELS\n  OF\n  JOHANN SCHILTBERGER,\n  A NATIVE OF BAVARIA,\n  IN EUROPE, ASIA, AND AFRICA,\n  TRANSLATED FROM THE\n  HEIDELBERG MS. EDITED IN 1859 BY PROFESSOR KARL FRIEDRICH NEUMANN,\n  BY\n  COMMANDER J. BUCHAN TELFER, R.N.,\n  With Notes by\n  PROFESSOR P. BRUUN,\n  OF THE IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH RUSSIA, AT ODESSA;\n  AND A PREFACE, INTRODUCTION, AND NOTES BY THE\n  TRANSLATOR AND EDITOR.\n  Ne respice ad eum qui dixit, sed respice ad id quod dixit.\u2014SCALIGER,\n  _Proverb. Arab._\n  WITH A MAP.\n  LONDON:\n  PRINTED FOR THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY.\n  MDCCCLXXIX.\n  T. RICHARDS, PRINTER, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET, W.C.\n  FRIDERICO GVLIELMO\n  HEREDITARIO GERMANIAE PRINCIPI\n  HAEC NARRATIO ANGLO IDIOMATA CONSCRIPTA\n  DE CASIBVS MISERRIMIS CVIVSDAM BAVARI MILITIS\n  IPSIVS PRINCIPIS GRATIA ET ASSENSV\n  REVERENTER ET IN OBSEQVI TESTIMONIAM\n  INSCRIPSIT\n  COUNCIL\n  OF\n  THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY.\n  COLONEL H. YULE, C.B., PRESIDENT.\n  ADMIRAL C. R. DRINKWATER BETHUNE, C.B.   }\n  MAJOR-GENERAL SIR HENRY RAWLINSON, K.C.B.}\n  W. A. TYSSEN AMHERST, ESQ.\n  REV. DR. G. P. BADGER, D.C.L., F.R.G.S.\n  J. BARROW, ESQ., F.R.S.\n  WALTER DE GREY BIRCH, ESQ.\n  E. A. BOND, ESQ.\n  E. H. BUNBURY, ESQ.\n  ADMIRAL SIR RICHARD COLLINSON, K.C.B.\n  THE EARL OF DUCIE.\n  AUGUSTUS W. FRANKS, ESQ., F.R.S.\n  LIEUT.-GENERAL SIR J. HENRY LEFROY, C.B., K.C.M.G.\n  R. H. MAJOR, ESQ., F.S.A.\n  COLONEL SIR WM. L. MEREWETHER, C.B., K.C.S.I.\n  ADMIRAL SIR ERASMUS OMMANNEY, C.B., F.R.S.\n  LORD ARTHUR RUSSELL, M.P.\n  THE LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY.\n  EDWARD THOMAS, ESQ., F.R.S.\n  MAJOR-GENERAL SIR HENRY THUILLIER, C.S.I., F.R.S.\n  CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, ESQ., C.B., F.R.S., SEC. R.G.S., HONORARY\n    SECRETARY.\nPREFACE.\n  \u201cAn editor, or a translator, collects the merits\n  of different writers, and, forming all into a wreath,\n  bestows it on his author\u2019s tomb.\u201d\u2014SHENSTONE.\nThe world is indebted to the late Professor Karl Friedrich Neumann, for\nhaving rendered the perusal of Johann Schiltberger\u2019s travels generally\naccessible. Until his edition of the Heidelberg MS. appeared, in\n1859, there had been no publication of the interesting work, in its\nintegrity, since the year 1700, the supposed date of an edition, _sine\nanno, sine loco_; so that, as a fact, the work had become scarce, and\ncould be consulted in a few libraries only, or in private collections\nof rare books. In 1813, and again in 1814, was published Abraham Jacob\nPenzel\u2019s edition of what was known as the Nuremberg MS.; but its sole\nmerit consisted in the insertion of Proper and Geographical names in\ntheir original orthography, the work being otherwise vitiated by its\nmodern and paraphrased style, and by the introduction of passages, of\nwhich Schiltberger never could have been the author.\nScheiger[1] condemns this book as being written in a very extraordinary\nand uncommonly empty style, in which the narrative of the honest old\nBavarian drags itself along very uncouthly. Tobler[2] stigmatises it as\nbeing an unhappy translation into modern German, with no Introduction;\nand Neumann,[3] a still severer critic, says:\u2014\u201cThis edition, in its\nmodern garb, does honour to nobody. The additions to the original text\nare absurd, and testify to the editor\u2019s ignorance of Schiltberger\u2019s\ncharacter, and of the times in which he lived. Take, for instance, the\nfollowing sentence, with which Penzel concludes the author\u2019s address\nto the reader:\u2014\u2018Just as the doctor smears with honey the glass of\nphysic prepared for a sick child, so have I also, as an agreeable\npastime, introduced here and there some wonderful stories which, I\nflatter myself, will prove agreeable and instructive reading.\u2019\u201d Neumann\nmight have added, that Penzel was not even the originator of the idea\nconveyed in this passage, evidently borrowed from Tasso!\n  \u201cSai, che l\u00e0 corre il mondo, ove pi\u00f9 versi\n  Di sue dolcezze il lusinghier Parnaso,\n  E che \u2019l vero condito in molli versi\n  I pi\u00f9 schivi allettando ha persuaso.\n  Cos\u00ec all\u2019 egro fanciul porgiamo aspersi\n  Di soave licor gli orli del vaso:\n  Succhi amari ingannato intanto ei beve,\n  E dall\u2019 inganno suo vita riceve.\u201d\n  _La Gerusalemme Liberata_, Can. I, iii.\nIn 1823 these travels were again published, in 8vo., at Munich; but\nthis is a copy of which it would seem that very little is known.\nJudging by the numerous editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth\ncenturies, each issue being an almost exact transcript of the copy that\npreceded it, Schiltberger must have been a popular author during that\nperiod. One long blank occurs from 1557 to 1606, after which the book\nof travels was not again reprinted until 1700.\nThe version now offered is a literal translation of Neumann\u2019s edition\nin mittelhoch Deutsch, an exact transcript of the Heidelberg MS.,\nwith the exception of a few errors that have been rectified, and\nslight alterations in the headings of some chapters. Neumann believes\nhis book to be the first printed edition that faithfully represents\nwhat Schiltberger wrote, the wording in all previous editions having\nbeen changed to suit the language of the times. He has added an\nIntroduction and Notes by himself, and Notes by Fallmerayer and\nHammer-Purgstall; such of those Notes as are referred to in the new\nNotes at the end of this volume, appear in their proper places at foot\nin the text, each bearing the initial of the writer.\nKoehler[4] finds fault very unsparingly with Neumann, whom he\nreproaches with neglect in not correcting and elucidating the wording\nof the text. Tobler, on the contrary, considers Neumann\u2019s work more\nacceptable than Penzel\u2019s unfortunate translation into modern German,\nbecause there is an Introduction, and the Oriental names employed by\nthe author are explained.\nThe travels of Johann Schiltberger had never been translated into any\ntongue until Professor Bruun\u2019s edition, in Russian, appeared at Odessa\nin 1866; although a somewhat free interpretation of the original, it\nhas been of no small assistance to me where passages in the old German\nseemed obscure, as also in the identification of names. I am under a\ndeep sense of gratitude to that learned gentleman, for having enriched\nmy translation with a large number of most valuable and interesting\nNotes. They were supplied to me in French, and to ensure their faithful\nreproduction, my MS. in the first instance, and the proofs afterwards,\nwere sent to Odessa, for the Professor\u2019s corrections or alterations,\nand approval.\nI have to express my thanks to Aly Bey Riza, Cadri Bey, and Rassek Bey\nof Alexandria, for their kind aid in simplifying the Turkish and Arabic\nsentences that occur in various chapters; to Mr. Mnatzakan Hakhoumoff,\nof Shousha, for making clear to me the several phrases in Armenian; and\nto Dr. Niccolo Quartano de Calogheras, of Corfu, for his explanation\nof customs and rites as they are now observed in the Greek Church.\nI am also desirous of acknowledging the courtesy of those gentlemen\nwho have been good enough to reply to my enquiries, for information\nthat would assist me in compiling a Bibliography of existing editions\nof Schiltberger\u2019s travels; and it gives me much pleasure to name the\nRev. Leo Alishan, Venice; Dr. K. A. Barack, Strasburg; the Rev. A.\nBaumgarten, at the Kremsm\u00fcnster near Wels; Mr. A. Bytschkoff, St.\nPetersburg; Mr. E. F\u00f6rstemann, Dresden; Mr. A. Guten\u00e6ker, Munich; M.\nEdouard Hesse, Paris; Professor Heyd, Stuttgard; Dr. M. Isler, Hamburg;\nMr. J. Kraenzler, Augsburg; Professor Lepsius, Berlin; Dr. J. E. A.\nMartin, Jena; Dr. Noack, Giessen; Dr. Joh. Priem, Nuremberg; Dr. E.\nRitter von Birk, Vienna; Dr. G. T. Thomas, Munich; and Professor Karl\nZangemeister, Heidelberg; also the Principal Librarian of the public\nlibrary at Frankfort, and of the Bibliotheca Medicea-Laurentiana at\nFlorence. I have likewise to express my obligations to Colonel Yule,\nfor some useful and timely hints, so readily given.\nMany of the Proper and Geographical names that occur in the Notes,\nand they are very numerous, are spelled as they ordinarily appear in\nEnglish works, the orthography of the rest being in accordance with\ntheir pronunciation by a Persian and an Armenian gentleman, who did me\nthe favour to settle my doubts. It being impossible to produce certain\nsounds with vowels that are so variously pronounced in the English\nlanguage, I have had recourse to giving a phonetic value to various\nletters, in some instances accentuating the word for the sake of\nstress, with the acute or grave accent as in the Greek. The apostrophe\n\u2019 denotes an independent but rather soft breathing of a letter.\n  _a_, as in hart.\n  _e_, as in met.\n  _g_, usually hard.\n  _o_, as in ozone.\n  _ou_, as in routine.\n  _u_, as in sum.\n  _y_, like _e_ in English, and sometimes _y_.\n  _tch_, like _ch_ in church.\n  LONDON,\n  [1] _Taschenbuch f\u00fcr die vaterl\u00e4ndische Geschichte.\n  Herausgegeben durch die Freyherren von Hormayr und von\n  Mednyansky._ Wien, 1827, p. 161.\n  [2] _Bibliographia Geographica Pal\u00e6stin\u00e6_, etc. Leipzig,\n  [3] In the Introduction to his edition of Schiltberger\u2019s\n  Travels, 1859.\n  [4] _Germania_, etc., _herausgegeben von F. Pfeifer_,\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\nMANUSCRIPTS.\n1. A MS. of Schiltberger\u2019s travels, undoubtedly of the fifteenth\ncentury, preserved in the University Library at Heidelberg and known\nas the Heidelberg MS., consists of ninety-six carefully and neatly\nwritten sheets of paper, in good style, and evidently the work of a\nprofessional scribe. It is about eight inches long by six inches broad,\nbound in leather, with bronze corner plates and clasps, and bears on\nthe upper board a portrait in gold of the Elector, with the initials\nO. H.\u2014P. C., Otto Heinrich\u2014Palatinus Comes, and the date 1558. Another\ndate, 1443, probably the year in which the MS. was written, appears\ninside the binding, which is beautifully ornamented with illustrations\nfrom the Old and New Testaments. This volume was included in the\nPalatine Library that was carried off by Tilly in 1621, and presented\nby Maximilian, duke of Bavaria, to Gregory XV. as a trophy of the\nCatholic cause. After the general peace of 1815, Pius VII. restored the\ncollection to Heidelberg, at the instance of the King of Prussia.\n2. The ducal library at Donaueschingen possesses a MS. on paper, of\nthe fifteenth century, consisting of 134 leaves in sheepskin boards,\nwith brass corner plates and clasps. The work is contemporary with the\nHeidelberg MS., or at all events not of a later period.\n  _First page._\u2014ICh Johanns schiltperger zoch vsz von\n  miner haymat mit namen vs der Statt M\u00fanchen gelegen\n  in Bayern in der czit als k\u00fanig Sygmund zu vngern in\n  die haydenschafft zoch Das was als man zalt von Crists\n  geb\u00fart drwczehenhundert vnd in dem vier vnd n\u00fanczigisten\n  J\u00e4re mit ainem hern genant lienhart Richartinger vnd\n  kam vs der haydenschafft wider zu land Als man zalt von\n  Cristi gep\u00fart vierczehenhundert vnd in dem S\u00faben vnd\n  zwainczigosten J\u00e4r, etc.\nAt the last page is the Pater Noster in the Armenian and Tatar\ntongues.[1]\n3. Another MS. of Schiltberger\u2019s travels, of the end of the fifteenth\nor of the early part of the sixteenth century, in the public library at\nNuremberg, is entitled:[2]\n  Hanns Schiltperger von M\u00fcnchen ist auszgezogen da man\n  zalt 1394\u2014wiedergekommen 1427.\n  _First page._\u2014Ich Hanns Schiltperger pin von meine\n  Heymatt auszgezogen von der statt genandt Munchen die da\n  leyt zu p\u00e4yren da man zalt von cristgep\u00fcret MCCCLXXXXIIII\n  und das ist gescheen da konig Sigmundt zu ungern in\n  die Haydenschafft zoch[2] und da zoch ich auss der\n  obgenannten stat gerennes weyss mit und bin wider zu land\n  chomen da ma zalt von crist gepurt M.CCCC.XXVII auss der\n  Haydenschafft und das ich In der zeitt erfaren han In der\n  Haydenschafft dat stet hernach geschreibenn Ich mag es\n  aber nicht alles vorschreyben das ich erfaren han Wann\n  ich es alles nicht Indechtig bin u. s. w.[3]\nConcluding paragraph at the end.\n  Gott dem sey gedanckt das mir der macht und Krafft\n  gegeben hat und mich beh\u00fcett vnd beschirmet hatt zwai\n  vnd dreyssig Jare die ich Hansz Schiltperger jnn der\n  Haidenschafft gewesen pin vnd alles das vorgeschreiben\n  stet erfaren vnd gesehen han.[4]\nThis MS. was formerly the property of Adamnanus Rudolph Solger,\nprotestant pastor of the church of St. Laurence in Nuremberg, whose\nlibrary was sold in 1766, for the sum of 15,000 florins, to the\nmunicipality of the free town of Nuremberg, and now forms part of the\npublic library in that city. The MS. is bound in the same volume with\nothers, and is thus described in Solger\u2019s Catalogue.[5]\n  66. Ein starker Foliant von unterschiedlichen\n  Reissbeschreibungen: 1) Marcho Polo von Venedig ein Edler\n  Wandrer und Ritter ist ausgezogen A. 1230.[6] 2) Der\n  Heil. Vatter und Abt S. Brandon und mit seinen Br\u00fcdern\n  und mehr fahrt. 3) Der Edle Ritter und allervornehmste\n  Landfahrer Johannis de Monttafilla ist von Engelland\n  ausgezogen 1322, und wiederkommen 1330. 4) Der Heil.\n  Bruder Ulrich Friaul der minder Br\u00fcder Baarf\u00fcsser Orden\n  ein M\u00f6nch, ist ausgezogen und wiederkommen 1330. 5) Hanss\n  Schildberger ein wahrhaftig frommer Edelmann der ein\n  Diener ist gewesen des Durchlauchtigen F\u00fcrsten Albrecht\n  Pfalzgraf bey Rhein, ist von M\u00fcnchen ausgezogen 1394.\n4. In 1488, a MS. of Schiltberger\u2019s travels was in the possession of\na Receiver of Revenue, named Matthias Bratzl, who caused it to be\nbound in one volume, with MSS. of Marco Polo, St. Brandon, Sir John\nMandevile, and Ulrich of Frioul, and then wrote on the fly-leaf a note\nto the following effect:\u2014\u201cHaving acquired the herein-named books, I\nhave had them bound together, and have added a valuable and accurate\nmap. Should the reader of these writings not know where the countries\nare, whose customs and habits are described, they are to look into the\nmap. The map will also serve to complete what may be wanting in the\nbooks, and indicate the roads by which the travellers went. The map and\nthe books quite agree. Whoever inherits this volume after my death,\nis to leave the different books together, and the map with them.\u201d\nWhen Gottlieb von Murr, the distinguished bibliographer and antiquary\n(1733-1811), saw the volume, the map was missing.\nThis MS. was originally at Munich, but being sent to Nuremberg for\nthe purpose of being published, was there kept in the city library.\nSchlichtegroll, the biographer, sanctioned the loan of it to Penzel,\nwho turned its contents into modern German, producing the editions of\n1813 and 1814. Penzel died at Jena in 1819, leaving his body to the\nanatomical theatre, his books to the public library, and all his debts\nto the grand-duke of Weimar. He had not returned the MS., and it was\nnever afterwards recovered. Neumann thinks that it may have been in the\nauthor\u2019s own handwriting.\n  [1] _Die Handschriften der F\u00fcrstlich-F\u00fcrstenbergischen\n  Hofbibliothek zu Donaueschingen. Geordnet and beschreiben\n  von_ Dr. K. A. Barack, Vorstand der Hofbibliothek.\n  [2] Communicated by Dr. Joh. Priem of Nuremberg.\n  [3] Completed from Panzer, _Annalen der \u00e4lteren deutschen\n  [4] Communicated by Dr. Joh. Priem of Nuremberg.\n  [5] _Bibliotheca sive supellex Librorum impressorum in\n  omni genere scientiarum maximam partem rarissimorum et\n  Codicum Manuscriptorum_ etc. Nuremberg.\n  [6] Printed by Anton Sorg, Augsburg, 1481.\nPRINTED BOOKS.\n(1.) _s.a._ _s.l._ fol. with woodcuts; 37 lines (?) in each page.\nPrinted, probably, by G\u00fcnther Zainer, Ulm. 1473?\n  _Title._\u2014Hie vahet an d Schildberger der vil wunders\n  erfaren hatt in der heydenschafft und in d t\u00fcrckey.\nA copy of this edition is in the public library at Augsburg; another is\nat Munich, but in a very defective state.\nThis edition, believed to be the earliest, is mentioned by Panzer,\nEbert, Kobolt, Brunet, Hain, Ternaux-Compans, and Gr\u00e4sse.\n(2.) _s.a. s.l._ fol. with 15 woodcuts.\nForty-six leaves without pagination, register or catch-words; 33, 34,\n35, or 36 lines in each page.\nPrinted, probably, by A. Sorg, Augsburg. 1475?\n  Ich Schildtberger zoche auss von meiner heimet mit Namen\n  auss der stat m\u00fcnchen gelegen in bayern in der zeyt als\n  k\u00fcnig Sigmund zu vngern in die heydenschafft zoch das was\n  als man zalt von christi geburt dreizechenhundert und an\n  dem vier und ne\u00fcntzigesten Jar etc.\nA copy at the British Museum is bound in one volume with duke Ernest of\nBavaria; S. Brandon, abbot; and Ludolphus de Suchem. Another copy is in\nthe public library, Munich.\n(3.) _s.a. s.l._ Fifty-seven leaves.\n  Hy\u0113 vahet an der Schildtberger der vil wunders erfaren\n  hat in der heydenschafft vnd in d T\u00fcrckey.\nA copy at the public library, Munich, is bound in one volume with duke\nErnest, and S. Brandon. A duplicate is defective. The imperial and\nroyal library at Vienna also possesses a copy.\nMentioned by Tobler who quotes Gr\u00e4sse.\nTobler mentions an edition of this date, being a reprint of Zainer\u2019s\nedition, 1473?\n(6.) _s.a._ J. v. Berg and U. Newber, Nuremberg. 4^o. with woodcuts. No\npagination, but with catch-words.\n  _Title._\u2014Ein wunderbarliche vnnd k\u00fcrtzweylige Histori\n  wie Schildtberger einer auss der Stat M\u00fcnchen in Bayern\n  von den T\u00fcrcken gefangen in die Heydenschafft gef\u00fcret\n  vnnd wider heymkommen Item was sich f\u00fcr krieg vnnd\n  wunderbarlicher thaten diervyl er inn der Heydenschafft\n  gewesen zugetragen gantz k\u00fcrtzweylig zu lesen N\u00fcrmberg\n  durch Johann vom Berg Vnd Ulrich Newber.\nCopies of this edition are in the royal library, Dresden, and the\npublic library, Munich.\nMentioned by Ebert and Tobler.\n(7.) 1549. Herman G\u00fclfferich, Frankfort. 4^o. with 37 woodcuts. Seventy\nleaves; 32 lines in each page. No pagination, but with catch-words. Has\na preface.\n  _Title._\u2014Ein wunderbarliche vnd kurtzweilige History wie\n  Schildtberger einer auss der Stad M\u00fcnchen inn Beyern von\n  den T\u00fcrcken gefangen inn die Heydenschafft gef\u00fcret vnnd\n  widder heimkommen ist sehr l\u00fcstig zu lesen. M.D.XLIX.\n  _Colophon._\u2014Gedruckt zu Franckfurdt am Mayn durch Herman\n  G\u00fclfferichen inn der Schnurgassen zu dem Krug.\nCopies of this edition are in the British Museum, in the public\nlibrary, Munich, and imperial public library, St. Petersburg.\nMentioned by Panzer, Ebert, Kobolt, Ternaux-Compans, Grasse, and Tobler.\n  _Title._\u2014Similar to that printed at Frankfort in 1549.\nMentioned by Panzer who quotes Meusel.\nScheiger saw at Wels, in Austria, a copy which was supposed to be of\nthe year 1551, and published at Munich. It was stated in a MS. marginal\nnote, that Schiltberger was born at mid-day, on the 8th day of May.\n(10.) _s.a._ Weygandt Han, Frankfort. 4^o. with 37 woodcuts, similar to\nthose in the edition of 1549. Seventy leaves; 32 lines in each page. No\npagination, but with catch-words. Has a preface.\n  _Title._\u2014Ein wunderbarliche unnd kurtzweilige History Wie\n  Schildtberger einer auss der Stadt M\u00fcnchen in Beyern von\n  den T\u00fcrcken gefangen in die Heydenschafft gef\u00fcret vnd\n  wider heimkommen ist sehr l\u00fcstig zu lesen.\n  _Colophon._\u2014Gedruckt zu Franckfurdt am Mayn durch\n  Weygandt Han in der Schnurgassen zum Krug.\nCopies of this edition are in the British Museum, where it is\ncatalogued, 1554? In the royal library, Dresden; public library,\nFrankfort; public library, Hamburg; imperial public library, St.\nPetersburg.\nMentioned by Panzer, Ebert, and Tobler who says that the above Title,\nand the Title of the edition printed at Nuremberg by J. v. Berg and U.\nNewber (see 6), are identical!\n  _Title._\u2014Gefangenschaft in der T\u00fcrckey. (According to\n  Ternaux-Compans.)\n(12.) 1606. J. Francke, Magdeburg. 4^o., with woodcuts.\n  _Title._\u2014Eine wunderbarliche vnd kurtzweilige History,\n  Wie Schildtberger, einer aus der Stadt M\u00fcnchen in Bayern,\n  von den T\u00fcrcken gefangen, in die Heydenschafft gef\u00fchret,\n  vnd wider heymkommen ist, sehr lustig zu lesen.\nA copy of this edition is in the library of the imperial university,\nStrasburg.\nMentioned by Freytag, Ebert, Kobolt, Tobler who quotes Gr\u00e4sse, and\nTernaux-Compans from whom we learn of another edition\u2014\n(13.) 1606. Frankfort. 8vo.\n  _Title._\u2014Reise in die Heydenschaft.\nSupposed by Tobler to be of the year 1700.\n(15.) 1813. Edited by A. J. Penzel. Munich, small 8vo.\n  _Title._\u2014Schiltberger\u2019s aus M\u00fcnchen von den T\u00fcrken in der\n  Schlacht von Nicopolis 1395 gefangen, in das Heidenthum\n  gef\u00fchrt, und 1427 wieder heimgekommen. Reise in den\n  Orient und wunderbare Begebenheiten von ihm selbst\n  geschrieben. Aus einer alten Handschrift \u00fcbersetzt und\n  herausgegeben von A. J. Penzel.\n(16.) 1814. Edited by A. J. Penzel. Munich, small 8vo.\nA copy of the last edition, with similar title-page.\n  _Title._\u2014Sch. a. M\u00fcnchen v. d. T\u00fcrken in d. Schlacht v.\n  Nicopolis 1395 in d. Heidenthum gef\u00fchret u. 1417 (sic)\n  wieder heimgekommen, Reise in den Orient u. wunderb. Beg.\n  v. ihm. s. geschr.\nThus quoted by Gr\u00e4sse.\n(18.) 1859. Edited by Prof. K. F. Neumann. Munich, small 8vo.\nWith Introduction and Notes by the editor, and Notes by Fallmerayer and\nHammer-Purgstall.\n  _Title._\u2014Reisen des Johannes Schiltberger aus M\u00fcnchen, in\n  Europa, Asia, und Afrika, von 1394 bis 1427. Zum ersten\n  Mal nach der gleichzeitigen Heidelberger Handschrift\n  herausgegeben und erl\u00e4utert von Karl Friedrich Neumann.\nIn the copy of this edition at the Institut, Paris, are several loose\nsheets containing a resum\u00e9 of the Travels, in MS., by D\u2019Avezac.\n(19.) 1866. Edited by Professor Philip Bruun. Odessa. 8vo.\n  _Title._\u2014Pouteshestvy\u2019ye Ivana Schiltbergera pa Yevrope,\n  Asii y Afrike, s. 1394 po 1427 god.\nPublished in the Records of the Imperial University of New Russia, vol.\ni.\nThis attempt at a Bibliography of the Travels of Johann Schiltberger\nis no doubt far from being complete; but I believe it to be the first\nof its sort. The details given by Bibliographers are not, in many\ncases, very explicit, and no little difficulty has been experienced in\ncollecting desirable information, replies to enquiries not being always\nreadily obtained.\nAccording to Tobler, for instance, the university at Berlin possesses\ncopies of six different editions; but my requests for particulars have\nnot been successful\u2014and so in other quarters.\n  Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes.\nINTRODUCTION\n  \u201cwas ich die zit in dem land der haidenschafft strites\n  und wunders herfaren Und och was ich hoptstett und\n  wassers gesehen und gemercken m\u00fcgen hab Davon vindent ir\n  hienach geschriben villicht nicht gar volkomenlich Dorumb\n  das ich ein gefangener man vnd nicht min selbs was Aber\n  sovil ich des hon begriffen vnd mercken mocht So hon\n  ich die land vnd die stett genant nach den sprachen der\n  land\u201d\u2014SCHILTBERGER.\nIF any reliance is to be placed in a MS. marginal note that appears on\na page of an old edition of the Travels of Schiltberger, presumed to be\nof the year 1551, and preserved at Wels in Austria,[1] then the author\nof the work before us was born at mid-day on the 9th day of May\u2014in\nthe year 1381, according to his own showing, because he states in the\nopening of his narrative, that he had not yet attained his sixteenth\nyear when at the battle of Nicopolis (Sept. 28, 1396). So completely\ndoes Schiltberger eschew all reference to himself, that he leaves us\nquite in the dark even with regard to the place of his birth; for, in\naddressing the Reader, he states that his home was near the city of\nMunich; but upon his return to Bavaria, he proceeds to Frisingen, near\nwhich town he was born. Nothing whatever is known of his parentage\nor childhood; and that he has not remained entirely neglected and\nforgotten is owed to Thurnmaier, better known as Aventinus, who states,\nthat upon his return from bondage, Schiltberger was taken in hand by\nthe duke Albrecht III., and nominated his Chamberlain, an appointment\nthat was probably made, in Neumann\u2019s opinion, before the duke\u2019s reign\nbegan, in 1438. This is all the Bavarian annalist has to say of his\ninteresting countryman.\nIn the Introduction to his edition, Neumann offers a few particulars on\nthe Schiltberge family, as they were communicated to him by C\u00f6lestin\nvon Schiltberg, Manager of the Royal Salt Mines at Reichenhall.\nThe origin of the ancient name of Schiltberger, or Schiltberge, is not\nknown, but it is, in all probability, composite, from Schild\u2014a coat\nof arms\u2014and Berg, the mount on which the arms were raised. A certain\nBerchtholdus Marescalcus de Schiltberg is mentioned in a document\nof the year 1190, and others of the name appear at later dates as\nburghers, and marshals to the dukes of Bavaria.[2]\nThe Schiltberges of to-day trace their pedigree to our author, who is\nstyled Chamberlain and Commander of the Body-guard to Albrecht III.\nSeveral of their ancestors, during the 18th century, were Counsellors\nin the Bavarian Electorate, and two Schiltberges, Johann Peter and\nFranz Joseph, were Professors of Law at the University of Ingolstadt.\nAn Imperial decree, dated March 27, 1786, raising three brothers of\nthe \u201cancient and noble lineage of Schiltberg\u201d to the dignity of nobles\nof the State, having been confirmed by the Bavarian Electorate, the\nSchiltberges have ever since been included in the peerage of Bavaria.\nNeumann\u2019s complaint that our author has never been fully appreciated\nby his countrymen, appears to be only too true; but the same cannot\nbe said of aliens. Leunclavius has availed himself largely, in his\n_Pandects_,[3] of the information supplied by an eye-witness, for\nthe purpose of illustrating the history of the Turks; and in later\ntimes, such men as J. R. Forster, M. C. Sprengel, J. Chr. von Engel,\nHugh Murray, Hammer, Scheiger, Aschbach, Vivien de Saint-Martin,\nFallmerayer, D\u2019Avezac, Bruun, and Yule, have borne witness to the worth\nof what Schiltberger has left behind. If he is charged by Karamsin\nwith making confused and senseless statements, the historian at least\nbelieves him to be truthful, and to have really been at all the places\nhe claims to have visited.\nJohann Schiltberger left his home in the year 1394, as he himself\ninforms us, with his master, Leonard Richartinger. That was two years\nbefore the battle of Nicopolis was fought, ten months of which time be\nspent in Hungary, where his lord was in all probability serving in\nthe auxiliary forces under Sigismund, king of that country. He must\ntherefore have been launched into the world when in his fourteenth\nyear only, and whatever the state of his education at that early\nage, certainly no opportunities could have been afforded him for\nimproving it, during his long term of servitude. The composition of\nhis work, throughout, and the diversified and undetermined mode of\nspelling Proper and Geographical names, show that the scribe was not\na careful one, and tends to prove Schiltberger\u2019s inability to read\nwhat was written, and correct the mistakes that were made; it is thus\nfairly conclusive, I venture to say, that his book, like so many other\nnarratives of the Middle Ages, was written under dictation, a fact\nexhibiting marvellous retention of memory, when it is considered that\nthe incidents extend over the space of about thirty-three years. That\nno journal was kept, is apparent from errors in computation of time.\nOf this there are two striking instances; the first, in the estimate\nof length of service under Bajazet, from September 1396 to July 1402,\nwhich is calculated at twelve years; and the author\u2019s statement that he\nwas six years with Timour, when, as a matter of fact, the actual period\nextended from July 1402 to February 1405.\nSchiltberger no doubt dictated his adventures soon after his return to\nhis native country, because in the concluding chapter he explains \u201chow\nand through what countries I have come away\u201d. The various incidents of\nhis career in the East are recorded without method, and were evidently\nrelated just as the recollection of them occurred to him, so that the\nattempt to follow in his footsteps, with any precision, becomes a\nhopeless task; and irregularly interspersed with his narrative, are\ndescriptions of places and events, that he learnt from hearsay only,\nnot having been either a spectator or participator. This inconsistent\nand incongruous style, again, betokens the man wanting in instruction;\nbut every page affords evidence of the intelligence, veracity, modesty,\nand high principles of the honest-minded Bavarian; indeed the whole,\nso straightforward, truthful, and certainly useful, will compare\nfavourably with the most trustworthy of medi\u00e6val writers, not excepting\neven Marco Polo. \u201cNotwithstanding a few historical and geographical\nerrors,\u201d says Hammer, \u201cthis book of Travels remains a precious monument\nof the history and topography of the middle ages, of which Bavarians\nmay be as justly proud as Venice is of her Marco Polo.\u201d[4] There is\nnothing to show that Schiltberger was a reading man, or that he availed\nhimself of the writings of others, except in one instance, in which\nit can scarcely be doubted that he had recourse to some authority\nwhen giving the dimensions of the walls of Babylon, which coincide so\nexactly with what is found recorded in Herodotus. How otherwise could\nthe poor slave have traced and verified such measurements?\nSchiltberger has wisely distinguished what he heard from what he\nhimself saw, and therefore does not hesitate to indulge in the recital\nof the marvellous and ridiculous, without, however, the least touch of\nhumour or criticism. A battle was fought between serpents and vipers,\nnear Samsoun on the Black Sea coast; not whilst he was in the city, but\n\u201cduring the time I was with Bajazet\u201d. Entering with childlike pleasure\ninto the fullest particulars on the Castle of the Sparrow-hawk, he\ntakes care to say, that when one of his companions wanted to visit\nit and see the virgin who resided there, nobody could be found to\nshow the way, because the castle was hidden by trees, and the Greek\npriests also forbade approach to it. Then there is the story of the\ndestruction of the mirror at Alexandria, related in the most perfect\nsimplicity, and, as is his custom, without a word of comment; but that\nthe Pope\u2019s conduct was iniquitous in the sight of good Schiltberger\nis very certain, for he seeks to excuse his lesson of dissimulation\nto the priest, on the plea that all was done \u201cfor the sake of the\nChristian faith\u201d. _Vera sunt vera et falsa sunt falsa; sed si ecclesia\ndicit vera esse falsa et falsa esse vera, falsa sunt vera et vera sunt\nfalsa._ If Bellarmine was really the first to pen these lines, verily\nit was no new precept that he was promulgating. Another instance of\nSchiltberger\u2019s appreciation of the truth is to be found in his relation\nof the tale of the saintly man in Khorasan, who had attained his three\nhundred and fiftieth year. \u201cSo the Infidels said,\u201d are the words added.\nSuch is the manner in which Schiltberger treats these and all the\nother absurd inventions to which he listened in his leisure hours.\nWhen the text is largely illustrated with Notes\u2014in the present work\nthey form the greater part of the volume\u2014little room is left for\nintroductory remarks; nor is it necessary to recapitulate the substance\nof the text. It will therefore suffice to give a rapid outline of the\nauthor\u2019s movements during his lengthened captivity.\nThe battle of Nicopolis is the most important episode in the busy and\neventful career of Schiltberger, whose circumstantial account of the\naction fully agrees with what we learn from other sources. He escaped\nthe general massacre of prisoners, upon the defeat and flight of\nSigismund, through the timely intervention of Souleiman, the eldest son\nof Bajazet. Thurnmaier says that Schiltberger was spared on account\nof his good looks, and at once appointed page to the Sultan;[5] but\nthis is probably a fancy of the Bavarian annalist, because it is very\ndistinctly asserted in the text that none under twenty were executed,\nand the youthful captive was barely sixteen years of age. He suffered\nconsiderably from the effects of three wounds, a circumstance to which\nhe casually and most modestly refers in a subsequent chapter. Whilst\nin the service of Bajazet, he was employed as one of his personal\nattendants in the quality of runner; he possibly took part in the siege\nof Constantinople; was in an expedition sent to Egypt for the relief of\nthe sultan Faradj, when he probably embarked at some port in Cilicia;\nand in various expeditions in Asia Minor.\nUpon the fall of Bajazet at the battle of Angora, July 20th, 1402, our\nrunner became the prisoner of Timour, with whom he remained in Asia\nMinor; the Sultan himself being a captive in the camp. The fable of the\niron cage is scarcely worth recalling to mind; but had there been a\nshadow of truth in it, Schiltberger would not have failed to notice the\ncircumstance of the powerful monarch he had served so long being thus\nignominiously treated.\nSchiltberger\u2019s first acquaintance with Armenia and Georgia was made\nupon the occasion of Timour\u2019s invasion of those countries after his\nconquests in Asia Minor. Then followed the expedition to Abhase, the\nperiod of rest in the plain of Karabagh, and the return to Samarkand\nacross the Araxes and through the kingdoms of Persia.\nAs the victories of the invincible Timour in India, Azerbaijan, and\nSyria, were related to him by his new comrades, so has Schiltberger\nrecorded them, with some fresh details on the horrible atrocities\ncommitted.\nUpon the death of Timour, at Otrar, in 1405, our author passed into the\nhands of his son, Shah Rokh, probably taking part in the expeditions of\nthat monarch into Mazanderan and the Armenian provinces, Samarkand, and\nthe territories about the Oxus, spending his winters in the plain of\nKarabagh, where good pasturage was to be found; but after the defeat of\nKara Youssouf, Chief of the Turkomans of the Black Sheep, he remained\nin the contingent left by Shah Rokh, at the disposal of his brother,\nMiran Shah. This amir was afterwards himself overthrown by Kara\nYoussouf, and Schiltberger became subject to Aboubekr, a son of Shah\nRokh, under whom he served for some time, first at Kars[6] and then\nat Erivan, where he had frequent opportunities for again enjoying the\nsociety of his friends and co-religionists, the Armeno-Catholics, and\nperfecting himself in their language.\nFrom Erivan, Schiltberger was dispatched with four other Christians\nas part escort to the Tatar prince, Tchekre, recalled to assume the\nsupreme power in the Golden Horde. Traversing the provinces on the\nwestern shore of the Caspian Sea, and passing through Derbent into\nGreat Tatary, they reached a place that we find named \u201cOrigens\u201d, and\nwhich Professor Bruun is at some pains to prove was no other than\nAnjak, at one time a port on the Caspian, near Astrahan. Some curious\ndetails are given on the succession to the Khanate of the Golden Horde,\nwhich serve to authenticate historical accounts, as will be found\non reference to the Notes thereon; and we also read of the warlike\nqualities of the Tatars of the Horde, of their hardy mode of living,\neating meat raw and drinking the blood of their horses, a custom of war\nmentioned by Marco Polo.\nWe now come to what may be considered to be about the most interesting\nportion of the travels before us, viz.: the expedition to Siberia\nfor the purpose of conquest. The customs, religion, food, mode of\ntravelling, and clothing of its inhabitants, are so circumstantially\nlaid before the reader, that it cannot be doubted Schiltberger saw with\nhis own eyes all he recounts; he would never otherwise have observed\nthat there were many wild beasts in the country, the names of which\nhe could not tell, because they did not exist in Germany; nor would\nhe have concluded the chapter in which he speaks of these things, by\nsaying: \u201cAll this I have seen, and was there with the above-named\nking\u2019s son, Zeggra.\u201d\nIn alluding to the sledge-dogs of Great Tatary and Siberia, Rubruquis,\nMarco Polo, and Ibn Batouta, dwell upon their large size. It is not a\nlittle remarkable that Marco Polo, who never saw those animals, should\nhave heard that they were as big as donkeys; the very simile employed\nby Schiltberger. They now are certainly much inferior in size.\nThe conquest of Siberia by Ydegou, was followed by that of Great\nBolgara; after which, Tchekre returned into Great Tatary, and in due\ncourse became ruler of the Horde. Upon his death, the author fell into\nthe hands of one of his counsellors, named \u201cManstzusch\u201d, who, being\nforced to flee, traversed the kingdom of Kiptchak, and arrived at Kaffa\nin the Crimea. It was when upon this journey that Schiltberger saw the\nriver Don; the city of Tana, Solkhat the capital of Kiptchak, and the\ncities of Kyrkyer and Sary Kerman.\nIn Chapter 37, the author says that he was present at the marriage\nfestivities of a daughter of the sultan, Boursba\u00ef, a monarch who\nascended the throne in 1422; and as he did not lose his lord, Tchekre,\nuntil about the year 1424 or 1425, it follows that he must have gone\nto Egypt, at least for the second time, subsequently to the latter\ndate, but by what route and for what purpose there are no means of\ndetermining; although this was probably the occasion of his passing\nthe island of Imbros, and touching at the port of Salonica. During his\nsojourn in Egypt, the author was afforded the opportunity of witnessing\nthe reception of foreign ambassadors at the Court of the Mamelouk\nmonarch, some portion of the ceremonial observed upon those occasions\nreminding us of the brilliant doings in the palace of the Greek\nEmperors, amongst whose earliest predecessors those magnificent state\nformalities were introduced by the Romans, who had themselves adopted\nthem from the Kings of Persia, after their conquests in the far East.\nFrom Egypt, Schiltberger was sent into Palestine, when he visited\nseveral of the holy places, and to Arabia, where it may be taken for\ngranted that he assisted at one of the customary Mahomedan pilgrimages.\nBeing too devotedly attached to his own Church to entertain the least\nsympathy for Islamism, our traveller is careful to avoid saying\nanything that might be construed into a semblance of his having\nrenounced his religion, under whatsoever circumstances; but that he\nmust have done so, inevitably, may be accepted as an unquestionable\nfact, for where is the page in the history of Bajazet, of Timour,\nand of his successors, that tells of a Christian having been spared\npersecution, followed by torture and death? Nor is it credible that\nthe presence of a slave, professing Christianity, would have been at\nall tolerated in the camps of those barbarous and fanatic rulers.\nSchiltberger has taken delight in supplying all the information he was\nable to obtain on the forms and solemnities of the Armenian and Greek\nChurches, showing at the same time the respect in which he held Saints\nin general, by never failing to relate the miracles attributed to them,\nfor\n  \u201cOur superstitions with our life begin;\u201d\nbut he has equally proved his proficiency in Mahomedanism, in devoting\nno less than eleven chapters to an exposition of its history,\ndoctrines, and legends.\nWhether or not Schiltberger traversed the Hyjaz of Arabia, will\npossibly remain a controverted point; the probability is that he did do\nso, not from the shores of the Red Sea, but from Syria and Palestine.\nWe find him describing from personal observation, first, the pelican,\na bird which, according to Buffon, frequents the borders of Palestine\nand Arabia, and even the arid wastes of Arabia and Persia; then the\n\u201cgiant\u2019s shin-bone\u201d, that spanned a ravine between two mountains\nand served as a bridge; an indication that leads Professor Bruun to\nthe neighbourhood of Kerak and Shaubek, on the beaten track to the\nHyjaz. More than this, mention is made of the tomb of the prophet at a\nplace called \u201cMadina\u201d, its situation and ornamentations being clearly\nexplained; accuracy that is quite exceptional, as nearly all medi\u00e6val\nnotices of the tomb of Mahomet place it at Mecca. If our author did\nindeed travel into Arabia from Palestine, he would have been the\npredecessor of Varthema (1503) by that route, and he is also the first\nEuropean known to have visited the holy places of Islam.\nQuitting Egypt, Schiltberger returned to the Crimea, afterwards\naccompanying his lord, \u201cManstzusch\u201d, to the Caucasus, where he found\nthe slave trade in full swing, a traffic he vigorously condemns by\nsaying of the people, who sold even their own children, that they were\n\u201cb\u00f6s l\u00fct\u201d. Whilst in Circassia, at that time tributary to the Golden\nHorde, the Great Khan required of its ruler that \u201cManstzusch\u201d should\nbe expelled his territory. That prince being thus forced to change his\nresidence, proceeded to Mingrelia, through Abhase and Soukhoum its\nchief town. An unhealthy country, says our author, when describing the\npeculiar customs, dress, and religion of the people.\nIt is singular that, although Schiltberger notices the existence of\nChristians at Samsoun, Joulad, in Georgia, the Crimea, and other\nplaces, he makes no mention of the large European community at\nSavastopoli, as Soukhoum was called by the Genoese, who, especially,\nwere very numerous, and had had a consul at that port from the year\n1354. That there were many Roman Catholics at Savastopoli is very\ncertain, for the place was constituted a bishop\u2019s see, a condition not\nat all gratifying to the native population which belonged to the Greek\nChurch, as would appear from the following circumstance:\u2014\nIn 1330, Peter, bishop of Senascopoli (sic) or Savastopoli, addressed\na letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England,\ncollectively, in which he complains of the oppression practised on\nChristians in the East, who were carried off into slavery; an infamous\ntraffic he was unable to suppress because the local authorities, who\nbelonged to the schismatic Greek religion, were inimical to him. He\nentreats the bishops of England to present the bearer of the letter,\none Joachim of Cremona, to the warriors of England, who fight for God\nand aspire to power! That letter is preserved in the public library at\nRatisbon, and can scarcely be supposed to have reached its destination\nat any time.\nBeing in Mingrelia, Schiltberger was in a Christian country temptingly\nsituated on the borders of the Black Sea. It is most likely that he\nreceived sufficient encouragement from the people to induce him to\nattempt to regain his liberty, and, at a favourable moment, he and four\nof his Christian comrades made their escape and succeeded in reaching\nthe coast at Poti,[7] where they had hoped to find some friendly vessel\nthat would receive them. Failing in this, they rode along the shore\nto the hills in Lazistan, and one evening, after dark, had the good\nfortune to communicate, by means of signal fires, with a European ship\noff the land. Our traveller and his companions were obliged to prove\ntheir identity by repeating the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo,\nbefore the boat\u2019s crew could be prevailed upon to take them off to\nthe ship; and after a tedious voyage of many weeks, during which the\nvessel was chased by pirates and detained by contrary gales, and the\ncrew had suffered from want of provisions, Constantinople was reached.\nThere the runaways were kindly received and cared for by the emperor\n(John VIII. Pal\u00e6ologos), who placed them in charge of the patriarch,\nin whose house they lived. Schiltberger is full of admiration for the\ngreat palaces, the church of St. Sophia, and the magnificent walls of\nthe imperial city; but not being free to move about as he pleased,\nduring his long stay in it, the account of Constantinople and of its\nmarvels is exceedingly meagre, when compared with the descriptions\nleft by other visitors. Indeed, what little Schiltberger was able to\ndo in the way of sight-seeing was effected surreptitiously, with the\nconnivance of the patriarch\u2019s servants, whom he accompanied on their\nerrands as opportunities offered.\nAt the expiration of three months, our author and his comrades were\nsent to Kilia at the estuary of the Danube. Hence Johann Schiltberger\neasily found his way to his native country, where he arrived some time\nin the year 1427, offering thanks to Almighty God for his escape \u201cfrom\nthe Infidel people and their wicked religion\u201d, and for having preserved\nhim from \u201cthe risk of perdition of body and soul\u201d.\n  [1] I regret that two applications to the library at\n  Wels for the fullest particulars with reference to this\n  marginal note, have been unsuccessful.\n  [2] For notices on the Schiltberger family, see\n  _Monumenta Boica_, iii, 170; vi, 532, 538; vii, 137;\n  viii, 150, 504; ix, 93, 577; and many other records in\n  this collection. Also Hund\u2019s _Bayrischen Stammbuche_, i,\n  332, ii, 108, 478; Meichelbeck\u2019s _Historia Fris._, ii,\n  [3] _Neuwe Chronica T\u00fcrckischer nation von T\u00fcrcken selbs\n  beschreiben_ etc., Franckfurt am Mayn, 1590, iii, 207.\n  [4] _Berichtigung der orientalischen Namen\n  Schiltberger\u2019s_, in _Denkschriften der K\u00f6niglichen\n  Akademie der Wissenschaften zu M\u00fcnchen, f\u00fcr Jahre 1823\n  und 1824_. Band ix.\n  [5] \u201cJoannes Schildtperger tum puer, Monachi oppido\n  Bojari\u00e6 ortus, captus, ob elegantiam form\u00e6 a filio\n  Basaitis servatus, in aula Turcarum educatus et victo\n  Basaite a Tamerlano rege Persarum, arma victoris secutus\n  est, et tandem mortuo Tamerlane in patriam postliminio\n  reversus a Cubiculo Alberto avo Principum nostrorum fuit.\n  etc.\u201d\u2014_Annalib. p. m._, 805.\n  [6] Gouria, according to Professor Bruun.\n  [7] Batoum, according to Professor Bruun.\n  1. Of the first combat between King Sigmund and the Turks           1\n  2. How the Turkish king treated the prisoners                       4\n  3. How Wyasit subjugated an entire country                          6\n  4. How Wyasit made war on his brother-in-law, and killed him        7\n  5. How Weyasit drives away the king of Sebast                      10\n  6. What sixty of us Christians had agreed upon                     10\n  9. How the Infidels remain in the fields with their cattle, in\n  10. How Weyasit took a country that belonged to the Sultan         18\n  12. How Temerlin conquered the kingdom of Sebast                   20\n  14. How T\u00e4merlin goes to war with the King-Sultan                  22\n  16. How T\u00e4merlin conquered Lesser India                            24\n  17. How a vassal carried off riches that belonged to T\u00e4merlin      26\n  18. How T\u00e4merlin caused MMM children to be killed                  27\n  19. T\u00e4merlin wants to go to war with the Great Chan                28\n  22. How Joseph caused Mirenschach to be beheaded, and took\n  23. How Joseph vanquished a king and beheaded him                  32\n  24. How Schiltberger came to Aububachir                            33\n  26. How one lord succeeds another lord                             36\n  27. Of an Infidel woman, who had four thousand maidens             37\n  29. In which countries I have been, that lay between the Tonow\n  30. Of the castle of the sparrow-hawk, and how it is guarded       41\n  31. How a poor fellow watched the sparrow-hawk                     42\n  32. More about the castle of the sparrow-hawk                      42\n  33. In which countries silk is grown, and of Persia and of other\n  34. Of the tower of Babilony that is of such great height          46\n  36. The countries in which I have been, that belong to Tartary     49\n  37. How many kings-sultan there were, whilst I was amongst the\n  40. Of Jherusalem and of the Holy Sepulchre                        57\n  41. Of the spring in Paradise, with IIII rivers                    61\n  45. Of the many religions the Infidels have                        65\n  46. How Machmet and his religion appeared                          65\n  50. Why Machmet has forbidden wine to Infidels                     72\n  51. Of a fellowship the Infidels have among themselves             73\n  52. How a Christian becomes an Infidel                             74\n  53. What the Infidels believe of Christ                            75\n  54. What the Infidels say of Christians                            76\n  55. How Christians are said not to hold to their religion          77\n  56. How long ago it is, since Machmet lived                        78\n  60. How the city of Constantinoppel was built                      83\n  61. How the Jassen have their marriages                            85\n  66. Why the Greeks and Armani are enemies                          96\n  67. Through which countries I have come away                       99\nSCHILTBERGER TO THE READER.\nI, JOHANNS SCHILTBERGER, left my home near the city of Munich, situated\nin Payren, at the time that King Sigmund of Hungary left for the\nland of the Infidels. This was, counting from Christ\u2019s birth, in the\nthirteen hundred and ninety-fourth year,[1] with a lord named Leinhart\nRichartingen. And I came back again from the land of the Infidels,\ncounting from Christ\u2019s birth, fourteen hundred and twenty seven.\nAll that I saw in the land of the Infidels, of wars, and that was\nwonderful, also what chief towns and seas I have seen and visited, you\nwill find described hereafter, perhaps not quite completely, but I was\na prisoner and not independent. But so far as I was able to understand\nand to note, so have I [noted] the countries and cities as they are\ncalled in those countries, and I here make known and publish many\ninteresting and strange adventures, which are worth listening to.\n  [1] Neumann states in a note that this date, through the\n  transcriber\u2019s error, appears as 1344 in the Heidelberg MS.\n1.\u2014Of the first combat between King Sigmund and the Turks.\nFrom the first, King Sigmund appealed in the above-named year, thirteen\nhundred and ninety-four, to Christendom for assistance, at the time\nthat the Infidels were doing great injury to Hungern. There came many\npeople from all countries to help him;(1) then he took the people and\nled them to the Iron Gate, which separates Ungern from Pulgery and\nWalachy, and he crossed the Tunow into Pulgary, and made for a city\ncalled Pudem.(2) It is the capital of Pulgery. Then came the ruler of\nthe country and of the city, and gave himself up to the king; then the\nking took possession of the city with three hundred men, good horse and\nfoot soldiers, and then went to another city where were many Turks.\nThere he remained five days, but the Turks would not give up the city;\nbut the fighting men expelled them by force, and delivered the city to\nthe king. Many Turks were killed and others made prisoners. The king\ntook possession of this city also, with two hundred men, and continued\nhis march towards another city called Schiltaw, but called in the\nInfidel tongue, Nicopoly.(3) He besieged it by water and by land for\nXVI days, then came the Turkish king, called Wyasit, with two hundred\nthousand men, to the relief of the city. When the king, Sigmund, heard\nthis, he went one mile to meet him with his people, the number of whom\nwere reckoned at sixteen thousand men. Then came the Duke of Walachy,\ncalled Werterwaywod,[1](4) who asked the king to allow him to look at\nthe winds.[2] This the king allowed, and he took with him one thousand\nmen for the purpose of looking at the winds, and returned to the king\nand told him that he had looked at the winds, and had seen twenty\nbanners, and that there were ten thousand men under each banner, and\neach banner was separate from the other. When the king heard this, he\nwanted to arrange the order of battle. The Duke of Walachy asked that\nhe might be the first to attack, to which the king would willingly have\nconsented. When the Duke of Burguny heard this, he refused to cede\nthis honour to any other person, for the just reason that he had come\na great distance with six thousand men,(5) and had expended much money\nin the expedition, and he begged the king that he should be the first\nto attack. The king asked him to allow the Ungern to begin, as they had\nalready fought with the Turks, and knew better than others how they\nwere armed. This he would not allow to the Ungern, and assembled his\nmen, attacked the enemy, and fought his way through two corps; and when\nhe came to the third, he turned and would have retreated, but found\nhimself surrounded, and more than half his horsemen were unhorsed, for\nthe Turks aimed at the horses only, so that he could not get away,\nand was taken prisoner. When the king heard that the Duke of Burgony\nwas forced to surrender, he took the rest of the people and defeated\na body of twelve thousand foot soldiers that had been sent to oppose\nhim. They were all trampled upon and destroyed, and in this engagement\na shot killed the horse of my lord Lienhart Richartinger; and I, Hanns\nSchiltberger his runner, when I saw this, rode up to him in the crowd\nand assisted him to mount my own horse, and then I mounted another\nwhich belonged to the Turks, and rode back to the other runners. And\nwhen all the [Turkish] foot-soldiers were killed, the king advanced\nupon another corps which was of horse. When the Turkish king saw the\nking advancing, he was about to fly, but the Duke of Iriseh, known\nas the despot,(6) seeing this, went to the assistance of the Turkish\nking with fifteen thousand chosen men and many other bannerets, and\nthe despot threw himself with his people on the king\u2019s banner and\noverturned it; and when the king saw that the banner was overturned\nand that he could not remain, he took to flight.[3] Then came he of\nCily,[4] and Hanns, Burgrave of Nuremberg, who took the king and\nconducted him to a galley on board of which he went to Constantinoppel.\nWhen the horse and foot soldiers saw that the king had fled, many\nescaped to the T\u00fcnow and went on board the shipping; but the vessels\nwere so full that they could not all remain, and when they tried to\nget on board they struck them on the hands, so that they were drowned\nin the river; many were killed on the mountain as they were going to\nthe Tunow. My lord Lienhart Richartinger, Wernher Pentznawer, Ulrich\nKuchler, and little Stainer, all bannerets, were killed in the fight,\nalso many other brave knights and soldiers. Of those who could not\ncross the water and reach the vessels, a portion were killed; but the\nlarger number were made prisoners. Among the prisoners were the Duke of\nBurgony(7) and Hanns Putzokardo,[5] and a lord named Centumaranto.[6]\nThese were two lords of France, and the Great Count of Hungern. And\nother mighty lords, horsemen, and foot-soldiers, were made prisoners,\nand I also was made a prisoner.\n  [1] This name appears as Martin in edition of 1814;\n  Merter Waywod in edition of 1475; and Merte Weydwod in\n  that of 1549.\n  [2] To reconnoitre. In the edition of 1814 the term\n  employed is \u201czu recognosciren\u201d.\n  [3] The battle of Nicopolis was fought September 28th,\n  [4] Herman of Cily. _N._\n  [5] Boucicault, who has described the battle in his\n  _Memoirs_. _H._\n  [6] Saint Omer. _F._\n2.\u2014How the Turkish king treated the prisoners.\nAnd now when the King Weyasat had had the battle, he went near the city\nwhere King Sigmund had encamped with his army, and then went to the\nbattle-field and looked upon his people that were killed; and when he\nsaw that so many of his people were killed, he was torn by great grief,\nand swore he would not leave their blood unavenged, and ordered his\npeople to bring every prisoner before him the next day, by fair means\nor foul. So they came the next day, each with as many prisoners as he\nhad made, bound with a cord. I was one of three bound with the same\ncord, and was taken by him who had captured us. When the prisoners\nwere brought before the king, he took the Duke of Burgony that he might\nsee his vengeance because of his people that had been killed. When\nthe Duke of Burgony saw his anger, he asked him to spare the lives of\nseveral he would name; this was granted by the king. Then he selected\ntwelve lords, his own countrymen, also Stephen Syn\u00fcher and the lord\nHannsen of Bodem.(1) Then each was ordered to kill his own prisoners,\nand for those who did not wish to do so the king appointed others in\ntheir place. Then they took my companions and cut off their heads,\nand when it came to my turn, the king\u2019s son saw me and ordered that I\nshould be left alive, and I was taken to the other boys, because none\nunder XX years of age were killed, and I was scarcely sixteen years\nold. Then I saw the lord Hannsen Greiff, who was a noble of Payern, and\nfour others, bound with the same cord. When he saw the great revenge\nthat was taking place, he cried with a loud voice and consoled the\nhorse- and foot-soldiers who were standing there to die. \u201cStand firm\u201d,\nhe said, \u201cwhen our blood this day is spilt for the Christian faith, and\nwe by God\u2019s help shall become the children of heaven.\u201d When he said\nthis he knelt, and was beheaded together with his companions. Blood was\nspilled from morning until vespers, and when the king\u2019s counsellors\nsaw that so much blood was spilled and that still it did not stop,\nthey rose and fell upon their knees before the king, and entreated\nhim for the sake of God that he would forget his rage, that he might\nnot draw down upon himself the vengeance of God, as enough blood was\nalready spilled. He consented, and ordered that they should stop, and\nthat the rest of the people should be brought together, and from them\nhe took his share and left the rest to his people who had made them\nprisoners. I was amongst those the king took for his share, and the\npeople that were killed on that day were reckoned at ten thousand men.\nThe prisoners of the king were then sent to Greece to a chief city\ncalled Andranopoli, where we remained prisoners for fifteen days. Then\nwe were taken by sea to a city called Kalipoli;(2) it is the city where\nthe Turks cross the sea, and there three hundred of us remained for two\nmonths confined in a tower. The Duke of Burgony also was there in the\nupper part of the tower with those prisoners he had saved; and whilst\nwe were there, the King Sigmund passed us on his way to Windischy\nland.(3) When the Turks heard this, they took us out of the tower and\nled us to the sea, and one after the other they abused the king and\nmocked him, and called to him to come out of the boat and deliver his\npeople; and this they did to make fun of him, and skirmished a long\ntime with each other on the sea. But they did not do him any harm, and\nso he went away.\n3.\u2014How Wyasit subjugated an entire country.\nOn the third day after the Turkish king had killed the people and\nsent us prisoners to the above named city, he marched upon Ungern and\ncrossed the river called the Saw, at a city called Mittrotz, and took\nit and all the country around; and then he went into the Duchy of\nPetaw, and took with him from the said country sixteen thousand men\nwith their wives and children and all their property, and took the city\nof the above name and burnt it; and the people he took away and some he\nleft in Greece.[1](1) And after he passed the river called the Saw, he\nsent orders to Karipoli that we were to be taken across the sea; and\nwhen we were taken across the sea, we were taken to the king\u2019s capital\ncalled Wursa, where we remained until he himself came. And when he\narrived in the city he took the Duke of Burgony and those the duke had\nsaved, and lodged them in a house near to his palace. The king then\nsent a lord named Hoder of Ungern, with sixty boys, as a mark of honour\nto the king-sultan;(2) and he would have sent me to the king-sultan,\nbut I was severely wounded, having three wounds, so for fear I might\ndie on the way I was left with the Turkish king. Other prisoners\nwere sent as an offering to the king of Babilony(3) and the king of\nPersia,(4) also into White Tartary,[2](5) into Greater Armenia,(6) and\nalso into other countries. I was taken to the palace of the Turkish\nking; there for six years I was obliged to run on my feet with the\nothers, wherever he went, it being the custom that the lords have\npeople to run before them. After six years I deserved to be allowed to\nride, and I rode six years with him, so that I was twelve years with\nhim; and it is to be noted what the said Turkish king did during these\ntwelve years, all of which is written down piece by piece.\n  [1] Styrian historians have overlooked this statement of\n  Schiltberger. _N._\n  [2] White Tartars, _i.e._, Free Tartars. White signifies\n  free in the Tartar and Russian tongues; black, on the\n  contrary, signifies subject-races or those that are\n  tributary. _N._\n4.\u2014How Wyasit made war on his brother-in-law, and killed him.\nFrom the first he was at war with his brother-in-law, who was called\nCaraman, and this name he had because of his country. The capital of\nthe country is called Karanda,(1) and because he would not be subject\nto him, he marched upon him with one hundred and fifty thousand men.\nWhen he knew that King Weyasit had advanced, he went to meet him with\nseventy thousand men, the best he had in the land, and with whom he\nintended to resist the king. They met each other on the plain in front\nof the city called Konia, which belonged to the said lord, Caraman.\nHere they attacked each other and began to fight, and had on the same\nday two encounters by which one tried to overcome the other, and both\nsides had rest at night, that one might not do harm to the other. That\nsame night Karaman made merry with trumpets, with drums, and with\nhis guards, with the object of causing alarm to Weyasit; but Weyasit\narranged with his people that they should not make a fire except for\ncooking, and should immediately again put it out. At night he sent\nthirty thousand men to the rear of the enemy, and said to them that\nwhen he should attack in the morning they should also attack. When the\nday broke, Weyasit went against the enemy, and the thirty thousand\nmen attacked in the rear as they were ordered, and when Karaman saw\nthat the enemy was attacking him in front and behind, he fled into\nhis city of Konia, and remained in it to defend himself. Weyasit lay\nsiege to the city for XI days without being able to take it; then the\ncitizens sent word to Weyasit that they would surrender the city if\nhe would secure to them their lives and property. To this he agreed.\nThen they sent word to say that they would retire from the walls when\nhe came to storm, and thus he might take the city. And this occurred.\nAnd when Karaman saw that Weyasit was entering the city, he attacked\nhim with his warriors, and fought with him in the town, and if he had\nreceived the least assistance from the inhabitants he would have forced\nWeyasit out of the city; but when he saw that he had no assistance,\nhe fled, but was taken before Weyasit, who said to him: \u201cWhy wilt\nthou not be subject to me?\u201d Karaman answered, \u201cBecause I am as great\na lord as thyself.\u201d Weyasit became angry, and asked three times if\nthere was anybody who would rid him of Karaman. At the third time\ncame one who took him aside and cut off his head and went back with\nit to Weyasit, who asked what he had done with him? He answered, \u201cI\nhave beheaded him.\u201d Then he shed tears and ordered that another man\nshould do to him what he did to Karaman, and he was taken to the place\nwhere he beheaded Karaman and he was also beheaded. This was done\nbecause Weyasit thought that nobody should have killed so mighty a\nlord, but should have waited until his lord\u2019s anger had passed away.\nHe then ordered that the head of Karaman should be fixed on a lance\nand carried about the country, so that other cities might submit to\nhim on hearing that their lord was killed. After this he occupied the\ncity of Konia with his people and marched upon the city of Karanda,\nand called upon them to surrender as he was their lord, and if they\nwould not do so he would compel them with the sword. Then the citizens\nsent out to him four of their most eminent [fellow citizens], to beg\nthat he would ensure to them their lives and their property, and\nbegged, as their lord Karaman was dead, and they had two of his sons\nin the city, that he would appoint one of them to be their lord; and\nshould he do so, they would surrender to him the city. He replied\nthat he should spare their lives and property, but when he would have\npossession of the city, he should know what lord to appoint, whether\nthe son of Karaman or one of his own sons. And so they parted. When\nthe citizens heard Weyasit\u2019s answer they would not give up the city,\nand said that although their lord was dead he had left two sons, under\nwhom they will recover or die. And so they defended themselves against\nthe king until the fifth day. And as Weyasit saw that they continued to\nresist, he sent for more people and ordered arquebuses to be brought,\nand platforms to be constructed. When Karaman\u2019s sons and their mother\nsaw this, they sent for the chief citizens and said to them: \u201cYou see\nplainly that we cannot resist Weyasit, who is too powerful for us; we\nshould be sorry if you died for our sakes, and we have agreed with our\nmother that we will trust to his mercy.\u201d The citizens were pleased at\nthis, and the sons of Karaman and their mother, and the chief citizens\nof the city, opened the gates and went out. And as they were advancing,\nthe mother took a son in each hand and went up to Weyasit, who, when\nhe saw his sister with her sons, went out of his tent towards her, and\nwhen they were near him they threw themselves at his feet, kissed them,\nand begged for mercy, and they gave the keys of the gates and of the\ncity. When the king saw this, he ordered his lords who were near him\nto raise them. When this was done he took possession of the city, and\nappointed one of his lords to be governor, and he sent his sister and\nher two sons to his capital called Wurssa.\n5.\u2014-How Weyasit drives away the king of Sebast.(1)\nThere was a vassal named Mirachamad who resided in a city called\nMars\u00fcany; it was on the border of Karaman\u2019s country. When Mirachamad\nheard that King Weyasit had conquered Karaman\u2019s country, he sent to\nhim to ask him to drive away also the king of Sebast, who was called\nWurthanadin, who had seized upon his territory because he could not\nhimself expel him, and he should give him the territory in exchange\nfor one in his own country. Weyasit sent to his assistance his son\nMachamet with thirty thousand men, and they forcibly expelled the king\ncalled Wurthanadin out of the country.[1] Then Mirachamad bestowed\nupon Machamet[2] the capital and all the territory, because his first\nengagement had been in its behalf. Then Weyasit took Mirachamad with\nhim to his own country, and gave him another territory for his own.\n  [2] Mouhammed, a younger son of Bajazet.\n6.\u2014What sixty of us Christians had agreed upon.\nAnd when Weyasit came to his capital, there were sixty of us Christians\nagreed that we should escape, and made a bond between ourselves and\nswore to each other that we should die or succeed together; and each\nof us took time to get ready, and at the time we met together, and\nchose two leaders from amongst ourselves by lot, and whatever they\nordered we were to obey. Then we rose after midnight and rode to a\nmountain and came to it by daybreak. And when we came to the mountain\nwe dismounted, and let our horses rest until sunrise, when we remounted\nand rode the same day and night. And when Weyasit heard that we had\ntaken to flight, he sent five hundred horse with orders that we were\nto be found, that we were to be caught, and brought to him. They\novertook us near a defile, and called to us to give ourselves up.\nThis we would not do, and we dismounted from our horses and defended\nourselves against them as well as we could. When their commander saw\nthat we defended ourselves, he came forward and asked for peace for\none hour. We consented. He came to us and asked us to give ourselves\nup as prisoners; he would answer for the safety of our lives. We said\nwe would consult, and did consult, and gave him this answer: We knew\nthat so soon as we were made prisoners, we should die so soon as we\ncame before the king, and it would be better that we should die here,\nwith arms in our hands, for the Christian faith. When the commander saw\nthat we were determined, he again asked that we should give ourselves\nas prisoners, and promised on his oath that he would ensure our lives,\nand if the king was so angry as to want to kill us, he would let them\nkill him first. He promised this on his oath, and therefore we gave\nourselves up as prisoners. He took us before the king, who ordered that\nwe should be killed immediately; the commander went and knelt before\nthe king, and said that he had trusted in his mercy and had promised us\nour lives, and asked him also that he should spare us because he had\neven sworn that such would be the case. The king then asked him if we\nhad done any harm? He said: No. Then he ordered that we should be put\ninto prison; there we remained for nine months as prisoners, during\nwhich time twelve of us died. And when it was the Easter-day of the\nInfidels, his eldest son Wirmirsiana,[1](1) begged for us, then he set\nus free, and ordered that we should be brought to him; then we were\nobliged to promise him that we should never try to escape again, and he\ngave us back our horses and increased our pay.\n  [1] The Amir Souleiman. The other sons of Bajazet were\n  Mouhammed and Mousa.\n7.\u2014How Wyasit took the city of Samson.(1)\nAfterwards, in the summer, Wyasit took eighty thousand men into a\ncountry called Genyck, and lay siege to a capital called Samson. This\ncity was built by the strong man Samson, from whom it has its name. The\nlord of the country was of the same name as the country, Zymayd, and\nthe king expelled the lord out of the land; and when it was heard in\nthe city that their lord was driven away, the people gave themselves up\nto Weyasit, who occupied the city and all the country with his people.\n8.\u2014Of serpents and vipers.\nA great miracle is to be noted which took place near the said city of\nSamson, during the time that I was with Weyasit. There came around the\ncity such a lot of vipers and serpents, that they took up the space of\na mile all round. There is a country called Tcyenick which belongs to\nSampson; it is a wooded country in which are many forests. One part of\nthe vipers came from the said forests, and one part came out of the\nsea. The vipers remained for XI days, and then they fought with each\nother, and nobody dared to leave the city on account of the vipers,\nalthough they did no harm either to men or to cattle. Then the lord of\nthe city and of the country gave orders that likewise no harm should be\ndone to these reptiles, and said it was a sign and a manifestation from\nAlmighty God. And now on the tenth day, the serpents and vipers fought\nwith each other from morning until the going down of the sun, and when\nthe lord and the people of the city saw what was done, the lord caused\nthe gate to be opened, and rode out with a few people out of the city,\nand looked where the vipers were fighting, and saw that the vipers from\nthe sea had to succumb to those of the forests. And the next morning\nearly, the lord again rode out of the city to see if the reptiles were\nstill there; he found none but dead vipers, which he ordered to be\ncollected and counted. There were eight thousand. He then ordered a pit\nto be made, and ordered all to be thrown in and covered with earth, and\nhe sent to Weyasit, who at that time was lord in Turkey, to tell him of\nthe marvel. He took it for a piece of luck, as he had only just taken\nthe city and country of Samson, and almost rejoiced that the forest\nadders had succumbed to the sea adders, and said it was a manifestation\nfrom Almighty God, and he hoped that as he was a powerful lord and king\nof the sea-board, so he would also, by the help of God the Almighty,\nbecome the powerful lord and king of the sea. Samson consists of\ntwo cities opposite to each other, and their walls are distant, one\nfrom the other, an arrow\u2019s flight. In one of these cities there are\nChristians, and at that time the Italians of Genoa(1) possessed it. In\nthe other are Infidels to whom the country belongs. At that time the\nlord of the city and country was a duke called Schuffmanes, son of [the\nduke of] Middle Pulgrey, the chief city of which country is Ternowa,(2)\nand who at that time had three hundred fortified towns, cities, and\ncastles. This country was conquered by Weyasit who took the duke and\nhis son. The father died in prison, and the son became converted to\nthe faith of the Infidels, so that his life might be spared. Weyasit\nconquered Samson and the country, and conquered Zyenick; and the city\nand the country he gave to him for his lifetime, in place of his\nfatherland.\n9.\u2014How the Infidels remain in the fields with their cattle, in winter\nand summer.\nIt is the custom among the Infidels for some lords to lead a wandering\nlife with their cattle, and when they come to a country that has good\npasturage, they rent it of the lord of the country for a time. There\nwas a Turkish lord called Otman, who wandered about with his cattle,\nand in the summer came to a country called Tamast, and the capital of\nthe country is also so called. He asked the king of Tamast, who was\ncalled Wurchanadin,(1) that he would lend him a pasturage where he\nand his cattle might feed during the summer. The king lent him such\na pasturage, to which he went with his dependants and cattle, and\nremained there the summer; and in autumn he broke up and returned to\nhis country, without the king\u2019s permission and knowledge; and when the\nking heard of this he became very angry, and took one thousand men with\nhim and went to the pasturage that Otman had occupied, and encamped\nthere, and sent four thousand horsemen after Otman, and ordered that\nthey should bring back Otman alive, with all his belongings. And when\nOtman heard that the king had sent after him, he hid himself in a\nmountain, so that those who rode after him could not find him; and they\nencamped on a meadow in front of the mountain where Otman was with his\npeople, and remained there that night without troubling themselves\nabout him. And when the day dawned, Otman took one thousand of his best\nhorsemen to look at the winds, and when he saw that they were not on\ntheir guard, and were without care, he rode towards them and suddenly\ntook them by surprise, so that they could not defend themselves, and\nmany of them were killed; the others took to flight. The king was told\nhow Otman had annihilated his expedition, but he would not believe it,\nand thought that fun was being made of him, until some of them came\nrunning to him. Even then he would not believe it, and sent one hundred\nhorsemen to see if such was the case; and when the hundred horsemen\nwent to see about it, Otman was on his way with his people to attack\nthe king; and when he saw the hundred horsemen he overtook them, and\ncame with them into the camp. And when the king and his people saw\nthat they were overtaken, and that they could not defend themselves\nany more, they took to flight. The king himself had scarcely time to\nmount his horse, and took to flight to a mountain; but one of Otman\u2019s\nservants saw him, and hastened after him on the mountain; then the king\ncould fly no farther, and the soldier called upon him to surrender;\nbut he would not give himself up. Then he took his bow and would have\nshot him, when the king made himself known and asked him to let him\ngo, promising to give him a fine castle, and he wanted to give him the\nring he had on his hand as a pledge. The soldier would not do so, and\nmade him a prisoner and brought him to his lord. And Otman pursued the\npeople all day until the evening, and killed many of them, and encamped\nwhere the king had stayed, and sent for the people and cattle that he\nhad left to run about the mountains. And when the people came with the\ncattle, he took the king, and went to the capital called Tamastk, where\nhe encamped with all his people, and sent word into the city that he\nhad captured the king, and that if they would deliver to him the city,\nhe would give peace and security. The city made this answer: If he\nhad their king, they had his son, and they had lords enough, as he was\ntoo weak to be a lord. He then said to the king, that if he wanted his\nlife to be spared, he should speak to the citizens that they give up\nthe city. So they took him before the city, and he asked the citizens\nthat they should deliver him from death, and give up the city to Otman.\nThey replied: We will not give up the city to Otman, because he is\ntoo feeble a lord for us; and if thou shouldst no longer care to be\nour lord, we have thy son, whom we will have for our lord. When Otman\nheard this, he was angry, and seeing his anger, the king begged him\nto spare his life, promising to give him the city of Gaissaria, with\nall its dependancies. This Otman would not do, and he ordered the king\nto be beheaded in sight of the people of the city, and ordered that\nafterwards he should be quartered, each part being fixed on a stake\nstuck in the ground in sight of the city, and the head on the point\nof a lance, together with the four quarters. And whilst the king lay\nbefore the city, the king\u2019s son sent to his father-in-law, the powerful\nruler of White Tartary, that he should come to his assistance, because\nOtman had killed his father and many others, and that he was before the\ncity. And so soon as his father-in-law heard this, he took with him all\nhis people, with their wives, children, and all their cattle, as is the\ncustom of the country, because he intended going to Tamast to deliver\nthe country from Otman, and his people were numbered at forty thousand\nmen, without including women and children. When Otman heard that the\nTartar king was approaching, he went with his people to the mountains,\nwhere he encamped. The Tartar king encamped before the city, and so\nsoon as Otman heard of it, he took fifteen hundred men and divided them\ninto two parts, and when night came he marched upon them on both sides\nwith loud cries. When the Tartar king heard of this, he thought they\nwanted to betray him, and fled into the city, which, when his people\nheard, they also took to flight. Otman pursued them and killed a great\nmany, and captured much booty. They returned to their country, and\nOtman took with him to the mountain where he had left his cattle, the\ncattle and the booty that he had taken from them. Before it was day,\nthe Tartar king rode after his people to make them turn back; this they\nwould not do, so he turned back again. Then Otman again lay siege to\nthe city, and invited them to give him the city, and he would do as he\nhad promised. This they would not do, and sent to beg Weyasit to come\nand drive Otman out of the country, and they would surrender the city\nto him. Weyasit sent his eldest son, with twenty thousand horsemen and\nfour thousand foot-soldiers, to the help of the town; and I also was in\nthis expedition. And when he heard that the son of Weyasit was coming,\nhe sent his property and cattle to the mountain where he had been, and\nhe himself remained in the plain with one thousand horsemen. Then the\nking\u2019s son sent two thousand horsemen to see if they could find Otman;\nand when they saw Otman, they attacked each other. And when they saw\nthat they could not overcome him, they sent for assistance. Then came\nWeyasit\u2019s son, with all his people. But when Otman saw him, he rode\nagainst him, and would quickly have put him to flight, for the people\nwere not close together. The king\u2019s son cried to his people, and they\nbegan to fight, and they fought for three hours consecutively. And\nwhen they were fighting with each other, four thousand foot-soldiers\nattacked the tent of Otman, and when he heard this, he sent four\nhundred horsemen, who, with the assistance of those who kept the goods\nand cattle, expelled the foot-soldiers out of the tent. Otman went with\na force into the mountain, where his property was, and sent it away,\nand remained during that time before the mountain. Then the king\u2019s\nson appeared before the city, and the citizens opened the gates of\nDamastchk, and rode out and asked him to take the city. This he would\nnot do, and sent to his father, that he should come and take the city\nand territory. He came with one hundred and fifty thousand men, took\nthe city and country, and gave them to his son Machmet, and not to him\nwho had expelled Otman from being king of the city and country.(2)\n10.\u2014How Weyasit took a country that belonged to the Sultan.\nAfter Weyasit had installed his son in the kingdom, he sent to the\nking-sultan in respect to a city called Malathea,(1) and the country\nthat belonged to the city, because the city and the country belonged\nto the above-named kingdom which was in the possession of the\nking-sultan, and therefore required that he should surrender the city\nof Malathea and the territory, because he had conquered the kingdom.\nThe king-sultan sent word to him that he had won the kingdom by the\nsword, and he who wished to have it must also win it by the sword.\nWhen Weyasit received this answer, he went into the country with two\nhundred thousand men, and lay siege to the city for two months; and\nwhen he found that it would not surrender, he filled up the ditches and\nsurrounded the city with his people, and began to storm. When they saw\nthis they asked for mercy, and gave themselves up. Then he took the\ncity and the country, and occupied it.\nAt about the same time, the White Tartars besieged the city called\nAngarus, which belonged to Weyasit; and when he heard of this, he sent\nto its assistance his eldest son with thirty-two thousand men. He\nfought a battle, but he was obliged to return to Wyasit, who ordered\nmore men, and sent him back again. But he fought with him, and took\nthe Tartar lord and two vassals, and brought them as prisoners to\nWeyasit, and thus the White Tartars gave themselves up to Weyasit. He\nput another lord over them, took the three lords to his capital, and\nthen marched against another city called Adalia,[1] which belonged to\nthe sultan, and the city is not far from Zypern; and in the country to\nwhich the city belongs, there are no other cattle but camels. After\nWeyasit took the city and the country, the country made him a present\nof ten thousand camels; and after he occupied the city and the country,\nhe took the camels into his own country.\n  [1] Adalia or Satalia, on the sea-shore. William of Tyre\n  so called the chief city of Pamphylia. The town lies, as\n  correctly stated, opposite to Cyprus. _N._\n11.\u2014Of the King-Sultan.\nAbout this time died the king-sultan, named Warchhoch, and his son\nnamed Joseph became king; but one of his father\u2019s dependants went to\nwar with him for the kingdom. Then Joseph sent to Weyasit, and became\nreconciled with him, and asked him that he should come to help him.\nSo he sent twenty thousand men to help him, in which expedition I was\nalso. Thus Joseph expelled his rival, and became a powerful king.(1)\nAfter this it was told him, that five hundred of his dependants were\nagainst him, and were in favour of his rival. He ordered that they\nshould be taken to a plain, where they were all cut into two parts.\nAfterwards, we again returned to our lord, Weyasit.\n12.\u2014How Temerlin conquered the kingdom of Sebast.\nWhen Weyasit had expelled Otman from Tamast, as has already been\nstated, he went to his lord named T\u00e4merlin, to whom he was subject,\nand complained of Weyasit, how he had driven him away from the kingdom\nof Tamask, which he had conquered, and at the same time asked him to\nhelp him to reconquer his kingdom. T\u00e4merlin said that he would send to\nWeyasit, to restore the country. This he did, but Weyasit sent word\nthat he would not give it up, for as he had won it by the sword, it\nmight as well be his as another\u2019s. So soon as T\u00e4merlin heard this, he\nassembled ten hundred thousand men, and conducted them into the kingdom\nof Sebast, and lay siege to the capital, before which he remained\nXXI days, and he undermined the walls of the city in several places,\nand took the city by force, although there were in it five thousand\nhorsemen sent by Weyasit.(1) They were all buried alive in this way.\nWhen T\u00e4merlin took the city, the governor begged that he would not shed\ntheir blood. To this he consented, and so they were buried alive. Then\nhe levelled the city, and carried away the inhabitants into captivity\nin his own country. There were also nine thousand virgins taken into\ncaptivity by T\u00e4merlin to his own country.(2) Before he took the city,\nhe had at least three thousand men killed. Then he returned to his own\ncountry.\n13.\u2014Weyasit conquers Lesser Armenia.\nScarcely had T\u00e4merlin returned to his own country,(1) than Weyasit\nassembled three hundred thousand men, and went into Lesser Ermenia and\ntook it from T\u00e4merlin, and took the capital called Ersingen, together\nwith its lord who was named Tarathan,(2) and then went back to his\nown country. So soon as T\u00e4merlin heard that Weyasit had conquered the\nsaid country, he went to meet him with sixteen hundred thousand men;\nand when Weyasit heard this, he went to meet him with fourteen hundred\nthousand men. They met near a city called Augury, where they fought\ndesperately. Weyasit had quite thirty thousand men of White Tartary,\nwhom he placed in the van at the battle. They went over to T\u00e4merlin;\nthen they had two encounters, but neither could overcome the other. Now\nT\u00e4merlin had thirty-two trained elephants at the battle, and ordered,\nafter mid-day, that they should be brought into the battle. This was\ndone, and they attacked each other; but Weyasit took to flight, and\nwent with at least one thousand horsemen to a mountain. T\u00e4merlin\nsurrounded the mountain so that he could not move, and took him.[1]\nThen he remained eight months in the country, conquered more territory\nand occupied it, and then went to Weyasit\u2019s capital and took him\nwith him, and took his treasure, and silver and gold, as much as one\nthousand camels could carry; and he would have taken him into his own\ncountry, but he died[2] on the way[3](3). And so I became T\u00e4merlin\u2019s\nprisoner, and was taken by him to his country. After this I rode after\nhim. What I have described took place during the time that I was with\nWeyasit.\n  [2] March 8th, 1403, at Aksheher.\n  [3] Schiltberger\u2019s accounts agree perfectly with the\n  statements made by Byzantine and Eastern historians.\n  We are forced to conclude, after Hammer\u2019s searching\n  enquiries, that there is no truth whatever in the story\n  of Bajasid having been confined by Timur in an iron cage.\n14.\u2014How T\u00e4merlin goes to war with the King-Sultan.\nAfter T\u00e4merlin had overcome Weyasit and returned to his own country, he\nwent to war with the king-sultan, who is the chief king among Infidels.\nHe took with him XII hundred thousand men, went into his territory,\nand lay siege to a city called Hallapp, which contains four hundred\nthousand houses. Then the lord and governor of the city took with him\neighty thousand men, and went out and fought with T\u00e4merlin, but he\ncould not overcome him, and fled again into the city, and many people\nwere killed in his flight. He continued to defend himself, but T\u00e4merlin\ntook a suburb on the fourth day, and the people he found in it he threw\ninto the moat of the city, put timber and mire upon them, and filled\nthe moat in four places. The moat was twelve fathom deep, and [cut]\nin the solid rock. Then he stormed the city, and took it by assault\nand captured the governor, and fully occupied the city, and then went\nto another city called Hrumkula, which surrendered. Then he went to\nanother city called Anthap. There he lay siege for VIIII days, and took\nit on the tenth day by assault, and pillaged it, and went to another\ncity called Wehessum. There he lay siege for XV days. After that they\ngave themselves up and he occupied it. The cities I have named are\nchief cities in Syria.(1) Then he went to another city called Damaschk;\nit is the principal capital in the country. When the king-sultan heard\nthat he was laying siege to Tamasch, he sent and begged that he would\nnot injure the city, and spare the temple. To this he consented, and\nwent further on. The temple in the city of Tamasch is so large, that\nit has externally forty gates. Inside the temple hang twelve thousand\nlamps, of which number IX thousand are lit daily. But every week, on\nFriday, all of them are lit. Amongst these lamps are many in gold and\nsilver, made by the order of kings and great lords. So soon as T\u00e4merlin\nhad gone out from the city, the king-sultan left his capital Alchei\nTerchei, with thirty thousand men, hoping to arrive before T\u00e4merlin\ntook it, and he sent twelve thousand men to Tamaschen. When T\u00e4merlin\nheard this, he marched towards him, and the king-sultan returned again\nto his capital. T\u00e4merlin pursued him, and where the king-sultan passed\nthe night, there in the morning he caused the water and the grass to\nbe poisoned; and wherever T\u00e4merlin came, he suffered great losses\namongst his people and cattle, and could not overtake him. Then he\nturned again against Tamaschen and besieged it for III months, but\ncould not take it. During those three months they fought every day, and\nwhen the twelve M men saw that they had no assistance from their lord,\nthey asked T\u00e4merlin to be allowed to pass. He consented, and they left\nthe city at night and returned to their lord. Then T\u00e4merlin stormed\nthe city and took it by assault. And now, soon after he had taken\nthe city, came to him the Geit, that is as much as to say a bishop,\nand fell at his feet, and begged mercy for himself and his priests.\nT\u00e4merlin ordered that he should go with his priests into the temple;\nso the priests took their wives, their children and many others, into\nthe temple for protection, until there were thirty thousand young\nand old. Now T\u00e4merlin gave orders that when the temple was full, the\npeople inside should be shut up in it. This was done. Then wood was\nplaced around the temple, and he ordered it to be ignited, and they all\nperished in the temple. Then he ordered that each one of his [soldiers]\nshould bring to him the head of a man. This was done, and it took three\ndays; then with these heads were constructed three towers, and the\ncity was pillaged.(2) After this he went into another country called\nScherch,(3) a country where no cattle are bred, and this country gave\nitself up. He ordered them to bring food for his people who were\nfamished, although they had been before a city so rich in spices. Then\nhe returned to his country, having left that country and occupied the\ncities.\n15.\u2014How T\u00e4merlin conquered Babiloni.\nNow when he returned from the land of the king-sultan, he took ten\nhundred thousand men with him and marched upon Babiloni. When the\nking[1] heard this, he left a garrison in the city and went out of it.\nT\u00e4merlin besieged it for a whole month, during which time he undermined\nthe walls, took the city and burnt it. Then he had the earth ploughed\nand barley planted there, because he had sworn that he would destroy\nthe city, so that nobody should know whether there had been houses or\nno. Then he went to a fortress; it stood in a river, and the king kept\nhis treasure there.(1) He could not take this fortress, across the\nwater, so he turned away the water, and found under the water three\nleaden chests full of gold and silver; each chest was two fathoms long,\nand one fathom broad. The king sank them here, so that if the fortress\nwas taken, the gold would remain. The chests he removed, and he took\nthe fortress and found fifteen men in it. They were hanged. They also\nfound in the fortress four chests full of silver and gold, which he\nalso took away, and then conquered three cities. Then summer began, so\nthat on account of the heat he could not remain in the country.\n  [1] Sultan Achmed, of the last Ilchans.\u2014See Deguignes,\n  Germ. Trans., iii, 313. _N._\n16.\u2014How T\u00e4merlin conquered Lesser India.(1)\nWhen T\u00e4merlin returned home from Babiloni, he sent word to all in his\nland that they were to be ready in four months, as he wanted to go\ninto Lesser India, distant from his capital a four months\u2019 journey.\nWhen the time came, he went into Lesser India with four hundred\nthousand men, and crossed a desert of twenty days\u2019 journey; there, is\na great want of water, and then he got to a mountain which it took\nhim eight days, before he came out of it. On this mountain there is a\npath, where camels and horses must be bound to planks and lowered. Then\nhe came to a valley where it is so dark, that people cannot see each\nother by the light of day, and it is of half a day\u2019s journey.(2) Then\nhe came to a high mountainous country, in which he travelled for three\ndays and three nights, and then got to a beautiful plain, where lies\nthe capital of the country. He stopped with his people in the plain,\nnear the wooded mountain, and sent word to the king of the country:\nMirttemirgilden, that is as much as to say, Give up thyself, the lord\nT\u00e4merlin is come.(3) When the king received the message, he sent word\nto tell him that he would settle with him with the sword. Then he\nmarched against T\u00e4merlin with four hundred thousand men, and with four\nhundred elephants trained for war; upon each elephant was a turret,\nin each of which were at least ten armed men. When T\u00e4merlin heard of\nthis, he advanced with his people to meet him; in the mean time the\nking placed the elephants in the front, and when they engaged, T\u00e4merlin\nmight easily have conquered; but he could not overcome the king,\nbecause his horses were afraid of the elephants and would not advance.\nThis went on from morning until mid-day, so that T\u00e4merlin retired and\nhad his counsellors to consult, how the king and his elephants were to\nbe overcome? One named Suleymanschach advised, that camels should be\ntaken and wood fastened on them, and when the elephants advanced, the\nwood should be ignited, and the camels driven up against the elephants;\nthus would they be subdued by the fire and the cries of the camels,\nbecause the elephants are afraid of fire. Then T\u00e4merlin took twenty\nthousand camels and prepared them as above described, and the king\ncame with his elephants in front. T\u00e4merlin went to meet him, and drove\nthe camels up against the elephants, the wood on them being on fire.\nThe camels cried out, and when the elephants saw the fire and heard\nthe great cries, they took to flight, so that none could hold them.\nWhen T\u00e4merlin saw this, he pursued them with all his force, and of the\nelephants many were killed.(4) When the king saw this, he went back\ninto his capital. T\u00e4merlin followed him up and besieged the city for\nten days. In the mean time the king agreed with him, to give him two\nzentner of gold of India, which is better than the gold of Arabia, and\nhe also gave him many precious stones, and promised to lend him thirty\nthousand men whenever he might want them; and so they were reconciled\nwith each other. The king remained in his kingdom, and T\u00e4merlin\nreturned to his country, and took with him one hundred elephants and\nthe riches the king had given him.\n17.\u2014How a vassal carried off riches that belonged to T\u00e4merlin.\nWhen T\u00e4merlin returned from Lesser India, he sent one of his vassals\nnamed Chebakh, with ten thousand men, to the city of Soltania,[1](1)\nto bring to him the five-yearly tribute of Persia and Ermenia which\nwas kept in that city. He came, and took the tribute, and loaded\none thousand waggons, and then he wrote to a lord in the country of\nMassander, who was his friend. He came with fifty thousand men,\nthey made an alliance with each other, and the treasure was taken to\nMassenderam. When T\u00e4merlin heard of this, he sent a great many people\nto conquer the above-named country, and bring to him the two lords as\nprisoners. When the people got to the country, they could not do any\nharm because of the large forests which surround it, and they sent to\nT\u00e4merlin for more people. He sent other seventy thousand men to clear\nthe woods and make a road. They did so for ten miles, but could not\nconquer the territory. They sent to tell T\u00e4merlin, and he ordered them\nto go home, which they did, without having done anything.\n[1] Sultania, to the north of Kaswin. The construction of this city\nwas begun by Ilchan, or by Argun the Persian viceroy, and completed\nby Chasan. These powerful despots of Persia wanted to acquire, as is\nnot rarely the case with other despots, immortal fame for themselves,\nby extorting from their subjects for the purpose of constructing\nmagnificent buildings. Their wishes have not been realised. _N._\n18.\u2014How T\u00e4merlin caused MMM children to be killed.\nThen he went into a kingdom called Hisspahan and made for the capital,\nHisspahan, and required it to surrender. They gave themselves up, and\nwent to him with their wives and children. He received them graciously,\noccupied the city with six thousand of his people, and took away with\nhim the lord of the city, whose name was Schachister. And so soon as\nthe city heard that T\u00e4merlin was gone out of the country, they closed\nall the gates and killed the six thousand men. When T\u00e4merlin knew this,\nhe returned to the city and besieged it for XV days, but he could not\ntake it, and made peace with them on condition that they should lend\nhim the archers that were in the city, for an expedition; after that,\nhe should send them back. They sent to him twelve thousand archers;\nhe cut off all their thumbs, and forced them back into the city and\nhimself entered it. He assembled all the citizens, and ordered all\nthose over fourteen years to be beheaded, and the boys under XIIII\nyears he ordered to be spared, and with the heads was constructed a\ntower in the centre of the city; then he ordered the women and children\nto be taken to a plain outside the city, and ordered the children under\nseven years of age to be placed apart, and ordered his people to ride\nover these same children. When his counsellors and the mothers of the\nchildren saw this, they fell at his feet, and begged that he would not\nkill them. He would not listen, and ordered that they should be ridden\nover; but none would be the first to do so. He got angry, and rode\nhimself [amongst them] and said: \u201cNow I should like to see who will not\nride after me?\u201d Then they were all obliged to ride over the children,\nand they were all trampled upon.(1) There were seven thousand. Then he\nset fire to the city, and took the other women and children into his\nown city; and then went to his capital called Semerchant, where he had\nnot been for twelve years.\n19.\u2014T\u00e4merlin wants to go to war with the Great Chan.\nAt about this time, the great Chan, king of Chetey, sent an ambassador\nwith four hundred horsemen, to demand of him the tribute which he\nhad forgotten, and kept for five years. T\u00e4merlin took the ambassador\nwith him, until he came to his above-named capital, and sent him\nfrom there to tell his lord, that he would neither pay tribute nor\nbe subject to him, and that he should himself pay him a visit. Then\nhe sent messengers all over his country that they should prepare, as\nhe wished to advance on Cetey, and taking eighteen hundred thousand\nmen, he marched for a whole month. He then came to a desert that was\nseventy days journey across; there he travelled ten days, and lost many\npeople there for want of water. Great harm also befel his horses and\nother cattle, because it was very cold in that country;(1) and when he\nperceived his great losses amongst his people and cattle, he turned and\nwent back to his capital and fell ill.\n20.\u2014-Of T\u00e4merlin\u2019s death.\nIt is to be noted, that three causes made T\u00e4merlin fret, so that he\nbecame ill, and died of that same illness. The first cause was grief\nthat his vassal had escaped with the tribute; the other it is to be\nnoted was, that T\u00e4merlin had three wives, and that the youngest, whom\nhe loved very much, had been intimate with one of his vassals whilst\nhe was away. When T\u00e4merlin came home, his eldest wife told him that\nhis youngest wife had cared for one of his vassals, and had broken her\nvow. He would not believe it. She came to him and said: \u201cCome to her\nand order her to open her trunk: you will find a ring with a precious\nstone, and a letter which he has sent to her.\u201d T\u00e4merlin sent to tell\nher that he would pass the night with her, and when he came into her\nroom, he told her to open her trunk. This was done, and he found the\nring and the letter. He sat down near her, and asked whence the ring\nand letter had come to her? She fell at his feet, and begged he would\nnot be angry, because one of his vassals had sent them to her without\nany right.[1] After this he went out of the room, and ordered that\nshe should be immediately beheaded. This was done. He then sent five\nthousand horsemen after this same vassal, that they might bring him as\na prisoner; but he was warned by the commander who was sent after him,\nand the vassal took with him five hundred men, his wife and children,\nand fled to the country of Wassandaran. There T\u00e4merlin could not get at\nhim. It fretted him so much that he had killed his wife, and that the\nvassal had escaped, that he died, and was buried in the country with\ngreat magnificence. Be it also known that, after he was buried, the\npriests that belong to the temple, heard him howl every night during\na whole year. His friends gave large alms, that he should cease his\nhowlings. But this was of no use. They asked advice of their priests,\nand went to his son and begged that he would set free the prisoners\ntaken by his father in other countries, and especially those that were\nin his capital, who were all craftsmen he had brought to his capital,\nwhere they had to work. He let them go, and so soon as they were free,\nT\u00e4merlin did not howl any more. All that is written above, happened\nduring the six years that I was with T\u00e4merlin,[2] and I also was\npresent.\n  [1] \u201cOne alle Ge\u00fcard.\u201d\u2014See chap. 65, note 3.\n  [2] This is an error in dates, as regards his period of\n  service under Bajasid. Schiltberger was with Timur from\n21.\u2014-Of the sons of T\u00e4merlin.\nYou should know that T\u00e4merlin left two sons. The eldest was named\nScharoch, who had a son to whom T\u00e4merlin gave his capital and the\ncountry that belonged to it, and to each of his two sons, Scharoch and\nMiraschach, he gave a kingdom in Persia, and other large territories\nthat belonged to them. After the death of T\u00e4merlin, I came to his son\nnamed Scharoch, who had the kingdom of Horossen, the capital of which\nis called Herren. Here Schiltberger remained with Miraschach, the son\nof T\u00e4merlin.\nThe younger son of T\u00e4merlin had in Persia a kingdom called Thaures,\nand after his father\u2019s death came a vassal named Joseph, who expelled\nMiraschach from his kingdom. He sent to his brother Scharoch, and asked\nhim to help him to recover his kingdom. His brother came with eighty\nthousand men, and sent thirty thousand men to his brother, that he\nmight expel the vassal, and kept to himself forty-two thousand men.\nWith these he marched against Joseph, who, on learning this, went to\nmeet him with sixty thousand men, and they fought a whole day, without\neither the one or the other being overcome. Then Mirenschach asked his\nbrother, Scharoch, to come with the rest of his people, He came. Then\nhe fought with Joseph and drove him away, and Mirenschach returned to\nhis kingdom. There were also two countries that were subdued by Joseph;\nthe one was called Churten,[1] the other was Lesser Armeny. Scharoch\nwent into these countries and conquered them, and bestowed them on\nhis brother, and then returned into his own country, leaving, for the\nassistance of his brother, twenty thousand men from amongst his people,\nwith whom I also remained.(1)\n22.\u2014How Joseph caused Mirenschach to be beheaded, and took possession\nof all his territory.\nAfter Mirenschach had remained in peace for one year, Joseph entered\nhis country with a large number of people, which, when he perceived, he\nwent to meet him with fully four hundred thousand men. They met each\nother at a plain called Scharabach,[2](1) and fought together for two\ndays. Mirenschach was overcome and made a prisoner.\nSoon afterwards, Joseph ordered he should be beheaded. It is to be\nnoted why Joseph killed Mirenschach. Joseph had a brother named Miseri,\nwho killed a brother of Mirenschach, called Zychanger. When they met\nin a battle, Mirenshach took Miseri and killed him in prison, so that\nMirenschach also was put to death;(2) and Joseph had Mirenschach\u2019s\nhead stuck on a spear, and taken to the city called Thaures after the\nkingdom, and showed it there, that they might give themselves up the\nsooner. When they saw that their lord was dead, they gave themselves\nup; and then he took the city and the whole kingdom with all its\ndependencies.\n  [1] Kourdistan.\n  [2] Karabagh, to the West of the Caspian Sea. Karabagh,\n  \u201cBlack Garden\u201d, is the name given by the Persians and\n  Turks to the entire district extending from Shirwan, on\n  the west, to that point where the Kur and Araxes unite.\n  In ancient times the Armenians called this region Arzach.\n  The city of Karabagh is the birth-place of the Armenian\n  historian, Thomas Medzopezi. Indschidschean is unable to\n  state on good grounds, why this district and place are so\n  called. He holds, on the contrary, that Karabagh is the\n  same as that called Chachchach by Agathangelos and older\n  Armenian chroniclers. _N._\n23.\u2014How Joseph vanquished a king and beheaded him.\nAnd now when Joseph had taken the kingdom, the king of Babilonie sent\nto him that he should give up the kingdom, as it belonged to his own\nkingdom, and his residence was in it; and because it was not right\nthat he should keep the kingdom, as he was not noble and would be a\nbad vassal. Joseph sent back word that there must be a ruler in the\nkingdom, and that he should confirm it to him, and sent to say that he\nwould mint in his name, and observe all that was due to him. The king\nwould not do so, because he had a son to whom he wished to give the\nkingdom; and he attacked Joseph with fifty thousand men. Joseph went to\nmeet him with sixty thousand men, and they fought with each other at\na plain called Achtum.[1](1) The king fled to a city near the plain.\nJoseph followed, and took the king and beheaded him, and occupied the\nkingdom as before.\n  [1] In all probability Nachdschowan, or Nachidschewan,\n  the Naxuana of Ptolemy. The plain and the town are of the\n  same name. _N._\n24.\u2014How Schiltberger came to Aububachir.\nAnd after that Miraschach, T\u00e4merlin\u2019s son, was taken in battle and\nbeheaded, I came to his son Aububachir, with whom I remained four\nyears. And after the king of Babiloni was also killed by Joseph, as\nis already written, Abubachir took a country called Kray; it belonged\nto the kingdom of Babiloni. Aububachir had also a brother called\nMansur,(1) who had a country called Erban. He sent [word] that he\nshould come to him. This, Mansur would not do; so he went and took him,\nput him into prison and strangled him, and took his country. It is\nalso to be noted, that Abubachir was so strong, that he shot through a\nploughshare with an Infidel bow; the iron went through, and the shaft\nremained in the ploughshare. This ploughshare was sent as a marvel to\nT\u00e4merlin\u2019s capital, called Samerchant, and fixed to the gate. When the\nking-sultan heard of his strength, he sent to him a sword that weighed\ntwelve pounds. It was worth one thousand guldens. And when the sword\nwas brought to him, he ordered that an ox, three years old, should be\nbrought to him, as he wished to try the sword. When the ox came, he cut\nit into two parts at one blow. This happened during T\u00e4merlin\u2019s lifetime.\n25.\u2014Of a king\u2019s son.\nWith Abubachar, was the son of a king of Great Tartary. To him came\nmessengers, wanting him to go home, that he might be responsible for\nthe kingdom. He asked Abubachir to allow him to go; this he did,\nand so he went home with six hundred horsemen; I was one of five\n[Christians?] who went with him into Great Tartary. You must notice\nthrough which countries he passed. First, through the country called\nStrana, where silk grows; then through a country called Gursey, where\nthere are Christians, and they believe in the Christian faith, and\nSaint J\u00f6rig is patron there. After that, he passed through a country\ncalled Lochinschan; there, also, silk grows; then through another\ncalled Schurban, where silk grows of which the good stuffs are made at\nTamasch and at Kaffer, and also at Wursa, the capital of the Infidels,\nsituated in Turkey; this silk is also taken to Venice and to Lickcha,\nwhere good velvet is worked; but it is an unhealthy country. Afterwards\nhe passed through a country called Samabram;(1) then through one\ncalled in the Tartar tongue, Temurtapit,[1](2) which is as much as to\nsay, the Iron Gate. This divides Persia and Tartary. Then he passed\nthrough a city called Origens; it is powerful, and lies in the middle\nof a river called Edil.(3) Then he travelled through a mountainous\ncountry called Setzulet, where there are many Christians who have a\nbishop there; their priests belong to the Order of the Shoeless, who\ndo not know Latin, and they sing and read their prayers in the Tartar\ntongue. It is found that thus the laity become stronger in the faith,\nand also many Infidels are confirmed in the Christian faith, because\nthey understand the words that the priests sing and read. After that,\nhe went into Great Tartaria, and came to the lord named Edigi, who had\nwritten and sent messengers to him, as he wanted him to come and rule\nthe kingdom. And when he arrived, Edigi was waiting, having prepared\nto go into a country called Ibissibur.[2] It is to be noted, that it\nis the custom for the king, in Great Tartary, to have a Chief to rule\nover him, who can elect or depose a king, and has also power over\nvassals. Now at that time Edigi was the Chief. The vassals in Tartary\nwander about in winter and summer, with their wives and children,\nand their cattle, and when the king encamps, there must be erected\none hundred thousand huts. Now when the son of the above-named king\nof Tartary, and who was named Zegre,(4) had come to Edigi, he went\nwith him into the above-named country, Ibissibur, and they travelled\ntwo months before they arrived there. There is a mountain in that\ncountry, which is thirty-two days\u2019 journey in extent. The people there,\nthemselves say, that at the extremity of the mountain is a desert, and\nthat the said desert is the end of the earth; and in this same desert\nnobody can have an habitation, because of snakes and wild beasts. On\nthe same mountain there are savages, who are not like other people,\nand they live there. They are covered all over the body with hair,\nexcept the hands and face, and run about like other wild beasts in the\nmountain, and also eat leaves and grass, and any thing they can find.\nThe lord of the country sent to Edigi, a man and a woman from among\nthese savages, that had been taken in the mountain.(5) The horses are\nof the same size as donkeys, and there are many wild beasts that are\nnot in Germany, and of which I do not know the names. There are also in\nthe above-named country, dogs, that go in carts and in sledges; they\nare also made to carry luggage, and are as large as donkeys. Dogs are\neaten in this country. It is also to be noted, that the people in this\ncountry believe in Jesus Christ like the III kings who came and brought\nofferings to Christ at Bethlaem, and saw him lying in the manger; and\nthey have a picture, which is a representation of our Lord in a manger,\nas the three holy kings saw him, when they brought offerings to him.\nThey have this also in their temples, and say their prayers before it;\nand the people who are of this faith are called Ugine.(6) In Tartaria\nthere are many people of this religion. It is also the custom in the\ncountry, that when a young man, who has not had a wife, dies, he is\ndressed in his best clothes, and players carry him, and he is laid on a\nbier, and a canopy is placed over him. And all the young people, also\ndressed in their best clothes, go before, and the players with them.\nThe father and mother, and friends, also follow the bier, and it is\ntaken to the grave by the young people and by the players, with singing\nand much merry-making. But the father and mother and friends, go near\nthe bier and weep; and when they have buried him, they bring their\nfood and drink, and the young people and the players sit down, and eat\nand drink by the grave with much rejoicing. The father and mother and\nfriends, sit on one side, and lament, and when they have done, they\ntake the father and mother to the place where they live, and there they\nlament; and so they end the ceremony which was as if they had had a\nwedding, because he had no wife. In this country they have nothing but\nmillet, and they do not eat bread. All this I have seen, and was there\nwith the above-named king\u2019s son, Zeggra.\n  [1] Derbend, _i.e._, the closed gate or barricade, called\n  by the Turks Timurcapi, or the Iron Gate. _N._\n  [2] This, undoubtedly, is Siberia, here mentioned\n  for the first time. It so happens that the name of\n  Siberia appears in the Russian annals of about the\n  same period, 1450.\u2014See Lehrberg\u2019s _Zur Erl\u00e4uterung\n  der \u00e4lteren Geschichte von Russland_, St. Petersburg,\n  1816. Schiltberger probably looks upon the Buddhists as\n  Christians, as has frequently been the case. _N._\n26.\u2014How one lord succeeds another lord.\nAnd after that Edigi and Zeggra had subdued the country Ibissibur, they\nwent into the country Walher, and conquered it also, and afterwards\nthey went back to their country. At that time, there was a king in\nGreat Tartaria who was called Sedichbechan, and kan is as much as to\nsay a king, in the Tartar tongue. When he heard that Edigi had come\ninto his country, he took to flight. Edigi sent after him, that he\nshould be brought as a prisoner, but he was killed in a battle.(1) Then\nEdigi elected a king named Polet, who reigned one year and a half.(2)\nThen there was one named Segelalladin, who expelled Polet; and after\nthis, Polet\u2019s brother was king, and he reigned fourteen months. Then\ncame his brother, named Thebachk, who fought with him for the kingdom,\nand killed him,(3) and then there was no king. But he had a brother\ncalled Kerumberdin, who became king, and reigned five months. Then came\nhis brother Theback, and he expelled Kerimberdin and became king. Then\ncame Edigi and my lord Zeggra, and they drove away the king, and Edigi\nmade my lord the king as he had promised. He was king for nine months.\nThen came one named Machmet, and he fought with Zeggra and with Edigi.\nZeggra fled to a country called Distihipschach, and Machmet became\nking. Then came one named Waroch; he expelled Machmet and became king.\nAfter that, Machmet recovered, and he drove away Waroch and was again\nking. Then came one named Doblabardi, who drove away Machmet and became\nking, and was king for three days only. Then came the same Warach, who\nexpelled Doblabardi, and again became king. Then came my lord Machmet,\nand he overcame Waroch and again became king. After that, came my lord\nZeggra, and he fought with Machmet and was killed.(4)\n27.\u2014Of an Infidel woman, who had four thousand maidens.\nDuring the time that I was with Zeggra, there came to Edigi, and also\nto Zeggra, a Tartar woman named Sadurmelickh,(1) with four thousand\nmaidens and women. She was powerful, and her husband had been killed by\na Tartar king. She wanted to be revenged, and therefore came to Edigi,\nso that he should assist her to expel the king. And you must also know,\nthat she and her women rode to battle and fought with the bow, as\nwell as men; and when the women rode to battle, they had on one side a\nsword, and on the other a bow. In a battle she had with a king, there\nwas the king\u2019s cousin who had killed the husband of this woman, and he\nwas made a prisoner. He was brought before the woman; she ordered him\nto kneel, and drew her sword, and cut off his head at one blow, and\nsaid: \u201cNow am I revenged.\u201d I was present there, and I also saw this.\n28.\u2014In what countries I have been.\nNow I have described the battles and the fights which took place,\nduring the time that I was with the Infidels. Now I will also write\nand name the countries that I have been in, since I left Bavaria. At\nfirst I went into Ungeren, before the great expedition against the\nInfidels. There I remained ten months, and after that we went amongst\nthe Infidels as is described. I have also been in Wallachy and in its\ntwo chief cities; one is called Agrich,[1] the other T\u00fcrckisch; also in\na city called \u00dcbereil, situated on the Tunow. There were the kocken(1)\nand the galleys, in which merchants bring their goods from the land of\nthe Infidels. It is also to be noted, that the people in Little and\nin Great Walachy hold to the Christian faith, and they also speak a\nparticular language; they also allow their hair and beard to grow, and\nnever cut it. I have also been in Little Walachy, and in Sybenb\u00fcrgen\nwhich is a German country; the capital of this country is called\nHermenstat. Also in Zw\u00fcrtzenland; the capital is called Bassaw.[2](2)\nThese are the countries on this side of the Tonow, in which I have\nbeen.\n  [1] Agrisch, now better known as Ardschisch in Walachia.\n  For T\u00fcrckisch we should read Bukurescht. _F._\n  [2] Brasowa or Burzelland in Siebenb\u00fcrgen. Wurzerland\n  was also written Burzerland and Burzelland. It is to the\n  south-east of Siebenb\u00fcrgen, its capital being Cronstadt,\n  Brasowa in Slav, called Bassaw by Schiltberger. _F._\n29.\u2014In which countries I have been, that lay between the Tonow and the\nsea.\nNow will be noted the countries that are between the Tunow and the sea,\nin which I have been. First, I have been in three countries, which\nthree countries are all called Pulgrey. The first Pulgrey is where\npeople cross from Hungern to the Iron Gate; the capital is called\nPudem. The other Pulgrey above lies opposite to Walachy; the capital\nis called Ternau. The third Pulgery lies where the Tunow flows into\nthe sea; the capital is called Kallacercka.[1](1) I have also been\nin Greece; the capital is Adranapoli, which city has fifty thousand\nhouses. There is also a large city by the White Sea in Greece, and\nit is called Salonikch;(2) and in this city lies Saint Sanctiniter,\nfrom whose grave oil flows.[2](3) In the middle of the church there\nis a well, and on his day the well is full of water, but it is dry on\nevery other day in the year. I have been in this city. There is also a\nmighty city in Greece, called Seres; and all the territory that lies\nbetween the T\u00fcnow and the sea, belongs to the Turkish[3] king. There is\na city and a fortress called Chalipoli; there the high sea is crossed.\nI myself crossed there, over to Turkey. This same sea is crossed to go\nto Constantinoppel. I was three months in the said city where people\ngo over into Great Turkey. The capital of Turkey is called Wursa.\nThe city contains two hundred thousand houses, and eight hospitals\nwhere poor people are received, whether they be Christians, Infidels,\nor Jews. Three hundred castles are dependant on this city, without\nexcepting the chief towns which are hereafter described. The first is\ncalled Asia,[4](4) in which is the grave of St. John the Evangelist;\nit is in a fertile country called Edein in the Infidel tongue; but the\nnatives call it Hohes. The other city and country that belongs to it,\nis called Ismira, and Saint Nicholas was bishop there.(5) There is also\na city and a country called Maganasa,(6) which is a fertile country.\nThere is also a city called Donguslu;(7) the country that belongs to\nit is called Serochon, and there the trees bear fruit twice yearly.\nThere is a city called Kachey, situated high up a mountain, and has\na fertile country called Kennan. There is also a city called Anguri;\nit has a fertile country also called Siguri.[5] In this city are many\nChristians who hold to the Ermenian faith; and they have a cross in\ntheir church that shines day and night; even Infidels go to the church,\nand they call the cross the bright stone. The Infidels also wanted to\ncarry it off and put it in their temple, but whoever touches it, his\nhands become distorted. There is also a city called Wegureisari,(8)\nand the country is called by the same name. There is also a country\ncalled Karaman, the chief city being called Laranda. There is also in\nthis country a city called K\u00f6nia, in which lies the saint, Schenisis,\nwho was first an Infidel priest, and was secretly baptised; and when\nhis end approached, received from an Armenian priest, the body of\nGod in an apple. He has worked great miracles. There is also a city\ncalled Gassaria, and the country is of the same name. In this country\nSaint Basil was bishop.(9) I have also been in Sebast, which was once\na kingdom. There is a city on the Black Sea called Samson; it is in a\nfertile country called Zegnikch. The above-named countries and cities\nall belong to Turkey, and I have been in them all. Item, there is a\ncountry called Zepun; it is on the Black Sea. In this country they sow\nmillet only, and they make their bread of this millet. There is the\nkingdom of Tarbesanda; it is a small and well protected country, and\nfruitful in vineyards, and is on the Black Sea, not far from a city\ncalled Kureson(10) in the Greek tongue.\n  [1] Kallacercka is the old Bulgarian port Callat,\n  Callatis, or Callantra, to the north of Varna, which has\n  taken the place of Callat. _F._\n  [2] The miracle of the exudation of oil from the body\n  of Demetrius, is related by Nicetas, i, 7, 193, Edit.,\n  Paris. The similarity in the statements made by the\n  Bavarian and by Nicetas, leave no room whatever for\n  doubting that this is the correct name of the Saint, and\n  not that of Theodora, as given by a transcriber\u2019s error\n  in the Anagnosta, _De excidio Thessalonicensi_. _H._\n  [3] \u201cT\u00fctschen\u201d, in the text.\n  [4] Asia is a mistake for Ephesus. To this belongs the\n  passage, \u201chie zeland heiszet es Hoches\u201d. The Turkish\n  Aisulugh, _i.e._, \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2-\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, as the Byzantines\n  called St. John. _F._ and _H._\n  [5] Printed editions give Sigmei, which is nearer to\n  the true reading, Sultan \u00d6ni or \u00d6gi. Anguri or Ancyra,\n  belongs to the province of Sultan \u00d6gi or \u00d6ni. _F._\n30.\u2014Of the castle of the sparrow-hawk, and how it is guarded.\nThere is on a mountain a castle, called that of the sparrow-hawk.\nWithin, is a beautiful virgin, and a sparrow-hawk on a perch. Whoever\ngoes there and does not sleep but watches for three days and three\nnights, whatever he asks of the virgin, that is chaste, that she will\ngrant to him. And when he finishes the watch, he goes into the castle\nand comes to a fine palace, where he sees a sparrow-hawk standing on\na perch; and when the sparrow-hawk sees the man, he screams, and the\nvirgin comes out of her chamber, welcomes him and says: \u201cThou hast\nserved me and watched for three days and three nights, and whatever\nthou now askest of me that is pure, that will I grant unto thee.\u201d And\nshe does so. But if anybody asks for something that exhibits pride,\nimpudence, or avarice, she curses him and his offspring, so that he can\nno longer attain an honourable position.\n31.\u2014How a poor fellow watched the sparrow-hawk.\nThere was also once a good poor fellow, who watched for three days\nand three nights before the castle; and when he had watched, he went\ninto the palace, and when the sparrow-hawk saw him, he screamed. The\nvirgin came out of her room and welcomed him, and said: \u201cWhat dost\nthou require of me. Whatever is of this world and that is honourable,\nI will grant unto thee.\u201d He asked her for nothing more than that he\nand his family might live with honour; this was granted. There also\ncame the son of a king of Armenia, who also watched for three days\nand three nights. After that, he went into the palace where stood the\nsparrow-hawk. The sparrow-hawk screamed, the virgin came out, welcomed\nhim and asked: \u201cWhat dost thou want that is of this world and that is\nhonourable.\u201d He asked for nothing, and said he was the son of a mighty\nking of Armenia, and had silver and gold enough, and also precious\nstones, but he had no wife, and he asked her to be his wife. She\nanswered him and said: \u201cThy proud spirit that thou hast, must be broken\nin thee and in all thy power\u201d; and she cursed him and all his kindred.\nThere also went a lord of the Order of St. John, who also watched and\nwent into the palace. The virgin came out, and asked him also what he\ndesired. He asked her for a purse that would never be empty, which was\ngranted. But after this, she cursed him and said: \u201cThe avarice thou\nhast shewn, brings great evil to thee. Therefore I curse thee, so that\nthy order may diminish and not increase.\u201d Then he left her.(1)\n32.\u2014More about the castle of the sparrow-hawk.\nDuring the time that I and my companions were there, we asked a man\nto take us to the castle, and gave him money; and when we got to the\nplace, one of my companions wanted to remain and keep watch. He who\nbrought us advised him against it, and said that if he did not carry\nout the watch, he would be lost, and nobody would know where he went;\nthe castle is also hidden by trees, so that nobody knows the way to\nit. It is also forbidden by the Greek priests, and they say that the\ndevil has to do with it, and not God. So we went on to a city called\nKereson. There is also a country that belongs to the above-named\nkingdom, called Lasia,(1) and it is fertile in vineyards. Greeks are\nin that country. I have also been in Lesser Armenia; the capital is\nErsinggan. There is also a city called Kayburt,[1](2) and it has a\nfertile country. Also a city called Kamach,(3) situated on a high\nmountain, and below the mountain flows a river called the Eufrates; it\nis one of the rivers that flows out of Paradise. This river also flows\nthrough Lesser Armenia, and then courses through a desert ten days\u2019\njourney across; then it is lost in a marsh, so that nobody knows where\nit goes.(4) It courses also through Persia. There is also a country\ncalled Karasser; it is fertile in vineyards.(5) There is also a country\ncalled Black Turkey; the capital is called Hamunt, and the people are\nwarlike.(6) There is also a country called Churt, the capital of which\nis Bestan.(7) Item, a kingdom called Kursi, where the people hold\nto the Christian faith, have a distinct language and are a warlike\npeople. There is a country called Abkas, its capital Zuchtun;(8) it\nis an unhealthy country, and men and women wear flat caps on their\nheads, which they do because the place is unhealthy. There is also a\nsmall country called Megral, the capital is Kathon,[2](9) and in which\ncountry they hold to the Greek faith. Also a country called Merdin;(10)\nthis is a kingdom where there are Infidels. I have been in all the\nabove-named countries, and have learnt their peculiarities.\n  [1] Baiburt. _N._ Byburt, in edition of 1814.\n  [2] Possibly Gori in Mingrelia. _N._\n33.\u2014In which countries silk is grown, and of Persia and of other\nkingdoms.\nThe chief city of all the kingdoms of Persia is called Thaures.(1) The\nking of Persia has a larger revenue from the city of Thaures, than has\nthe most powerful king in Christendom, because a great many merchants\ncome to it. There is also a kingdom in Persia, the capital of which\nis called Soltania. There is also a city called Rei,(2) in a large\ncountry where they do not believe in Machmet as do other Infidels. They\nbelieve in a certain Aly who is a great persecutor of the Christian\nfaith; and those of this doctrine are called Raphak.[1](3) There is\nalso a city called Nachson;(4) it lays near the mountain where the\nark stood in which was Noah, and the country is fertile. In it are\nalso three cities, one called Maragara,(5) the other Gelat,(6) and the\nthird Kirna.(7) All three are in a fertile country. There is also, on\na mountain, a city called Meya; it is a bishop\u2019s see where they hold\nto the Roman religion; the priests are of the Order of Preachers, and\nsing in the Armenian tongue.(8) There is a rich country called Gilan,\nwhere rice and cotton only is grown, and the people wear knitted shoes.\nThere is a large city called Ress,(9) in a good country where good silk\nkerchiefs are made. Also a city called Strawba,(10) in a good country.\nAnother called Antioch;(11) the city wall is stained with the blood\nof Christians, so that it is red. And a city called Aluitze.[2](12)\nT\u00e4merlin besieged it for sixteen years before he took it. There is also\na country called Massandaran, which is so wooded, that nobody can go\ninto it. There is a city called Scheckhy; it is in a fertile country\nnear the White Sea.[3](13) In this country also is silk grown. Item,\na country called Schuruan, and the capital is called Schomachy; it is\na hot and unhealthy country, but the best silk is grown there. There\nis also a city called Hispahan, which is in a good country. There\nis also in Persia the kingdom Horoson,[4] and its capital is called\nHore,[5](14) which has three hundred thousand houses. In this same\ncountry and kingdom, during the time that I was amongst the Infidels,\nthere was a man three hundred and fifty years old. So the Infidels\nsaid. The nails on his hands were one inch in length, his eyebrows hung\ndown from his eyes over his cheeks. He was without teeth, which had\nfallen out twice, and for the third time two grew, but they were weak\nand not as strong as they should be, and he could not masticate nor eat\nwith them; they had to feed him. The hair in his ears went down to his\njaw; the beard reached to his knees. He had no hair on his head, and\ncould not speak, but he made himself understood with signs. They were\nobliged to carry him as he could not walk. This man was held to be a\nsaint by the Infidels, and they went to him on a pilgrimage as people\ndo to a saint, and said that Almighty God had chosen him, because for\na thousand years no man had lived so long as this man; and who honours\nhim, honours Almighty God, who had wrought such miracles and signs in\nhim. This man was called Phiradamschyech.(15) There is a city called\nSchiras; it is large and in a good country, where no Christian is\nallowed to trade, especially in the city. A city called Kerman(16) in a\ngood country, and a city called Keschon which lies near the sea; there\npearls grow, and it is a good country. Item, a city called Hognus; it\nis large and lies near the sea where one goes to Great India, and great\nmerchandise comes there from India. It is a good country, wherein\nare found many precious stones which are peculiar to it. There, also,\nis the city called Kaff,(17) also a good country, where all kinds of\nspices are found, and whence also one goes to Great India. There is a\ncountry called Walaschoen; it has a high mountain where many precious\nstones are found; but nobody can take them because of the serpents and\nwild beasts. When it rains, it is the torrent that brings them down,\nthen come the experts who know them, and pick them out of the mud.\nThere are also unicorns in those mountains.(18)\n  [1] Raschedi. _N._\n  [2] This is the castle of Alandschik, mentioned by\n  Scherifeddin.\u2014_Hist. de Timurbec_, ii, 391. _H._\n  [3] By White Sea is here understood (in contradistinction\n  to the Black) the Caspian, and Scherki is intended to\n  indicate its western coast. _H._\n  [4] Chorasan. _N._\n34.\u2014Of the tower of Babilony that is of such great height.\nI have also been in the kingdom of Babilonien. Babilonien is called\nWaydat in the Infidel tongue. The great Babilonie was surrounded by\na wall, twenty-five leagues broad, and one league is three Italian\nmiles; the wall was two hundred cubits high and fifty cubits thick,\nand the river Euffrates courses through the middle of the city; but it\nis now all in ruins, and there is no longer any habitation in it. The\ntower of Babilonien is distant fifty four stadia, and four stadia is\nan Italian mile, and in several places it is X leagues in length and\nin breadth. The tower is in the desert of Arabia, on the road when one\ngoes into the kingdom of Kalda; but none can get there because of the\ndragons and serpents, and other hurtful reptiles, of which there are\nmany in the said desert. The tower was built by a king who is called\nin the Infidel tongue, Marburtirudt.(1) It is also to be noted, that\na league is three Lombard miles, and four stadia is one Italian mile.\nOne Italian mile should have one thousand full paces, and one pace\nshould have V feet,[1] and one foot should have nine inches, and one\ninch is the first member of the thumb.(2) Now I will also take note\nof New Babilonien. New Babilonien is separated from Great Babilony by\na river called Schatt;(3) it is a large river, and in it are many sea\nmonsters that come from the Indian sea. Near the river grows a fruit\ntree called the date, but the Infidels call it kinna,(4) and nobody can\npick the fruit until the storks come and drive away the serpents, which\nlive under the tree and on it; for this reason nobody can get the fruit\nwhich grows twice during the year. It is also to be noted, that in the\ncity of Babilony two languages are spoken, the Arabic and Persian.\nThere is also a garden in Babilony, in which are all kinds of beasts;\nthis garden is ten miles long and enclosed by a wall, so that none can\nget out. In this garden, the lions have a place to themselves in which\nthey can move about. I have also seen the garden. In this kingdom the\npeople are not warlike.(5) Item, I have also been in Lesser India,\nwhich is a fine kingdom. The capital is called Dily. In this country\nare many elephants, and animals called surnasa, which is like a stag,\nbut it is a tall animal, and has a long neck four fathoms in length or\nlonger. It has long fore legs, and the hinder are short.(6) There are\nmany animals in Lesser India. There are also many parrots, ostriches,\nand lions. There are also many other animals and birds, of which I\ncannot give the names. There is also a country called Zekatay;(7) the\ncapital is called Samerchant, and it is a large and mighty city. In\nthis country the language is distinct; it is half Turkish and half\nPersian, and the people are warlike. In this country they do not eat\nbread. It is also to be noted, that an Infidel lord named T\u00e4merlin had\nconquered all the country during the time that I was with him. I have\nbeen in all those countries; but he conquered many other countries in\nwhich I have not been.\n  [1] \u201cschuch\u201d, in text.\n35.\u2014Of Great Tartaria.(1)\nI have also been in Great Tartaria, and of the custom of the country\nit is to be noted, first, that nothing besides millet is sown. They do\nnot eat bread, and they do not drink wine, but they drink the milk of\nmares and of camels, and they also eat camel and horse flesh. It is\nalso to be noted, that the king of these countries and his vassals pass\nwinter and summer in the fields, with their wives and children, with\ncattle and all that belongs to them; and they go from one pasturage to\nthe other, because it is a flat country. It is also to be noted, that\nwhen they choose a king, they take him and seat him on white felt, and\nraise him in it three times.(2) Then they lift him up and carry him\nround the tent, and seat him on a throne, and put a golden sword in his\nhand. Then he must be sworn as is the custom. It is also to be noted,\nthat when they eat or drink, they sit on the ground, as all Infidels\ndo. There is not a more warlike people among the Infidels than the\nGreat[1] Tartars, who can fight and perform journeys as they do. I\nmyself have seen them bleed [their horses] and drink the blood after\nthey have cooked it. This they do when they are in want of food. I have\nalso seen when they are long on a journey, that they take a piece of\nflesh, cut it into slices, place it under the saddle, and ride on it,\nand eat it when they were hungry; but they salt it first and think that\nit will not spoil, because it becomes dry from the warmth of the horse,\nand becomes tender under the saddle from riding, after the juice has\ngone out of it. This they do when they have no time to prepare their\nfood. It is also the custom, that when the king rises in the morning,\nthey bring to him some mare\u2019s milk in a golden goblet, which he drinks\nfasting.\n  [1] The word is \u201croten\u201d in the text, doubtlessly for\n  \u201cgrossen\u201d.\n36.\u2014The countries in which I have been, that belong to Tartary.\nHere is to be noted in which countries I have been, that belong to\nGreat Tartary. A country called Horosaman;[1] the name of the capital\nis Orden, and it lies in a river called Edil, which is a great\nriver.(1) There is also a country called Bestan; its capital is Zulat,\nand it is a mountainous country. Item, a city called Haitzicherchen,\nwhich is a large city,(2) and in a good country. Another city called\nSarei; there, is the residence of the kings of the Tartars. There is\nalso a city called Bolar, in which are different kinds of beasts.(3)\nAlso a city called Ibissibur,(4) and a city Asach, which the Christians\ncall Alathena.(5) It has a river, called Tena, and much cattle. They\nsend large kocken and galleys full of fish from this country, and\nthey go to Venice, Genoa, and the islands that are in the sea. Item,\nthere is a country called Ephepstzach; its capital is Vulchat.[2](6)\nIn this country every kind of corn is cultivated. A city called Kaffa,\nwhich lies by the Black Sea, and is surrounded by two walls. Within\none wall are six thousand houses, in which are Italians, Greeks, and\nArmenians; it is a chief city on the Black Sea, and has within the\nouter walls, XI thousand houses, in which are many Christians; Romans,\nGreeks, Armenians, and Syrians. There are also three bishops; a Roman,\na Greek, and an Armenian. There are also many Infidels who have their\nparticular temple. The city has four towns subject to it; they are by\nthe sea. There are also two kinds of Jews in the city, and they have\ntwo synagogues, and four thousand houses are in the suburbs.(7) Item,\na city called Karckeri,(8) in a good country called Sudi; but the\nInfidels call it That;(9) there are Christians of the Greek faith in\nit, and there are good vineyards. It lies near the Black Sea, and in\nthis country Saint Clement was thrown into the sea. Close by, is a\ncity, called in the Infidel tongue, Serucherman.(10) Item, a country\ncalled Starchas, which also lies by the Black Sea, where the people\nare of the Greek faith; but they are a wicked people, because they\nsell their own children to the Infidels, and steal the children of\nother people and sell them; they are also highway robbers, and have a\npeculiar language. It is also their custom, that when one is killed by\nlightning, they lay him in a box and put it on a high tree. Then all\nthe people in the neighbourhood come, and bring their food and drink\nunder the tree; they dance and enjoy themselves under it; they kill\noxen and lambs, and give them away for the sake of God. This they do\nfor three successive days, and at the end of a year they come to where\nthe dead man lies, near the tree, and again do what they did before,\nuntil the body putrefies. This they do, because they suppose that a\nman struck by lightning is a saint.(11) Item, the kingdom of Rewschen,\nwhich is tributary to the Tartar king. It is to be noted, that there\nare three tribes amongst the Great[3] Tartars. One is called Kayat,[4]\nthe other Inbu,[5] the third Mugal.(12) It is also to be noted, that\nTartary is a three months journey in extent, in which no wood or stones\nare to be found, only grass and shrubs. The countries described all\nbelong to Great Tartary, in all of which I have been. I have also\nbeen in Arabia; there the capital is called in the Infidel tongue,\nMissir.[6] The city in this kingdom has twelve thousand streets, and\neach street has twelve thousand houses. In the city, is the residence\nof the king sultan, who is king over all Infidel kings, and lord of\nall Infidels. He is a mighty lord in silver and gold, and in precious\nstones, and has daily twenty thousand men at his court.(13) It is also\nto be noted, that no person can be made king-sultan unless he has been\nsold.(14)\n  [1] Chowaresm, whence we have Chiwa, its capital being\n  Orgens or Urgendsch. _N._\n  [2] Selgath or Sorgathi, which Abulfeda calls Crimea or\n  the Fortress, whence the entire Tauric peninsula has\n  received its name. Schiltberger is wrong in saying that\n  it was the capital of Kiptschak. _N._\n  [3] The word \u201croten\u201d is here repeated. See p. 48.\n  [4] Kajat, Kerait. _N._\n  [6] Missir, Miser, we are informed in chap. 40 and\n  chap. 44, was called Cair by the Christians; we should\n  therefore here read Egypt for Arabia.\n37.\u2014How many kings-sultan there were, whilst I was amongst the Infidels.\nYou should know, and take note, how many kings-sultan there were during\nthe time that I was there. The first king-sultan was named Marochloch;\nthen there was one named Mathas, king; he was made a prisoner, and\nplaced between two planks and sawn in two parts, lengthways. After\nhim, was a king named Jusuphda, with whom I was for eight months; he\nwas made a prisoner and beheaded. After him was one named Zechem; then\none called Schyachin, who was fixed on an iron spike; for it is the\ncustom in this kingdom, that when two fight for that kingdom, whichever\novercomes the other and brings him to prison, takes him when convenient\nand dresses him like a king, and leads him to a house made for the\npurpose, in which there are iron spikes, and he is put on one of those\nspikes, so that it comes through at the neck, and on the spike he must\nrot.(1) There was a certain king named Malleckchafcharff; this king\ninvited to a marriage, [those] in Rom, in all Christendom, and also in\nall lands. Now you must note what is his title and superscription.(2)\nWe, Balmander,[1] the all-powerful of Carthago,(3) Sultan of the\nnoble Saracens, Lord of Zuspillen, Lord of the highest God[2] in\nJherusalem,(4) in Capadocie,(5) the Lord of Jordan, the Lord of the\nEast whence flows the boiling sea; the Lord of Bethlahen where your\nLady our niece was born, and her son our nephew[3] of Nazareth.(6)\nThe Lord of Synay, of Talapharum, and of the valley of Josaphat.\nThe Lord of Germoni, around which mountain are seventy-two towers\nall embellished with marble.(7) The Lord of the great forest, four\nhundred miles in length, and inhabited by seventy-two languages.(8)\nThe Lord of Paradise and of the rivers that flow from there, situated\nin our country of Capadocie; the guardian of the caves,(9) the mighty\nemperor of Constantinoppel, Amorach of Kaylamer, the mighty emperor of\nGalgarien, the Lord of the withered tree, the Lord where the sun and\nthe moon rise and set, from first to last; the lord [of the places]\nwhere Enoch and Helyas are buried. Item, the protector of the first\nPrester John, in enclosed Rumany, and guardian of Wadach. Guardian\nof Alexander, Founder of the fortified city of Babilonie, where the\nseventy-two languages were invented. Emperor king of all kings. The\nLord of Christians, Jews, and Infidels. Destructor of the Gods.(10)\nThus did he write to Rom when he wanted to have his daughter\u2019s\nmarriage, at which marriage I also was present. It is also to be noted,\nthat it is the custom in the country of the king-sultan, that during\nthe week of their feast, married women are at liberty to be wanton\nwith men if it be their desire, without their husbands or anybody else\nhaving anything to say, because it is the custom. It is also the custom\nfor the king-sultan, when he rides into a city, or when people from\nstrange countries come to him, to cover his face that none may see it;\nand if it be a great guest, he must first kneel three times[4] and\nkiss the ground, then stand up and go near him. If he is an Infidel,\nhe kisses his bare hand, but if he is a Christian, he draws his hand\ninto his sleeve, and puts out the sleeve which he must kiss. When\nthe king-sultan sends a messenger, he has at the several stations on\nthe road, horses ready with all that is needed. His messenger, whom\nhe sends, has a bell at his girdle; he covers it with a cloth until\nhe gets near a station, then he removes it and lets it ring. When it\nis heard at the station, a horse is prepared for him, and he finds\nit ready. He rides to another station, and there he again finds one\nready. This he goes on doing, until he gets to the place to which he\nwas sent. This is done on all the roads of the king-sultan.(11) It is\nalso to be noted, that the king-sultan also sends letters by pigeons,\nbecause he has many enemies, and is afraid that they might stop his\nmessengers. They are sent mostly from Archey to Tamasgen, between which\nplaces is a great desert. It is also to be noted, how the pigeons are\nsent to any city to which the king-sultan wishes to have them sent.\nTwo pigeons must be put together, and sugar must be put into their\nfood, and they are not allowed to fly; and when they know each other\nwell, the hen-pigeon is taken to the king, and he keeps it, and marks\nthe cock-pigeon that it may be known from which city it is; it is\nthen put into a separate place that is prepared, and the hen-pigeon\nis no longer allowed inside. They no longer give him so much to eat,\nand no more sugar as he used to have; this is done that he may wish\nto return as soon as possible to the place where he was before, and\nwhere he was trained. When they wish to despatch him, the letter is\ntied under a wing, and he flies away straight for the house where he\nwas trained. There he is caught and the letter taken from him, and\nthey send it to whomsoever it belongs.(12) When a guest comes to the\nking-sultan, whether he be a lord or a merchant, they give him a pass;\nand when the letter is shewn in his country, they kneel when it is\nread, and they kiss it, and shew the guest great honour and attention,\nand they take him over the country from one place to the other. It is\nalso to be noted, that when the ambassador of a king, or of some other\nlord of a foreign country, comes, it is the custom among the Infidels\nto attach to him a chief with three or four hundred, or with six\nhundred horsemen; and when the king-sultan becomes aware of him, he is\nseated on his throne in attire ornamented with precious stones, and\nhaving seven curtains before him. And when the lord who is sent on the\nembassage wants to enter, one curtain is withdrawn after the other, and\neach time he must bow and kiss the ground. When the last is withdrawn,\nhe kneels before the king, who holds out to him his hand; he kisses\nit and then delivers his message. There is a bird in Arabia called\nsacka,(13) which is larger than a crane, and has a long neck, and a\nbroad and long beak. It is black and has large feet, which are much\nlike the feet of a goose in the lower parts; its feet are also very\nblack; its colour is the same as that of a crane; it has a large crop\nin front of its neck, in which it has quite a quart of water. It is the\nhabit of this bird, to fly to a river and fill its crop with water;\nthen it flies away to the desert where there is no water, and pours it\nout of its crop into a hole in the rock. Then come the little birds of\nthe desert to drink, when he attacks those birds for his food. This is\nthe same desert that people cross, who go to the tomb of Machmet where\nhe is buried.\n  [1] This letter and all these titles are inventions,\n  related to Schiltberger in all probability by the\n  Armenian. _N._\n  [2] \u201cain herr des obristen gots.\u201d\n38.\u2014Of the mountain of St. Catherine.\nThe Red Sea is two hundred and forty Italian miles broad; it is called\nthe Red Sea, but it is not red, but the land around is in some parts\nred. It is the same as other seas, and is near Arabia, and is crossed\nto go to Saint Catherine, and by whoever wishes [to go] to Mount Sinay,\nwhere I have not been; but I have heard about it from Christians\nand Infidels, because Infidels also go there. The Infidels call the\nmountain Muntagi,[1](1) which is the same as calling it the mountain\nof the apparition, because God appeared before Moysi on this mountain,\nin a flame of fire, when he spoke to him. On the mountain there is a\nmonastery, in which are Greeks who form a large brotherhood; they do\nnot drink wine, and live like recluses; they do not eat meat, and are a\nreligious people, and fast always. Within, are many burning lamps, and\nof the oil for burning and eating, they have enough sent to them by a\nmiracle from God, which happens in this way. When the olives are ripe,\nall the birds that are in the country come together, and each bird\nbrings a branch in its beak to the mount of Saint Catherine, and they\nbring so many, that they have enough for the lamps and for food. In\nthe church, behind the altar, is the place where God appeared to Moysi\nin the burning bush; when the monks go near it they are bare-footed,\nbecause it is a holy place; because our Lord commanded Moysi to take\noff his shoes because the place is holy, and the place is called the\nplace of God. Three steps higher up, is the high altar where lay the\nbones of Saint Catherine; the abbot shews this sanctuary to pilgrims,\nand he has a silver thing with which he touches the sanctuary and the\nbones. In this way he obtains an exudation of oil, which is neither\nlike oil nor balsam; this he gives to the pilgrims, and shews there the\nhead of Saint Catherine and many other sacred things. A great miracle\ntakes place in this monastery, where there are as many lamps that are\nalways burning, as there are monks. When a monk is about to die, his\nlamp becomes dim, and when it goes out, he dies. When the abbot dies,\nhe who sings the mass finds on the altar a letter, in which is written\nthe name of the man who is to be the abbot, and his lamp re-lights\nitself. In the same abbey is the spring where Moysi caused the water\nto flow, when he struck the rock with his staff. Not far from the said\nabbey, is the church built in honour of our Lady, where she appeared\nto the monks; higher up, is the chapel of Moysi, to which he fled when\nhe saw our Lord face to face. There is also on the mount, the chapel\nof the prophet Helyas; the mount is called Oreb; close to the chapel\nof Moysi is the site where our Lord delivered to him the tables with\nthe ten commandments, and on this same mountain is the cave in which\nMoysi remained, when he fasted forty days. From this valley one gets to\na larger valley, and gets to the mountain to which Saint Catherine was\ncarried by angels. In the same valley is a church, built in honour of\nthe forty martyrs, in which the monks often sing the mass. The valley\nis cold, and the place on Saint Catherine\u2019s mount where she was carried\nby the angels, is nothing but a heap of stones; but there has been a\nchapel which is destroyed. There are also two mounts called Sinay,\nwhich are near each other, except for the valley which is between them.\n  [1] Muntagi should be called Huschan-Daghi, Mountain of\n  the Apparition. _F._\n39.\u2014Of the withered tree.\nNot far from Ebron is the village of Mambertal,(1) where is the\nwithered tree which the Infidels call kurruthereck; it is also called\ncarpe,[1] and has been since the time of Abraham, and was always green\nuntil our Lord died on the cross; since His death it has withered.\nIt is found in prophecy, that a prince will come from the Occident\ntowards the sun, and will with the Christians take possession of the\nholy sepulchre, and will cause the celebration of the mass under the\nwithered tree; then will the tree become green and bear fruit. The\nInfidels hold it in great honour, and take good care of it. It has\nalso the virtue, that when anybody suffers from epilepsy, and he\npasses by it, he falls no more; and it possesses many other virtues,\nso that it is well taken care of.(2) Item, it is two full days journey\nfrom Jherusalem to Nazereth where our Lord was brought up, which was\nformerly a considerable city; but now it is a small village, the houses\nare far from each other, and mountains are around it. There was a\nchurch where our Lady received the salutation of the archangel Gabryel,\nbut now there is only a pillar.(3) The Infidels guard it well, because\nof the offerings which the Christians bring there; these they take\naway because they are enemies, but they dare not do anything to them,\nbecause it is forbidden by the sultan.\n  [1] Selvy is the Turkish for cypress tree. This word\n  appears as Sirpe in edition of 1814.\n40.\u2014Of Jherusalem and of the Holy Sepulchre.\nWhen I was at Jherusalem, I was there during a great war, and our\nthirty thousand [men] were encamped near the Jordan on a beautiful\nmeadow; this is the reason why I could not see all the holy places\nwell; but I will relate some things. I went twice to Jherusalem with a\nkoldigen(1) named Joseph. Jherusalem lies between two mounts, and there\nis great want of water. The Infidels call Jherusalem, Kurtzitalil.(2)\nThe church in which is the holy sepulchre is a fine church, high and\ncircular; it is covered all over with lead, and is outside the city. In\nthe middle of the church, in the chapel on the right hand, is the holy\nsepulchre, wherein nobody can enter, unless he is a great lord; but a\nstone of the holy sepulchre is let into the wall of the tabernacle,\nand the pilgrims can kiss and touch it.(3) There is a lamp that burns\nall the year until Good Friday, then it goes out, and re-lights itself\non Easter day. There is also on Easter eve a brightness above the\nholy sepulchre, that is like fire;(4) many people come there from\nErmenia, from Siria, and from the country of Prester John, to see this\nbrightness in the church; On the right hand is Mount Calvarie where\nis _an altar_ (?);[1] there, is the pillar to which our Lord was bound\nwhilst he was scourged. Near the said altar, are forty-two steps\nunder ground; there, were found the holy cross and those of the two\nthieves. In front of the gate of the church, are eighteen steps; there,\nour Lord on the cross said to his mother: \u201cWoman, behold, that is thy\nchild\u201d; and he said to Saint Johannsen: \u201cBehold, that is thy mother.\u201d\nHe went up those very steps when he carried the cross; and on the same\nside, but a little higher, is the chapel in which are the priests from\nthe country of Prester John.(5) In front of the city is the church\nof Saint Steffan, where he was stoned;(6) and against the valley of\nJosophat, is the golden gate before the church where is the holy\nsepulchre. Not far from there is the great hospital of Saint Johanns,\nin which they receive sick people. The hospital has one hundred and\nthirty-four columns; there is another hospital that rests on fifty-four\nmarble columns.(7) Below the hospital is a fine church, called that\nof our great Lady, and between them is another church called that of\nour Lady, where Mary Magdalen and Mary Cleophas tore out their hair\nwhen they saw God on the cross. In front of the church where is the\nholy sepulchre, is the temple of our Lord; it is very fine, high, and\ncircular; it is also wide and covered with tin; there is also a fine\nopen space with houses around, and it is paved with white marble; the\nInfidels do not allow either Christians or Jews to enter it.(8) Near to\nthe great temple is a church covered with lead, and called the throne\nof Salomon;(9) and on the left hand is a palace, called the temple of\nSalomon. A church there, is in honour of Saint Annen, in which is a\nwell; whoever bathes in it is healed, whatever be his disease. It was\nthere our Lord healed the bed-ridden man.(10) Not far from this is the\nhouse of Pilate, and close by, is the house of Herod(11) who ordered\nthe children to be killed. A little further, there is a church called\nthat of Saint Annen, in which is an arm of Saint Johannes Crisostimus,\nand the greater portion of the head of Saint Stephen.(12) There is\na street which leads to Mount Syon, where is the church of Saint\nJames. Not far from the mount, is the church of our Lady, where she\nlived and also where she died. When one is on Mount Syon, there is a\nchapel in which is the stone that was over the holy sepulchre; there\nis also a pillar to which our Lord was bound, when the Jews scourged\nhim. In the same place was the house of Annas, who was the Jewish\nbishop. At the top of thirty-two steps, is the place where our Lord\nwashed the feet of his disciples; near the same place, Saint Stephen\nwas buried. This is also the place where our Lady heard the angels\nsing the mass; in the same chapel, near the high altar sat the twelve\nholy apostles on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost came upon\nthem. At this same place, our Lord celebrated the Passover with his\ndisciples. Mount Syon is in the city of Jherusalem, and stands higher\nthan the city.(13) Below the mount is a beautiful castle which was\nbuilt by the king-sultan.(14) On the mount are buried King Soldan(15)\nand King David, and many other kings. Between Mount Syon and Salomon\u2019s\ntemple, is the house where our Lord raised the maiden from death; it\nis also the place where Isayas the prophet was buried. In front of the\ncity of Jherusalem, lies buried the prophet Dayel. Between the mount\nof Oliueli and Jherusalem, is the valley of Josophat which reaches\nto the city. There is a brook in the valley of Josophat where is the\nsepulchre of our Lady, XL steps below ground.(16) Not far off is a\nchurch where Jacob and Zacharias the prophets are buried.[2] Above the\nvalley is the mount of Olives, and close to the mount, is the mount of\nGalilee.(17) From Jherusalem _two hundred stadia are counted_ to the\nDead Sea, _which is one hundred and fifty stadia wide_,(18) _and into\nwhich flows the river Jordan, at the source of which_,[3] and at no\ndistance, is the church of Saint Johannes; and a little higher up,\nChristians usually bathe in the Jordan,(19) which is neither broad nor\ndeep, but there are good fish in it; its source is from two springs on\nthe same mountain, one spring is called the Jor, the other, Don, and\nfrom these it has its name;(20) it flows through a lake, then under a\nmountain, and comes up on a beautiful plain, where the Infidels often\nhave a fair during the year.(21) In this same plain is the grave of\nSaint James, and on this same plain we encamped with our young king,\nwith thirty thousand men sent to him by the Turkish king. There are\nmany Christians on the Jordan, and they have many churches there. It is\nto be noted, that the Infidels took possession of the holy sepulchre,\ntwelve hundred and eighty years from Christ.(22) Ebron lies seven\nleagues from Jherusalem, and is the chief city of the Philistines;\non Ebron are the graves of the patriarchs, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob, and of their wives Eva, Sara, Rebecca, and Lia. There is a fine\nchurch which the Infidels take great care of, and hold in great honour,\nbecause the holy fathers lie there; they do not allow either Christians\nor Jews to enter, unless they have the permission of the king-sultan,\nand they say, we are not worthy to enter so holy a place. In front of\nthe city of Miser, which the Christians call Cair, there is a garden\nwhere balsam grows; it grows there only, and in India. The king-sultan\nenjoys a large income from this balsam. The Infidels often adulterate\nit, and merchants and druggists also mix it, and this they do that they\nmay make more profit.(23) Genuine balsam is pure and clear, and has a\npleasant taste, and is yellow; but when it is thick and red, it is not\ngenuine. Take a drop of balsam in the hand, and expose it to the sun;\nif it is good, you cannot keep it long in the sun, because you feel the\ngreat heat. Take a drop of balsam on a knife, and put it near a glowing\nfire; if the balsam burns, it is genuine. Take a silver cup or goblet\nfull of goat\u2019s milk, stir it quickly and put a drop of balsam into it;\nif it is good, the milk will immediately curdle, and so the balsam is\nproved.\n  [1] The word _altar_ is omitted in the edition of 1859.\n  Neumann states that several editions give different\n  substitutes for this word. In those of 1475 (?) and 1549,\n  the word \u201caltar\u201d is inserted.\n  [2] \u201cda sint begraben Jacob und Zacharyas, die propheten.\u201d\n  [3] The words in italics are wanting in the edition\n  of 1859, and are substituted from that of 1814, a\n  reproduction of the passage in the editions of 1475 (?)\n41.\u2014Of the spring in Paradise, with IIII rivers.\nIn the middle of Paradise there is a spring, from which flow four\nrivers that course through different countries. The first is called\nRison and flows through India; in this river are found many precious\nstones and gold. The other is called Nilus: it flows through the\ncountry of the Moors and through Egypt. The third is called Tigris,\nand flows through Asia and Great Armenia. The fourth is called the\nEufrates, which flows through Persia and Lesser Armenia. Of these four\nrivers I have seen three.(1) One is called Nilus, the other Tigris, the\nthird, Eufrates. I have been many years in the countries through which\nthese rivers flow, and have there experienced many things that are good\nand bad, of which a great deal more might be said.\n42.\u2014How pepper grows in India.\nI have not been in Great India where the pepper grows, but I have heard\nin the Infidel country from those who have seen it, where and how it\ngrows. In the first place, I have understood and heard, that it grows\nnear the city of Lambe, in a forest called Lambor;(1) this forest is\nquite XIIII days journey in length. In this forest are II cities and\nmany villages in which are Christians; it is very hot where the pepper\ngrows. The pepper grows on trees which are like the wild vine, and is\nsomething like the sloe when it is green; and they bind them to poles\nas they do the vine, and the trees bear a great deal. When it is green\nit is ripe, then they cut it as they do grapes, and expose it to the\nsun until it is dry. Three kinds of pepper grow; the long and black\ngrows with the leaves. There is the white, which is the best, and they\nkeep it in the country; but not so much of this grows as of the other.\nThere are also many serpents there, produced by the heat. Some people\nsay, that when the pepper is to be gathered, fires are made in the\nforest to drive away the serpents, therefore the pepper becomes black;\nbut this is not the case, because if they made a fire, the trees would\nwither and bear no more fruit; but the truth is, that they wash their\nhands with the juice of an apple which they call liuon,(2) or of some\nother plant; the serpents escape from the smell, and then they gather\nthe pepper without trouble. In the same country they also grow good\nginger, and many spices and aromatics.\n43.\u2014Of Allexandria.\nAlexandria is quite seven Italian miles long, and three broad, and is\na fine and pretty city, and the river Nilus flows past the city into\nthe sea; and the city has no other drinking water, and it is conducted\ninto the city by means of cisterns. Many merchants come there from over\nthe sea, from Italian countries, from Venice and from Genoa. Those\nfrom Genoa have their own counting-houses at Alexandria, and those\nfrom Venice likewise.(1) It is the custom at Alexandria, that at the\nhour of vespers, all the Italians must be in their counting-houses,\nand no longer without, about the city, which is strictly forbidden.\nThen an Infidel comes and locks up the counting-house, and takes away\nthe key until the morning, when he comes and opens it again. Thus\nthey take care that the Italians shall not take their city, because\nthey were once conquered by the king of Zipern.(2) Near the port of\nAlexandria there is a fine high tower, on which there was not long ago\na mirror, in which one could see from Alexandria toward Cipern those\nwho were on the sea; and whatever they were doing, all could be seen\nin this mirror at Allexandria, so that at the time that the king of\nZipern went to war with Allexandria, he could do them no harm. Then\ncame a priest to the king of Ziperen, and asked what he would give him\nif he broke the mirror. The king replied, that if he would break the\nmirror, he would give him whichever bishopric he might choose to have\nin his country. The priest then went to Rome to the Pope, and said:\nThat he would break the mirror at Allexandria, if he would allow him\nto abjure the Christian faith. He gave him permission that he might\ndo so in words, and not in deeds nor with the heart. Now he did this\nfor the sake of the Christian faith, because the Christians at sea\nsuffered many injuries from the Infidels, through this mirror. The\npriest returned from Rome to Alexandria, and was converted to the\nfaith of the Infidels, and learnt their writing, and became an Infidel\npriest and their preacher, and taught them the Infidel faith against\nthe Christian faith, and they held him in great honour, and wondered,\nbecause he had been a Christian priest, and they trusted in him very\nmuch. They asked him which temple in the city he wished for, as they\nwould give it to him for his life time. There was also a temple in the\nmiddle of the tower where the mirror was; this temple he asked for,\nfor his life time; they gave it to him together with the keys of the\nmirror. There he remained nine years, and then one day he sent to the\nking of Zypperen that he should come with his galleys, and he would\nbreak the mirror which was in his power, and he thought, that, after\nbreaking the mirror, if the galleys were there, he would go on board.\nOne morning many galleys came, he struck the mirror three blows with a\nhammer before it broke, and from the noise all the people in the city\nwere frightened, and ran to the tower and fell on him, so that he could\nnot get away; then he jumped out of a window of the tower, into the\nsea, and was killed. Soon afterwards, the king of Zyperen came with a\nlarge force, and took Allexandria, and remained in it three days.(3)\nThen came the king-sultan, and he marched upon him so that he could not\nremain; and he burnt the city, and took away with him many people with\ntheir wives and children, and much booty.\n44.\u2014Of a great giant.\nIt is to be noted, that in Egypt there was a giant, who was called in\nthe Infidel tongue, Allenklaisser. In this country is the city called\nMissir, but the Christians call it Kayr, and it is the capital of the\nking-sultan. In this same city are twelve thousand baking ovens. Now\nthe said giant was so strong, that one day he brought into the city\na bundle of wood to heat all the ovens, and one bundle was enough;\neach baker gave him a loaf, which makes twelve thousand loaves. All\nthese he ate in one day. The shin-bone of this giant is in Arabia, in\na valley between two mountains. There is a deep valley between the\nrocks, where flows a river at such a depth that no person can see it,\none only hears its rush. It is in this same valley that the shin-bone\nof the giant serves as a bridge; and whoever comes there, whether they\nare riding or on foot, must pass over this shin-bone. It is also on a\nroad where traders pass, coming and going, because the defile is so\nnarrow, that people cannot pass by any other way; and the Infidels say\nthat this bone is one frysen[1] in length, which is equal to an arrow\u2019s\nflight, or more. There, a toll is taken from traders; with the same,\nthey buy oil to anoint the bone that it may not rot. It is not a long\ntime since a king-sultan had a bridge built near the bone; it is about\ntwo hundred years [ago], according to an inscription on the bridge.\nWhen a lord comes there with many people, he passes over the bridge,\nand does not pass over the bone; but whoever wishes to pass over this\nwonder, may do so, that he may say of it that in this country there is\nan incredible thing, and which is nevertheless surely true. And if it\nwere not true, or had I not seen it, I would not have spoken or written\nabout it.(1)\n  [1] Farsang or fursak = 3 m. 787-1/2 yds.\n45.\u2014Of the many religions the Infidels have.\nIt is to be noted, that the Infidels have five religions. First,\nsome believe in a giant called Aly, who was a great persecutor of\nChristians. Others believe in one who was called Molwa,(1) who was an\nInfidel priest. The third believe, as the three kings believed, before\nthey were baptised. The fourth believe in fire, because they say that\nAbel, the son of Adam, brought his offering to Almighty God, and the\nflames of the fire were the offering; therefore they believe in this\noffering. Among the fifth, some believe, and the largest number among\nthe Infidels believe, in one who is called Machmet.\n46.\u2014How Machmet and his religion appeared.\nIt is here to be noted of Machmet, how he came and how he brought\nhis religion. Item, his father and mother were poor people, and he\nis a native of Arabia. When he was thirteen years old he went away\nfrom home, went to [some] merchants who wanted to go to Egypt, and\nasked them to take him with them. They took him, agreeing that he\nmust look after the camels and horses, and wherever Machmet went, or\nstood, there stood always a cloud over him, which was black; and when\nthey came to Egypt, they encamped near a village. Now at that time\nthere were Christians in Egypt; the pastor of the village came to the\nmerchants, and invited them to dine with him. They did so, and told\nMachmet that he must look after the horses and camels. This he did.\nAnd now when they came into the pastor\u2019s house, the pastor asked them\nif they were all there? The merchants said: \u201cWe are all here, except a\nboy who is guarding our camels and horses.\u201d Now this priest had read\nin a prophecy, how one, born of two persons, would spread a doctrine\nagainst that of Christianity, and that as a sign who the man was to\nbe, a black cloud would stand over him. The pastor went out, and saw\na black cloud over the little boy, who was Machmet. When he had now\nseen him, he asked the merchants that they should bring the boy;\nthey brought him. The pastor asked him his name. He said, \u201cMachmet\u201d.\nThis, the priest also found in prophecy, and more [than this], that\nhe would be a mighty lord and man, and that he would greatly trouble\nChristianity; but that his doctrine would not last one thousand years,\nand then it would decrease. When the pastor knew that he was named\nMachmet, and saw the black cloud stand over him, he understood that he\nwas the man who would introduce this doctrine, and he placed him at\nhis table above the merchants, and showed him great honour. After the\nmeal, the pastor asked the merchants if they knew the boy. They said;\n\u201cNo, but he came to us, and asked us to take him with us into Egypt.\u201d\nThen the pastor told them how he had read in a prophecy, how this boy\nwould introduce a doctrine against Christians, through which they would\nsuffer much, and for a sign [of this], a black cloud would be always\nover him; and showed them the cloud and said, that when he was in the\ngalley, the cloud was there also. He said to the boy: \u201cThou shalt be a\ngreat teacher, and shalt introduce a particular doctrine amongst the\nInfidels, and thou shalt overpower the Christians by thy might, and thy\ndescendants will also acquire great power.(1) Now I pray thee that thou\nwilt leave my race, the Armeny, in peace.\u201d This he promised him, and\nthen went with the merchants to Babiloni, and became a great scholar in\nInfidel writings, and preached to the Infidels that they should believe\nin God who had created heaven and earth, and not in the idols that were\nthe creatures of men; they have ears and hear not; they have eyes and\nsee not; they have a mouth and speak not; they have feet and walk not;\nnor can they save either the body or soul; and he converted the king of\nBabilony and many people with him. Then the king took him, and gave him\npower over the land; this he exercised; and when the king died, he took\nthe king\u2019s wife, and became a mighty Calpha, which is as much as to\nsay, a Pope. He had four men with him who were well learned in Infidel\nwritings, and to each he gave an office. To the first, he gave charge\nof ecclesiastical jurisdiction; to the other, lay jurisdiction; the\nfirst, was named Omar, the other, Otman; the third was named Abubach,\nto whom he gave charge of weights and manufactures, so that he was over\nthem, and each one should be faithful in his work. The fourth was named\nAly; he made him chief over all his people, and sent him into Arabia\nthat he should convert Christians, because Christians were there at the\ntime; but if any would not be converted, then he should compel them\nby the sword. We read in the Infidel book, Alkoray, that in one day\nninety thousand men were killed for [the sake of] Machmet\u2019s doctrine,\nand the whole of Arabia was converted. Machmet gave them a law, how\nthey were to conduct themselves before God, who had created heaven and\nearth. And the law of the Infidels begins in this way. First, when\na boy was born, when he comes to be thirteen years old, he must be\ncircumcised, and he has instituted five daily prayers, which must be\ndaily repeated. The first prayer is when the day breaks; another, in\nthe middle of the day; the third, at the time of vespers; the fourth,\nbefore the sun goes down; the fifth, when day and night part. With\nthe first four, they praise God, who has made heaven and earth; with\nthe fifth, they pray to Machmet, that he will intercede for them with\nGod. And they must go into the temple at certain times of the day; and\nwhen they want to go into the temple, they must wash the mouth, then\nthe hands, feet, ears, and eyes. And when any one has sinned with his\nwife, he cannot go into the temple, until he has washed his whole body;\nthis they do in the same belief as we Christians who confess; and the\nInfidels believe that, after they have washed, they are as pure as\nChristians, who, with full penitence, have confessed to the priest. And\nwhen they want to enter the temple, they take off their shoes and go\nin bare footed; they cannot take in any arms, or weapons that cut, and\nthey do not allow any woman in the temple, so long as they are inside;\nand when they go into the temple, they stand near each other, with\ntheir hands close to each other; and they bend and kiss the ground,\nand their priest sits on a seat before them, and begins a prayer which\nthey repeat after him. It is also to be noted, that in the temple\nno one speaks to another, nor looks at another, until the prayer is\nended. In the temple they do not put one foot far from the other, but\nkeep them close together; they do not go to and fro, nor look here and\nthere, but they stand still in one place, and keep their hands together\nuntil they have quite finished their prayer; and when they have quite\nfinished, they bow to each other, and only then go out of the temple.\nIt is also to be noted, that no door of the temple is left open. They\nhave no painting and no picture inside, only their writings, plants,\nroses, and flowers. They do not willingly allow Christians to enter,\nand more than this, it is to be noted, that Infidels must not spit,\ncough, or do anything of the sort in their temple; but if some one does\nso inside, he must go out and wash himself, and, added to this, must\nsuffer much reproach from the Infidels; and when one coughs, sneezes,\nor ..., he must go out of the temple and wash himself after it. It is\nalso to be noted, that they keep Friday as we keep Sunday, and whoever\ndoes not go to the temple on their holy-day, is taken and tied to a\nladder, and carried about the town from one street to the other, and\ntied in front of the temple until their prayer is finished; and then\nthey beat him twenty-five times with a rod on the naked body, whether\nhe is rich or poor. Item, all the young dropped by their cattle on the\nFriday, are given to the hospital. Their priests also say, that when\nprayer is finished on a holy-day, people may work, because work is\nholy, and that man commits more sin by being idle than with work, and\ntherefore they allow their people to work on holy days after they have\nfinished their prayer. And when they finish their prayers on holy-days,\nthey raise their hands towards God, and all pray with common voice for\nvengeance on Christendom, and say: \u201cAlmighty God, we pray thee not to\nsuffer Christians to be united,\u201d and say, that if Christians are united\nand have peace amongst themselves, they must succumb. It is also to\nbe noted, that they have three kinds of temples; one, to which they\nall go, is Sam, a parish church; the other, into which priests go, is\na monastery, and in which they also go through their probation; the\nthird, is where their kings and mighty vassals have their burial, and\nin it poor people are received for the love of God, whether they be\nChristians, Infidels, or Jews, and the temple is like a hospital. The\nfirst temple is also called Mesgit, the other Medrassa, the third,\nAmarat.(2) It is also to be noted, that they do not bury their dead\neither in the temples, or around them; they bury in the fields and on\nthe high roads; this they do that those who pass by, may pray to God\nfor them. And when one is about to die, they stand around him, and\ntell him that he must think of God, and call to God to have mercy upon\nhim; and when he dies, they wash him, and then their priests carry\nhim, singing, to the grave, and bury him. It is also to be noted, that\nthe Infidels fast one month in the year, and this fast changes every\nyear to another month, and they fast one whole day without eating or\ndrinking, until they see the stars in the sky. Then the priest goes up\nthe tower, and calls the people to prayer, and they go into the temple\nand say their prayers, and only when they have finished their prayer,\nthey go home and eat all night until the morning, meat, or whatever\nthey may have. Also, they do not lay with their wives during their\nfast; and when a woman is pregnant or in child-bed, she may eat during\nthe day, and the sick may do the same. They do not take payment during\nfast, either for houses or for any thing that pays interest.\n47.\u2014Of the Infidels\u2019 Easter-day.(1)\nIt is also to be noted of the Infidels\u2019 Easter day, that, after they\nhave fasted four weeks, they have Easter for three days following, and\non the morning of Easter day they go to the temple, and finish their\nprayer as is their custom; and when they have done, the common people\nput on their arms, and then come to the high priest\u2019s house, with the\nchiefs of the town and the soldiers, and then take out of the priest\u2019s\nhouse, the tabernacle, and ornament it with cloth of gold and velvet,\nand the chiefs and the principal [people] carry it in front of their\ntemple, and in front of the tabernacle they carry their banners, and\nall the musicians they can find also go before it; and when they bring\nit to the temple, they put it down, and the chief priest goes into the\ntabernacle and preaches inside it. When he has preached, they put a\nsword in his hand; he draws it and speaks to the people, and calls upon\nGod that he should give us might and strength against all the enemies\nof Machmet\u2019s faith, so that we may overcome them with the sword. Then\nthey all put out their hands, and pray to our Lord that it may so\nhappen, and after this, the mighty lords go into the temple and pray,\nand during that time, the people must guard the tabernacle and the\nlords. When their prayer is finished, they take the tabernacle with the\npriest inside, and carry him back to his house, with the musicians and\nbanners. Afterwards, they go to their houses and have great rejoicings\nfor three days.\n48.\u2014Of the other Easter-day.\nAnd then, after a month, they have another Easter day in honour of\nAbraham. On this [day] they kill lambs and oxen, and give to the poor,\nby the will of God, [and] to the honour of Abraham, because he was\nobedient, and wanted to sacrifice his son to God. At this time, the\nInfidels go to the grave of Machmet, and to the temple which Abraham\nbuilt and which lies in front of the city, and Machmet has his grave in\nit, and it is called Madina. On Easter day the king-sultan covers the\ntemple of Abraham with velvet, which is black, and then their priest\ncuts off a small piece for each Infidel pilgrim that comes, that he may\ntake it away as a sign that he has been there.\n49.\u2014Of the law of the Infidels.\nIt is also here to be noted, what Machmet has forbidden in the laws he\nhas given to the Infidels. First, he has forbidden the Infidels that\nthey should dare to cut the beard, because it would be against the\nwill of God when he created Adam, the first man, in his Divine image;\nand the Infidels also say, that he who would have a face different to\nthat he received from God, does it against God\u2019s command, whether he\nbe young or old. They also say that whoever cuts his beard, he does\nit from vanity and pride, and to please the world, and scorns the\ncreation of God; it is particularly the Christians who do this to\nplease their women, and this is a great misfortune for them, because,\nfor the sake of vanity, they disfigure the image in which God created\nthem. Then Machmet forbade that any one should lift his hat or uncover\nhis head to another, whether he be king, emperor, noble or plebeian,\nwhich they also observe; but when they go before a mighty man, they\nbow and kneel before him. They say, when one\u2019s father, and mother, or\nanother friend dies, they should uncover the head before him. This they\nalso do. When they lament for one, they take off their hat, and lift it\nhigh and throw it on the ground, and then they lament. This also has\nMachmet allowed, that a man may take as many wives as he can support.\nIt is also their law, that when a woman is pregnant, they do not go\nnear her until the child is born, nor for fourteen days after; but they\nmay have a concubine. The Infidels also say that after the last day\nthey will have wives, with whom they will lie; but they will always\nremain virgins. They also say that God has established marriage only\nfor those who die in the faith of Machmet. He has also ordered that\nthey must not eat any animal, or bird, unless they cut its throat and\nlet the blood flow, which they observe. They do not eat pig\u2019s flesh,\nbecause Machmet has also forbidden it.\n50.\u2014Why Machmet has forbidden wine to Infidels.\nIt is also to be noted, that Machmet has forbidden wine to Infidels,\nbecause as the Infidels say: One day he was passing, with his servants,\na public-house, in which were many people making merry. He asked why\nthose people were so merry; one of his servants told him it was caused\nby wine. Machmet said: \u201cIs it such a drink that people become so\nmerry from it!\u201d Now in the evening Machmet went out again, and there\nwas a great noise because a man and his wife were fighting, and two\npersons were killed. He spoke and asked what was the matter? One of\nhis servants said that the people who were merry have now lost their\nsenses, because they have taken too much wine, and they knew not what\nthey did. Then Machmet forbade wine to all, under a heavy penalty,\nwhether ecclesiastic or lay, emperor, king, dukes, barons, counts,\nknight and varlet, servants, and all those who were of his faith, and\nthat they should no longer drink wine, whether they be well or ill,\nand this is why he has forbidden wine to them, as the Infidels have\ntold me. He has also ordered that the Christians and all those who\nare against his faith, should be persecuted day and night, except the\nArmeny who are to be free amongst them; and where there are Armeny\namongst them, then they should not take from them a monthly tax greater\nthan two pfennings, because Machmet had promised the Armenian priest,\nas has been stated. He has also ordered, that when they overcome\nChristians, they should not kill them; but they should pervert them,\nand should thus spread and strengthen their own faith.\n51.\u2014Of a fellowship the Infidels have among themselves.\nIt is also to be noted, that during the time he was on earth, Machmet\nhad forty disciples. They have a special fellowship and have made an\nalliance against Christendom, and this is their law. Whoever wants to\nbe of their fellowship, must swear that if he meets a Christian, he\nwill not let him live nor take him a prisoner, whether from favour or\nfor the sake of profit; and if it should happen that in a battle which\nInfidels [might] have with Christians, he cannot succeed to take one,\nhe must buy a Christian and kill him. Those who are in this fellowship\nare called They;[1](1) there are many of them in Turkey, and they\nalways go against the Christians because it is their law.\n  [1] To those who are unfamiliar with the name, the title\n  of Ghasi would scarcely be recognised in that of They.\n52.\u2014How a Christian becomes an Infidel.\nIt is also to be noted how a Christian, from the beginning, becomes an\nInfidel. When a Christian wants to become an Infidel, he must before\nall men raise a finger, and say the words: \u201cLa il lach illallach;\u201d\nMachmet is his true messenger.(1) And when he says this, they take him\nto the high priest; then he must repeat the above written words before\nthe priest, and must deny the Christian faith, and when he has done\nthat, they put on him a new dress, and the priest binds a new kerchief\non his head; and this they do that it may be seen he is an Infidel,\nbecause Christians wear blue kerchiefs, and the Jews, yellow kerchiefs,\non the head. Then the priest asks all the people to put on their\narmour, and who has to ride, rides; also all the priests who are in the\nneighbourhood. And when the people come, they put him on a horse, and\nthen the common people must ride before him, and the priests go behind\nhim, with trumpets, cymbals and fifes, and two priests ride near him;\nand so they lead him about in the town; and the Infidels cry with a\nloud voice and praise Machmet, and the two priests say to him these\nwords: \u201cThary wirdur, Messe chulidur, Maria cara baschidur, Machmet\nkassuldur\u201d: which is as much as to say; There is one God, and the\nMessiah his servant, Mary his maid, and Machmet his chief messenger.(2)\nAfter they have led him everywhere in the city, from one street to\nanother, then they lead him into the temple and circumcise him. If he\nis poor, they make a large collection and give it to him, and the great\nlords shew particular honour to him, and make him rich; this they do,\nthat Christians may be more willing to be converted to their faith. _If\nit is a woman who wants to change her religion_,[1] she is also taken\nto the high priest, and must say the above words. The priest then takes\nthe woman\u2019s girdle, cuts it in two, and makes of it a cross; on this,\nthe woman must stamp three times,[2] deny the Christian faith, and must\nsay the other words above written. The Infidels have a good custom\namong their merchants, when one wants to buy from another, whatever\nbe the merchandise. The buyer says to the seller, that he should make\na just profit on what he buys, so that he also might live; so that he\ntakes no more profit than one pfenning in forty pfennings, which is\nequal to one gulden in forty guldens, and no more; this they call a\nright purchase and profit, and this Machmet has also commanded them,\nso that the poor, like the rich, might live. The priests also always\nsay in their sermons, that they should help each other and be subject\nto their superiors, and the rich are to be humble before the poor, and\nwhen they do this, God Almighty gives them strength and might against\ntheir enemies; and whatever their priest says to them about spiritual\nthings, they are obedient and submissive to it. This is the faith of\nMachmet which he has given to the Infidels as his law, such as it is,\nas I then heard it from them.\n  [1] The words in italics are wanting in Heidelberg\n  MS. Penzel has it\u2014\u201cIst die \u00fcbert\u00fcten wollenden ein\n  Frauenzimmer.\u201d In edition of 1549, we find\u2014\u201cist aber ein\n  frau.\u201d\n53.\u2014What the Infidels believe of Christ.\nIt is also to be noted, that the Infidels believe that Jesus was born\nof a virgin, and that after the birth, she remained a virgin. They also\nbelieve that when Jesus was born, he spoke to his mother and comforted\nher, and they believe that Jesus is the highest prophet of God amongst\nall prophets, and that he has never committed sin; and they do not\nbelieve that Jesus was crucified, but that it was another who was like\nhim; therefore Christians have a wicked faith, because they say that\nJesus was crucified, who was the highest friend of God, and has never\ncommitted any sin, therefore God would not have been a just judge if\nJesus was crucified and innocent. And when one converses with them\nof the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, they say that they are three\npersons, and not one God, because their book Alkaron says nothing of\nthe Trinity. When anybody says that Jesus is the word of God, they say,\nthis we do know, that the word of God has spoken, otherwise he would\nnot be God; and when one says that wisdom is the Son of God who was\nborn of the Virgin Mary, from a word which the angels announced to her,\nand on account of which word we must all rise and come to judgment;\nthey say it is true that no one can go against the word of God. They\nalso say that the strength of the word of God cannot be conceived by\nany one, and therefore their book Alkoran says, and gives them a sign,\nby the word which the angel spoke to Mary, that Jesus was born of\nthe word of God. They say that Abraham was the friend of God, Moyses\nthe prophet of God, Jesus the word of God, so was Machmet the true\nmessenger of God. They also say, that Jesus, of the four, was the most\nworthy, and was the highest with God, and it will be he also who will\njudge the last judgment of God over all men.\n54.\u2014What the Infidels say of the Christians.\nThe Infidels also say that whatever territory they possess of the\nChristians, they do not owe it to their power, nor to their wisdom,\nnor to their holiness, but they have it because of the injustice,\nperversity, and arrogance which Christians have against them;\ntherefore Almighty God has decreed, that they should take the land\nfrom Christians, because they do not conduct their affairs, whether\nspiritual or temporal, with justice, because they look to wealth and\nfavour, and the rich treat the poor with haughtiness, and do not help\nthem either with gifts or with justice, and do not hold to the doctrine\nwhich the Messiah has given them. They also say, that they find it and\nread it in their prophecies, that the Christians will yet expel them\nout of the country, and will again possess the country; but so long as\nChristians are such, and are perverse, and their spiritual and temporal\nlords live such a disordered life, we are not afraid that they will\nexpel us out of our country; because we fear God, and do always what is\nright and just, and worthy, according to our faith, for the love of God\nand in honour of our prophet Machmet, who is the highest messenger of\nGod, who has given us the right doctrine by his teaching; to him we are\nobedient, and always willingly follow his commandments which are in the\nbook called the Alkoran, which has been touched upon often before.\n55.\u2014How Christians are said not to hold to their religion.\nThe Infidels also say that Christians do not hold to the commandment,\nnor to the doctrine of the Messiah, which the Messiah has commanded\nthem, and they also do not observe the law of the book Inzil, which is\ncalled Ewangely, nor the rules which stand in that book. They hold to\nparticular laws, spiritual and temporal, which are against the laws of\nthe book Inzil, and the commandments and laws contained therein are\nall holy and just; but the law and belief which they have set up and\ninvented, are all false and unjust, because the laws which they have\nmade are for profit and favour, which is all against God and his dear\nprophets; and whatever misfortunes and troubles they have, are all\ndecreed to them by God for their unrighteousness.\n56.\u2014How long ago it is since Machmet lived.\nItem, it is to be noted, that the time Machmet was born counts from\nChrist\u2019s birth, six hundred and nine years, and the Infidels say,\nthat on the day he was born, one thousand and one churches fell of\nthemselves, and that happened as a sign of the injury he would do to\nChristianity in his time. It is also here to be noted, how many tongues\nthere are in the Greek faith. The first is the Greek tongue, in which\ntheir books are written; the Turks call them Vrrum. The other is the\nRivssen tongue, which the Infidels call Orrust. The third, Pulgery,\nwhich the Infidels call Wulgar. The fourth, the Winden tongue, which\nthey call Arnaw.(1) The fifth, the Walachy tongue, which the Infidels\ncall Vfflach. The sixth, the Yassen tongue, which the Infidels call\nAfs.(2) The seventh, the Kuthia tongue, which the Infidels call\nThatt.[1] The eighth, the Sygun, which the Infidels call Ischerkas.\nThe ninth, Abukasen, and the Infidels call them Appkas. The tenth\ntongue, Gorchillas, and the Infidels call them Kurtzi. The eleventh,\nthe Megrellen tongue, also so called by the Infidels. Item, between\nthe Zurian and Greek faith, there is but one difference, therefore\nthey say the Schurian tongue is also of their faith; but the Schurians\nare of Jacob, and have the faith of Saint Jacob, and have it that each\nmust make the wafer with his own hands, into which God\u2019s body will be\nchanged. And when he has made the paste, he takes a hair from his beard\nand puts it in the wafer, and changes it into God\u2019s body. And there is\na great difference between what the Greek and what the Schurian priest\nreads, or sings, in the church, because it is the Schurian and not the\nGreek tongue.(3)\n  [1] For this name, see chap. 36, note 9.\n57.\u2014Of Constantinoppel.\nConstantinoppel is a fine large city and well built, and is quite\nten Italian miles in extent at its walls, about which it has fifteen\nhundred towers. The city is triangular, having the sea on two sides.\nThe Greeks call Constantinoppel, Istimboli, but the Turks call it\nStampol; and opposite to the city, is a city called Pera, which the\nGreeks call Kalathan, and the Infidels call it the same.(1) Between\nthe two cities is an arm of the sea, quite three Italian miles in\nlength, and half or more in breadth; and the arm is crossed from each\nside, because the distance by land is far. The said city belongs\nto Genaw. The great Alexander cut through high rocks and mountains\nfifteen Italian miles in length, and caused two seas to flow into each\nother;(2) and that which flows is called and is the Great Sea, and\nit is also called the Black Sea, and the Tunow and many other great\nrivers flow into it. In the said sea one goes to Caffa, to Alathena,\nto Trabessanda, and to Samson, and to many other cities and countries\nthat lay around. The arm of the sea [at] Constantinoppel is called\nHellespant by the Greeks, and the Infidels call it Poges. The Turks\nalso have a shore across the sea, opposite to Constantinople, which\nthey call Skuter; there, the Turks cross the sea. Also not far from\nConstantinoppel by the sea, was Troya, on a fine plain, and one can\nstill see where the city stood.(3) The emperor of Constantinoppel has\ntwo palaces in the city; one is very beautiful, and is much decorated\ninside with gold, lapis-lazuli, and marbles. In front of the palace is\na fine square for tilting, and for all [kinds of] pastime that might\nbe desired in front of the palace.(4) In front of the palace is the\nstatue of the emperor Justian on a horse; it is placed upon a high\npiece of marble, which is a pillar. I asked a burgher of the city of\nwhat this statue was made; he told me it was of bronze, and that both\nthe horse and the man was entirely of one casting. Some people of the\ncountry say that it is of leather, and yet it must have stood there\nquite a thousand years; had it been leather, it would not have stood so\nlong, it would have rotted. At one time the statue had a golden apple\nin the hand, and that meant that he had been a mighty emperor over\nChristians and Infidels; but now he has no longer that power, so the\napple has disappeared.(5)\n58.\u2014Of the Greeks.\nNot far from Constantinoppel there is an island called Lemprie; in\nit is a mountain that is so high, it reaches to the clouds.(1) At\nConstantinoppel is the most beautiful church, so that nothing like it\ncan be found in India; it is called Sancta Sophya, and is covered all\nover with lead, and one can see one\u2019s self on the walls inside the\nchurch as if in a mirror, because the marble and lapis-lazuli on the\nwall is clear and clean. In this same church is their patriarch with\nhis priests, and the Greeks and all those who are under the patriarch\ngo in pilgrimage, as we, for our sins, go to Rome. When Constantine\nhad finished the churches, he placed as an improvement in the church,\nhigh up in the middle of the dome, five golden discs, and each disc\nis as wide, large, and thick as a mill-stone;(2) but the emperor took\ndown two during the great war which the Turkish king Wyasit had with\nhim, when he besieged Constantinoppel for seven years. I myself was\nat that same time with the king in Turkey,(3) and I have also seen\nthe three discs [left] in the church. The church of Sancta Sophia has\nthree hundred gates, which are all of brass. I was III months at\nConstantinoppel in the house of the patriarch, but I and my comrades\nwere not allowed to walk about the city, because they were afraid that\nthe Infidels would recognise us, and would take us before the emperor.\nI would gladly have seen it (the city), but it could not be, because\nthe emperor had forbidden it, but even then we sometimes went out with\nthe patriarch\u2019s servants.\n59.\u2014Of the Greek religion.\nIt is to be noted, that the Greeks do not believe in the Holy Trinity;\nthey do not believe in the Chair at Rome, nor in the Pope. They say\nthat their patriarchs have as much power as the Pope at Rome. The\nsacrament they make of leavened bread, and take it with wine and warm\nwater; and when the priest changes the body of God, they all fall down\non their faces and say: \u201cNo man is worthy to look at God.\u201d And when\nthe priest has finished the Mass, he takes the bread that remains, of\nwhich he had prepared the sacrament, and cuts it into small pieces\non a dish, and then men and women sit down. Then the priest or his\nassistant takes the bread round, and so every one takes a piece and\neats it, and this bread they call prossura. This bread is not baked\nby any man or woman, only by a virgin or a nun. They also give the\nsacrament to young children, but they do not give the sacred oil to\nany body; and they also say that nobody is wise, and that no one goes\ninto heaven or hell before the day of judgment; then each man will go\ninto heaven or into hell as he has deserved. They have no Mass, unless\nit is asked for. They say that only one Mass is to be celebrated at\nthe same altar in the day, and they do not let Mass be said at their\naltars in Latin, and Mass must not be said in any language but in the\nGreek language, because the Greek language is of their faith. They say\nalso that their faith is the true Christian faith, and the others are\nnot true. They also have the Mass on feast days only, and not on week\ndays, because all their priests are craftsmen and must work, and all\nhave wives and children, and their priests take one wife only; and when\nshe dies he cannot take any more, either in marriage or otherwise. If\nhe has anything to do with a woman, and the bishop becomes aware of it,\nhe takes away from him his priestly charge, so that he cannot say the\nMass any more. And when a bishop consecrates a priest, he girds him\nwith a girdle, and when the priest does anything against his priestly\norder, the bishop takes away the girdle, so that he cannot say Mass any\nmore, and is fallen from his office. The best and the richest marry the\npriests, and when they are in a house, the priests\u2019 wives sit at the\nupper [end] of the table, and when women walk together, the priests\u2019\nwives go first. Their churches are not independent. When a man builds\na church and dies, his heirs inherit the church like other property,\nand sell it as any other house. They say, it is not a sin to have to\ndo with unmarried women, because it is not a deadly sin, as it is\nnatural. They also say, that when one takes a monthly profit of two\npfennings for one hundred pfennings, it is goodly gain, and not usury.\nOn Wednesdays, they do not eat meat; and so, on Friday, they eat fish\nand oil only, and say that Saturday is not a fast-day, and one may well\neat meat on that day. In the churches, the women stand separately, and\nneither men nor women dare to go near the altar. And when they make\n[the sign of] a cross, they do it with the left hand. And when one\nis about to die, they baptise him again, and there are many who are\nbaptised every year. They have no font in their churches; and when\ntheir bishop stands in the choir, he stands in the middle of the church\nand in the choir, and the priests stand around him. Their bishop eats\nno meat throughout the year, and during the fasts he eats no fish nor\nanything that has blood, and all their clergy do the same. When they\nbaptise a child, they have X or more godfathers; men and women bring\nto the child a christening shirt or a candle. They also say, that our\npriests sin if they have a Mass every day, because they cannot always\nbe worthy. They also say, that our priests commit mortal sin when they\nshave their beard, because it is not godly, because it happens from\nunchastity, and to please the women. And when one dies, and prayers for\nthe dead are sung for him, boiled wheat to eat is given to the priests\nand to the people, after an old usage, and this same wheat they call\ncoleba. They wash their dead before they bury them. Their priests sell\nand buy like other merchants. They fast during Lent for fifty days;\nand the priests and the laity also fast forty days in Advent, and for\nthe twelve holy apostles they fast thirty days; they also fast fifteen\ndays for our Lady\u2019s Assumption; they have only three days in the year\nfor our Lady, because they do not keep Candlemas. Item, the Greeks do\nnot keep the resurrection of Jhesus xpi at the same time with us; they\nkeep it on the next Friday after Easter. Then they sing Xristos anesti,\nwhich is as much as to say, Xristus is risen.(1)\n60.\u2014How the city of Constantinoppel was built.\nIt is also to be noted, that the emperor of Constantinoppel himself\ncreates the patriarchs, and also gives all God\u2019s gifts to the church,\nand is lord of spiritual and temporal matters as far as his territory\nreaches. I have heard much and often from their learned men, that Saint\nConstantine came from Rome with many kocken and galleys to Greece, to\nthe place where Constantinoppel lies, and then there appeared to him\nan angel from God, who said to him: \u201cHere must thy dwelling be; now\nsit on the horse, and do not look back, and ride to the place from\nwhich thou hast begun to ride.\u201d He mounted, and rode quite half a day;\nand when at night he arrived at the same place where he had mounted,\nhe looked back, and saw a wall of the height of a man spring up from\nthe ground; and from the place where he had looked back, to the place\nfrom which he had begun to ride, which is quite twenty paces or more,\nthere was no wall; it has been much tried to build a wall, but it\nwill not stand; but it goes towards the sea, so that they can defend\nthemselves better than if it had been towards the land. I have seen it,\nbecause in the same place there is a breakwater,[1](1) therefore the\nGreeks say that the said wall was built by angels; and that the crown\nwith which their emperor is crowned, and which was brought to Saint\nConstantine by an angel from heaven, is a heavenly crown; and therefore\nthere is no worthier nor more highly born emperor than the emperor of\nConstantinoppel. And when a priest dies, they put on him everything\nthat belongs to a priest at the altar, and they put him on a seat in\nthe grave, and cover him with earth. The chant, Ayos otheos, which they\nsing once a year only, they sing upon all other holy occasions; and\nduring Lent they sing the Alleluia every day, when they are in church.\nThey sing Kirieleyson only, in their Mass, and not Xreleyson. They say,\nthere is but one Godhead and no difference, that it is God the Father\nand God the Son, and therefore it would not be right to sing Christ.\nThey also bow very humbly before their priests. When a layman meets a\npriest, he takes off his hat, and bows humbly, and says: \u201cEsloy mena\ntespotha\u201d; which is as much as to say: Bless me, Lord. Then the priest\nlays his hand on the layman\u2019s head and says: \u201cOtheos efflon essenam\u201d;\nand that means, God bless thee; and this they do always, men and women,\nwhen they meet a priest. When a priest takes a wife, he takes her\nbefore he becomes a priest; the reason is, because if he does not beget\na child, he cannot be a priest, but so soon as he has got a child, he\nis consecrated to be a priest. Laymen pray only with the Pater Noster,\nand do not know the Belief nor the Ave Maria. Many priests wear white\ngarments at Mass.(2)\n  [1] \u201cwann es an der selben stat ein get\u00fcll hat.\u201d\n61.\u2014How the Jassen have their marriages.\nInter illas gentes, Gargetter et Jassen, nupti\u00e6 explentur hac\nconditione, videlicet mater puellam suam intactam esse asserit, sed ni\nreapse sit virgo, conjugium non conficitur. Quando igitur de nuptiis\nagitur, cantibus comitantur puellam ante thalamum, et ibi se ponere\njubent; succedit inde sponsus cum adolescentulis, et gladio stricto\npercutit thalamum, et prope illum se se ponit una cum adolescentulis,\net comedunt et bibunt, et se oblectant inter choreas et cantus. Et\nquum ita solatia cesserint, sponsum denudant usque ad subuculam suam,\net egredientes relinquunt cum sponsa. Postea venit sponsi frater, et\nnonnullus ex amicis intimis, et ante ostium excubat stricto ense;\net quum sponsus sponsam virginem non invenit, hoc matri ejus palam\nfacit. Deinde mater sponsi cum amicis suis ante thalamum adstat,\nobservant panniculos, et si nullum virginitatis signum inveniunt, omnes\nincipiunt se contristare; quum vero pater et mater sponsi cum amicis\nsuis mane adveniunt, ut festa conjugalia concelebrent, mater sponsi\nmanu regit poculum in una parte perforatum, et implet vino claudens\nforamen digito, et inde matrem spons\u00e6 invitat ut libat amovens digitum\ne foramine, et sic vinum extra fluit; tum mater sponsi dicit matri\nspons\u00e6: Ita evenit de filia tua. Hoc summo dedecori est parentibus\nspons\u00e6, quam tradunt eis ut secum ducant, dicentes, se velle nubere\nfilis intactam puellam, sed non ita evenisse de eorum filia. Then come\ntheir priests and the chief [persons] that are there, and invite the\nbridegroom\u2019s father and mother, and then they go to their son the\nbridegroom, and ask him whether or no he will have her? If he says,\n\u201cYes\u201d, she is given to him by the priests, and the other persons who\nhave interceded for her. But if he says, \u201cNo\u201d, then they are in all\nthings separated; and whatever he has brought to her, she gives the\nwhole back to him; and whatever clothes he has given her, she must give\nback to him; after which, he can take another wife, and she another\nhusband.(1) There are many people in Ermenia, who have this custom. The\nInfidels call the Gorgiten, Kurtzi; and the Jassen they call Affs.\n62.\u2014Of Armenia.\nI have also been a great deal in Armenia. After T\u00e4merlin died, I came\nto his son, who has two kingdoms in Armenia. He was named Scharoch; he\nliked to be in Armenia, because there is a very beautiful plain. He\nremained there in the winter with his people, because there was good\npasturage. A great river runs through the plain; it is called the Chur,\nand it is also called the Tygris; and near this river, in this same\ncountry, is the best silk. The Infidels call the plain, in the Infidel\ntongue, Karawag.(1) The Infidels possess it all, and yet it stands in\nErmenia. There are also Armenians in the villages, but they must pay\ntribute to the Infidels. I always lived with the Armenians, because\nthey are very friendly to the Germans, and because I was a German they\ntreated me very kindly; and they also taught me their Pater Noster and\ntheir language, and they call the Germans, Nymitsch.(2) In Armenia are\nthree kingdoms; one is called Tiffliss, the other is called Syos, the\nthird is called Ersingen; the Armenians call it Isingkan, and that is\nLesser Armenia. They also possessed Babylon for a long time; but they\nnow have it no longer. The son of T\u00e4merlin had Tyfflis and Ersing at\nthe time that I was there. Sifs belonged to the king-sultan, and was\nwon, counting from Christ\u2019s birth, twelve hundred and seventy-seven\nyears; then did the sultan of Alkenier conquer it.(3)\n63.\u2014Of the religion of the Armenians.\nThe Armenians believe in the Holy Trinity. I have also often heard\ntheir priests preach in their churches, when I had gone to Mass, and\nbeen in their churches, that Saint Bartlome and Saint Thaten of the\ntwelve holy apostles, converted them to the Christian faith, but that\nthey have often been perverted again. There was a holy man named\nGregory, and the king of Armenia was his cousin, and he lived in the\ntime when Saint Silvester was Pope at Rome.(1) The king of Armenia\ndied, and he was a good Christian, and his son was king, and he was\nnamed Derthatt; he was very strong, because he had the strength of\nforty oxen; what they could drag and lift, that he could lift alone.\nIt was this same king who built the large church at Bethleen, as has\nbeen already stated.[1](2) And when he became king after his father,\nhe turned Infidel, and persecuted the Christians, and took hold of\nhis cousin Gregory, and told him he must worship his idol. This the\nblessed man would not do, so he put him into a pit where there were\nadders and serpents and many other hurtful reptiles, that they might\neat him. But they did nothing to him. He lay there twelve years. About\nthe same time, several saintly maidens came to Ermenia from Italy, and\npreached the Christian religion instead of the Ermenen religion. The\nking heard this, and ordered that they should be brought to him. There\nwas one amongst them who was named Susanna, who was very beautiful; she\nwas taken to his room, when he wished to urge her to unchastity, but\nstrong as he was, he could do nothing with the young woman, nor win\nher with all his power, for God was with her. This was told to him in\nthe prison, and he said: \u201cOh, the wicked pig!\u201d At the same time, the\nking fell from his throne, became a pig, and ran away to the woods.\nThen there was great disorder in the land, but the vassals of the\ncountry consulted, and took Gregory out of the pit, and asked him if\nhe could help the king. He answered them and said, that he would not\nhelp him, unless they and he became Christians. The vassals promised\nhim this, also for the king. Then said Gregory: \u201cRide into the wood,\nlook for him, and bring him.\u201d They rode into the wood, and brought him\nto Gregory; and as soon as he saw Gregory, he ran to him, and kissed\nhis feet. Gregory knelt on his knees, and prayed to Almighty God that\nhe would have mercy on the man, and make him whole. The king again\nbecame a man, and was, with all his people, again a Christian,(3) and\nwent against Babiloni and the Infidels, and conquered Babilonia and\nthe whole country, three kingdoms, and converted them to Christianity,\nand appointed Gregory over the clergy and all ecclesiastical orders.\nIn this way, their religion was established by the King Derthat and\nthe man Gregory.(4) They also took much territory that belonged to the\nInfidels, and forced them to Christianity by means of the sword; but\nnow they have lost all their kingdoms, although they are a fighting\npeople. It is not long since they lost a kingdom, and a good capital\ncalled Siss; it was taken by the king-sultan. It is also their\npatriarch\u2019s seat, but he must pay great tribute to the sultan. The king\nof Zypern has many nobles of Armenia at his court, because it is near.\nThen was Gregory told of the great miracle which Pope Silvester had\nperformed on Constantine, during the time that he was emperor at Rome,\nbecause he had made him clean of an eruption, and that he had saved\nfrom death the children that had been brought together to be killed,\nbecause the doctors informed the emperor that he should wash in the\nblood of children, so that he might get well of his eruptions.\n  [1] No such previous statement appears either in the\n  Heidelberg MS. or in Penzel.\n64.\u2014Of a Saint Gregory.\nGregory thought over it, and said to the king: \u201cThe power that thou has\nconferred upon me, has no influence, unless I have it from the holy\nfather Silvester\u201d; and he told the king of the great miracle performed\nby the holy father on the emperor Constantine. The king said that he\nwould willingly see him, and would go with him, and prepared and made\narrangements for [the government of] his kingdom. He took with him\nforty thousand men, good horsemen and foot-soldiers; he also took with\nhim many valuables and many precious stones, with which to do honour\nto the holy father, Saint Silvester.(1) Gregory took with him the most\nlearned men that he had under him, and went from Babiloni through\nPersia, through Greater Armenia, and through many other countries,\nand went through the Iron Gates which lie between two seas, and reach\ninto Great Tartary towards Ruwschea; through Walchi, Pulgeri, through\nUngeren, Frigaul, through Lamparten, through Duschkan, and so they came\ndry-footed to Rome, as they had not passed over the sea. And when they\nwere near Rome, Silvester sent to them all the blind, lame, and sick,\nthat Gregory might heal them, as he wished to test his sanctity. When\nthe king, Derthat, saw the people, he was angry, and thought the Pope\nwas making fun of him. Gregory, without being angry, said: \u201cI know well\nwhat he means\u201d; and ordered that water should be brought to him; and\nhe knelt on his knees, and prayed to Almighty God that those who will\nbe sprinkled with the water, will become sound. He then took a sponge\non a stick, and sprinkled the people with it; and he who was touched\nby it, was healed. The blind received sight. The Pope, Silvester,\nheard of this, and went with all his clergy, and with the whole city\nof Rome, to meet him, and shewed him deference and honour. They were\na whole year going by land, from Babilony to Rome. Gregory asked the\nPope Silvester to give him power to free his clergy and his people\nfrom the jurisdiction of Rome, because he was so far that he could not\nalways go to the Chair; then he gave him the power of a patriarch,\nand whoever wished to have this power, could not obtain it elsewhere\nthan at Rome, and would have to send an embassy to Rome every three\nyears. This he vowed to him, and arranged that all those who were of\nhis faith, ecclesiastical or lay, should be subject to the Chair at\nRome, and whoever would not be so, should be under the ban of the Pope,\nbe he bishop, lord, or menial, rich or poor, in his land, and this\noath the king and all his knights also took. This lasted three hundred\nyears after the time of Gregory, that they were subject to the Chair,\nafter which they no longer went to the Chair, and themselves chose a\npatriarch. Their patriarch they call Kathagnes, and a king they call\nTakchauer.(2)\n65.\u2014Of a dragon and a unicorn.\nThere was also at that same time on a mountain near Rome, a dragon and\na unicorn, that did much harm to the people in the streets, so that\nnone could pass. Then the holy father, Saint Silvester, asked the king\nof Armenia, as he was a powerful man, whether he would not try, with\nGod\u2019s will, to kill the dragon and also the unicorn; the king went\nalone, and saw where they were, and when he got there, he saw them\nbiting each other, and he looked at them until the dragon escaped,\nand the unicorn chased him to a hole in the rock; the dragon turned\nhimself in the hole, and defended himself against the unicorn. The\nunicorn struck at the dragon with his tongue, and tried to draw him\noutside. The dragon seized the unicorn, and they struggled together,\nuntil the unicorn pulled the dragon out as far as his neck, and the\none would not let the other go. At that moment, the king ran up and\ncut the dragon\u2019s neck, and with the tugging that the unicorn gave it,\nthe head rolled down the rock; the king then sprang up and killed the\nunicorn also. He then returned to Rome, and ordered that the heads\nshould be brought; now the waggon had enough to do to carry the head\nof the dragon; and so the King Derthat delivered the Romans of the\nreptiles, for which the city, and especially the holy father, shewed\nhim great honour. Then Gregory went to the Pope, and asked him for\nthe articles which belonged to the faith, which he gave him, and then\nthey returned to their own country, and Gregory taught the Christian\nfaith as he received it from the Pope, which they do not hold any more,\nas is above stated.(1) Now, they themselves elect their patriarch,\nand when they wish to make one, twelve bishops and four archbishops\nmust be present, and he is elected. Many of the articles that Gregory\nbrought from Rome, have been changed, and they are now separated from\nthe church of Rome. Their priests make the sacrament with unleavened\nbread, and nobody else prepares the bread, but the priest who is to\ncelebrate the Mass, and he prepares one only. Whilst he is making it,\nother priests must read the psalter right through, and if there are\nno priests, then he must say it himself, right through.(2) They say\nthat it is a great sin that a man or woman should make the bread for\nthe Holy Sacrament; they also say that it is not right to sell this\nbread like other bread. They communicate the Holy Sacrament with wine,\nand not with water. When they want to have the Mass, they all stand\ntogether, and none communicate until he who is at the high altar has\ncommunicated, so that they all communicate together. They also read the\ngospel [looking] towards the rising of the sun, and whichever priest\ncelebrates the Mass, does not dare to sleep that day after midnight;\nand for three nights previously, and one night after, he must separate\nhimself from his wife. They do not allow any deacon or any of a lower\ngrade to be at the altar, only the priest; and no man or woman can\nattend the Mass unless they have confessed; and no woman can go into\nthe church whilst she is unwell. Whoever has hatred or enmity towards\nanother, must stand before the church, and is not allowed to go in\nuntil he has become reconciled. Woman and man sing the Pater Noster and\nthe Belief, with the priest, when he celebrates the Mass. They give the\nSacrament also to young children. The priests do not shave their hair\nnor their beard. Instead of consecrated oil, they have balm, and the\npatriarch gives the sultan a large price for the balm, which he sends\nto his bishopric. When one wants to be a priest, he must be forty days\nand nights in the church; and when the XL days are passed, he sings his\nfirst Mass, and he is led out with singing, dressed for the Mass. Then\ncome his wife and child, and they kneel before him, and he gives them\nhis blessing; then come the priest\u2019s friends and those of his wife,\nand they bring their offerings; also those who are invited; and there\nis great rejoicing in his honour, more even than when he was married,\nbut he cannot be with his wife until he has said the Mass for forty\ndays in succession. When they baptise a child, a man receives it, not\na woman, because they say that our Lord had only a man to baptise him,\nand not a woman. It is also a great sin to take a woman to a baptism.\nThey hold baptism in great honour, and whoever comes into the presence\nof his godfather, must kneel on the ground before him. They hold, that\nin sponsorship, marriage is forbidden to the fourth generation. They\nplace much confidence in our religion;(3) they also willingly go to\nMass in our churches, which the Greeks do not. They say, that between\ntheir religion and ours, there is only a hair\u2019s breadth, but that there\nis a great division between the Greek and their religion. During the\nweek, they fast on Wednesday and on Friday. They do not fast in Advent,\nand may eat oil, but on those days they eat as often as they like after\nmid-day. They fast one week for Saint Gregory. They have a saint named\nAurencius,(4) who was a doctor, for whom they also fast one week. They\nfast also on the day of the Holy Cross, which is in September; they\nfast also one week for Saint James the Great;(5) and they fast XV days\nin August, for our dear Lady. They fast one week for the three holy\nkings. They have a saint who was a knight; his name is Zerlichis;(6)\nthey call upon him loudly when they are at war or in other necessity;\nthey fast one week for him. There are many knights and nobles who fast\nfor him for three days in January, so that they do not eat or drink,\nbecause he is a great helper in need. Their saints\u2019 days they keep on\nSaturday. On Easter eve, they celebrate the Mass after vespers, because\nthat is about the time when the light shines on the holy sepulchre at\nJherusalem. They also celebrate Easter, Trinity, and Ascension day\nwith us; the other holy days they keep separately. Christmas and the\nEpiphany they keep at one and the same time, and on that evening, after\nvespers, they have the Mass. They say, that God was born on that day,\nand was baptised thirty years after, on that same day, and therefore\nthey keep Christ\u2019s birth and his baptism on the same day, and that is\nthe sixth of January. They fast one week for the twelve holy apostles,\nand keep their feast-day one day only, and that is Saturday. They pray\nwith the Ave Maria once a year only, and this they do upon our Lady\u2019s\nday in Lent, which they do not hold as we do.(7) When two married\npersons quarrel with each other, and the one will not have the other,\nthey are separated at bed and board; but, if neither wishes to have\nthe other, they are separated so that each can take another spouse. If\nthey have any children, they are given to the father. Their churches\nare all free, as no one can inherit or sell them. When a priest wants\nto build a church with his own money, he must give it to the parish,\nso that after his death no one may dispose of it, or he is not allowed\nto build it; and the same if a lord or layman builds one, so that\nnobody shall interfere, because it has been the custom amongst them.\nWhen a priest or layman founded a church, his heirs inherited it as\nthey did his other property, and let it out on usury, or sold it like\nother property. This they have changed, and will not allow it any more,\nand say that every house of God should be free. Their priests go to\nmatins every night,[1] which the Greek priests do not. They allow the\nprayers for the dead to be said for their rich people during their\nlifetime, and say that it is better to light a candle with one\u2019s own\nhand, than to let another person light it, by which they mean that he\nwho does not care for his soul in his lifetime, will scarcely be cared\nfor by his friends afterwards, because the friends get the money and\ndo not care for the soul. They say, that when a man himself does good\nto his own soul, it is agreeable to God. When a poor man dies without\nconfessing or without [having received] the body of God, a place in the\nchurchyard is obtained for him by his advocate, and they lay him in\nthe churchyard, and place a large stone on the grave, and write on it\nthe name of God and the name of the dead man who lies there, and this\nthey do for a sign that he is dead. And when a bishop or priest dies,\nthey dress him as he stands before the altar, and the priests make his\ngrave, then carry him out of the church, and put him on a seat in the\ngrave. The first day they bury him up to his girdle, and go every day\nto the grave, and sing and read the psalter over him, and each priest\nthrows a spadeful of earth over him, and this they do every day until\nthe eighth day, and then they bury him altogether.(8) When a young\nman or a virgin dies, [they put on] silk and velvet clothes, and gold\nrings on the ears and fingers, and so they bury young people who have\nnot been married. And when one marries a young woman who should be a\nvirgin, and [he] finds that she is not a virgin, he sends her back to\nher father, and will not take her unless more fortune is given to her,\nthan was arranged at the contract. They have only one cross in their\nchurches, and not more, and say, it is a sin to crucify our Lord more\nthan once in a church. They have no paintings on their altars, and\ntheir patriarchs and bishops grant no indulgence in their churches,\nand say, that pardon and remission belong to the living God, and if\na man goes into the church with repentance and devotion, God, in his\ncompassion, will grant him pardon and remission of his sins. When the\npriest finishes the Mass, he does not give the blessing; he descends\nfrom the altar, and men and women go up to him, and he touches one\nafter the other on the head, and says: \u201cAsswatz thogu thu miechk\u201d;\nwhich means: God forgive thee thy sins.(9) They read low Mass aloud,\nthat everybody may hear, and they pray for those who are entrusted\nto them, and for everything for which they ought to pray; for the\necclesiastical and lay authorities over all Christendom, and they\npray for the Roman emperor, and all kings, dukes, barons, counts, and\nknights, who are subject to him;(10) and while he thus prays, all the\npeople kneel, and raise their hands to God, and say: \u201cOgornicka\u201d; which\nmeans: Lord have mercy upon us. And whilst the priest prays, these\nwords are continually repeated by the women and men. They behave with\nmuch devotion in their churches; they do not look here and there, and\ndo not speak, especially while they are at Mass. They decorate their\nchurches beautifully, and have fine vestments of velvet and of silk of\nall sorts of colours. None of their laity dare to read the gospel as\nour own learned laity do, who, when they come across a book, read what\nthey find in it; no one dares to do so, for, should he read the gospel,\nhe would be under the ban of the patriarch, because they say that no\none is to read the gospel but a priest. They incense their houses every\nSaturday, and on the eve of every feast-day, and no one has any other\nincense than the white incense which grows in Arabia and in India.\nPriests and laymen eat like the Infidels, sitting on the ground. They\nhave not many preachers amongst their priests, because everyone is\nnot allowed to preach. Their preacher must be well read in the Holy\nScriptures, and must have power from the patriarch to preach, and when\nhe has the power, he may punish a bishop. Such a preacher they call\nVarthabiet, which is the same as being a legate; and there are more\nthan one, and they move from one city to the other and preach. When a\npriest or bishop does wrong, they punish him for it, and say, that if a\npriest teaches the Word of God, but does not understand and attend to\nit, he commits a sin.(11)\n  [1] \u201cUnd es gond ir priester och all n\u00e4cht ze mettin.\u201d\n66.\u2014Why the Greeks and Armeni are enemies.\nThe Greeks and Armeni are always enemies, and I will tell you why it is\nso, because I have heard it from the Armenians. The Tartars came into\nGreece with forty thousand men, and did much harm to the country, and\nthen lay siege to Constantinoppel. Then the emperor of Constantinoppel\nsent to the king of Armenia for forty knights, the best he had in the\nland, and asked him to help him. The king asked how many there were\n[of the enemy]; the ambassador replied to him, that there were forty\nthousand. Then the king of Armenia selected forty knights, the best he\nhad in his land: \u201cI will send forty knights to the emperor, who will,\nwith God\u2019s help, exterminate the Infidels, and drive them by force\nout of the country.\u201d When the knights came near Constantinoppel to the\nemperor, then the ambassador told him what he was ordered to say. The\nemperor thought that the king of Armenia wanted to make fun of him; and\non the third day, the knights went before the emperor, and asked to be\nallowed to go at the enemy. The emperor asked them if they meant to\novercome forty thousand men? They asked to be allowed to go out, and\nthat the gate should be shut after them, for they should have Almighty\nGod on their side, and would fight with Him for the Christian faith,\nto do which they had come, or else they would die. He gave them leave,\nand they went out amongst the enemy, and killed eleven hundred of\nthem, besides the prisoners they brought to the gate; but the emperor\nwould not let them come in, unless they also killed the prisoners, so\nthey killed them all in front of the gate. The emperor was frightened\nat this, and took great care of them, and treated them very well, and\nthey fought with the enemy every day, and every day did them much harm\nin the fight, and in a short time expelled the enemy from the city,\nand drove them out of the country. And when the devoted knights had\ndriven away the Tartars, they went to the emperor, and wanted leave to\nreturn to their king; but the emperor took council how he was to put\nthem to death, and invited them to stay with him three days longer; he\nwould shew them great honour and consideration, and called out aloud:\n\u201cWhoever wishes to eat and drink and live well at the emperor\u2019s court\nfor three days, let him come.\u201d He sent a pure virgin to each knight at\nhis separate lodging, and this he did that the virgins might be got\nwith child by the knights, and that they should leave their seed there;\nbecause the emperor told his lords that he wanted to take the fruit\nfrom the trees and fell the trees, thinking, that after he had killed\nthe knights, the king of Ermenia would become subject to him. On the\nthird night, he ordered that all the knights should be killed in their\nlodgings, which was done, with the exception of one who had been warned\nby the young woman he had with him. He returned and complained to the\nking that all his companions had been killed by [order of] the emperor.\nThe king was terrified, and grieved much for his devoted knights, and\nwrote to the emperor that he had sent to him forty men who were worth\nforty thousand; and he must know that I will come to him, and for\neach of my forty knights will kill forty thousand men. Then the king\nof Ermenia sent to the Kaliphat of Babilony to ask his aid to march\nagainst the Greek emperor. The Kalipha himself came to help him with a\ngreat many people, and then they advanced together against the emperor\nwith four hundred thousand men. This the emperor of Constantinoppel\nheard of, and went out to meet them with a great many people, and\nfought with them, but it was not long before he fled into the city\nof Constantinoppel. They followed him as far as the sea opposite to\nConstantinopoli, and encamped there. Then the king asked the Calypha\nto give him all the men he had made prisoners, and he would give him\nall the booty he had taken from the Greek. This was done. The king\ntook the prisoners opposite to the city, and killed forty-times forty\nthousand men; and he made the arm of the sea red with blood, because he\nhad sworn that he would give to the sea the colour of blood; and after\nall this was done, he still had so many prisoners, that thirty Greeks\nwere given for an onion; this was done to insult the emperor, that\nit might be said that thirty Greeks were given for an onion.(1) The\nArmenians are a brave people, those that live amongst the Christians,\n[as well as] those that live amongst the Infidels. They are also clever\nat work, because all the clever work the Infidels can do, in gold,\npurple, silver, and velvet, the Armenians can also do, and they also\nmake good scarlet. I have described and named the countries, cities,\nand religions, that I have been in amongst the Infidels. I have also\nwritten about the fights in which I have been, and of the religion of\nthe Infidels of which I have experience, and with many other marvels\nwhich are already touched upon. Now you will hear and understand how\nand through which countries I have come away.\n67.\u2014Through which countries I have come away.\nWhen Zegra was defeated, as is already related, I came over to a lord\nnamed Manstzusch; he had been a councillor of Zegra. He was obliged to\nfly, and he went to a city called Kaffa, where there are Christians; it\nis a strong city in which there are [people of] six kinds of religion.\nThere he remained five months, and then crossed an arm of the Black\nSea, and came to a country called Zerckchas; there he remained half a\nyear. When the Tartar king became aware of this, he sent to the lord of\nthe country, and asked that he should not allow the lord Mantzuch to\nremain in his territory, and he would do him a great favour. Mantzuch\nwent into another country called Magrill; and, as we now came into the\ncountry of Magrill, we, five Christians, agreed, that we should go to\nour native country from the land of the Infidels, as we were not more\nthan three days\u2019 journey from the Black Sea; and when it appeared to\nus opportune and right to get away, all five of us escaped from the\nsaid lord, and came to the chief town of the country, which was called\nBothan, on the Black Sea shore, and begged that we should be taken\nacross [the sea], but it was not granted to us. Then we left the city,\nand rode along the sea-shore, and got to a mountainous country. There\nwe rode until the fourth day, and came to a mountain from which we\nsaw a kocken on the sea, at about eight Italian miles from the coast.\nWe remained on the mountain until night, and made a fire, and when\nthe captain saw the fire, he sent some men in a skiff that they might\nsee who we were near the fire on the mountain, and when they came\ntowards us, we made ourselves known. They asked what sort of people\nwe were? We said we were Christians, and were made prisoners when the\nking of Ungern was defeated at Nicopolis, and had come so far with\nthe help of God; therefore, might we not go over the sea, as we had\ndependance and hope in God, that we should yet return to our homes\nand to Christianity. They would not believe us, and asked if we could\nrepeat the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Belief? We said, \u201cYes\u201d,\nand repeated them. They then asked how many of us there were? We said,\n\u201cFive\u201d. They told us to wait on the mountain, and went to their master\nand told him how we had spoken to them. He ordered that we should be\nbrought, and they came with the skiff, and took us to the kocken. On\nthe third day that we were on board the kocken, pirates came in three\ngalleys, and would gladly have done us harm, because they were Turks.\nThey chased us three days and two nights, but could do us no harm. We\ngot to the city of Sant Masicia;(1) there we remained until the fourth\nday, then the Turks went their own way. After that, we went to sea. We\nwanted to go to Constantinoppoli; but when we got out to sea, so that\nwe could see nothing but sky and water, there came a wind which threw\nback the kocken about eight hundred Italian miles, to a city called\nSynopp. There we remained eight days, and after that we went further,\nand were one month and a half on the sea without being able to get\nto the land; and we ran short of food, and we had no more to eat and\ndrink, until we got to a rock in the sea, where we found snails and\ncrabs, which we picked off, and upon which we lived for four days, and\nwere one month on the sea before we got to Constantinoppoli. And when\nwe got there, I and my companions remained, and the kock passed through\nthe strait for Italy. And as we were passing through the gate into\nConstantinopel, they asked us where we came from? We replied, that we\nhad been prisoners amongst the Infidels, and that we had escaped, and\nwanted to return to Christianity. Then they took us before the Greek\nemperor, who asked us how we had escaped from the Infidels? We related\nto him from the beginning to the end, and when he heard it all, he told\nus not to be anxious; he would take care to send us home; and he sent\nus to the patriarch, who also lives in the city, and ordered us to\nwait until he sent a galley for his brother, who was with the queen of\nUnger, when he would help us into Walachy. Thus we were three months\nat Constantinoppel, which is surrounded by a wall eighteen Italian\nmiles [in extent], and the wall has fifteen hundred towers. There are\none thousand and one churches in the city, and the principal church is\ncalled Sant Sophia, which is built, and is also paved, with polished\nmarble, so that when one who has not been before, goes into the temple,\nhe imagines that the church is full of water, the marble shines so.\nIt has a large dome covered with lead. It has three hundred and sixty\ngates, of which one hundred are quite of brass.(2) After three months,\nthe Greek emperor sent us in a galley to a fortress called Gily, where\nthe Tunow flows into the Black Sea. At this fortress I separated from\nmy companions and joined some merchants, and went with them to a city\ncalled in German the White City, situated in Walachy. Then I came\nto a city called Asparseri;(3) then to a city called Sedschoff, the\ncapital of Little Walachy; then to a place called in German, Limburgch,\nthe chief city in White Reissen the Lesser.(4) There I lay ill for\nthree months. After that, I came to Krackow, the capital of Polan.\nAfter that, to Neichsen in Saxony, and to the city of Bressla, which\ncapital is in Slesy. I then came to a city called Eger; from Eger to\nRegenspurg; from Regenspurg to Lantzhut; from Lantzhut to Frisingen,\nnear which place I was born; and, with God\u2019s help, I returned to my\nhome and to Christianity. Almighty God be thanked, and all those who\nhave helped me. And when I had almost despaired of coming [away] from\nthe Infidel people and their wicked religion, amongst whom I was\nobliged to be for XXXII years, and of any longer having fellowship with\nholy Christianity, God Almighty saw my great longing and anxiety after\nthe Christian faith and its heavenly joys, and graciously preserved me\nfrom the risk of perdition of body and soul; therefore, I ask all who\nhave read or have heard this book read, that they should think kindly\nof me before God, so that they should be eternally freed, there and\nhere, from such heavy and unchristian captivity. Amen.\nThis is the Armenian Pater Noster.\nHar myer ut Gegnikes surpeitza annum chika archawtnichw iogacy kam thw\nhy ergnick yep ecgary hatz meyr anhabas tur mies eis or yep thawg meis\nperdanatz hentz minck therog nuch meinrock per danabas yep mythawg myes\nypbwertzuchm heba prigo es mies ytzscheren. Amen.\nThis is the Tartar Pater Noster.\nAtha wysum chy chockta sen algusch ludur senung adung kel su\u016b senung\nhauluch\u016bg belsun senung arcchung aley gier da vk achta wer wisum\ngundaluch otrnak chumusen woug\u016b kay wisum iasochni alei wis dacha\nkayelle nin wis\u016b iasoch lamasin dacha koina wisni sunanmcha ilia\ngarta wisni gemandan.[1](5)\nThe end of Schiltberger.\n  [1] These prayers, from the edition of 1475 (?), are\n  omitted by Neumann, who considered their insertion as\n  being superfluous; nor do they appear in Penzel\u2019s edition.\n  NOTES\n  TO\n  THE TRAVELS\n  OF\n  JOHANN SCHILTBERGER.\nNOTES.\nCHAPTER I.\n(1.) \u201cThen came many people from all countries to help him.\u201d\u2014The\narmy of King Sigismund, made up of contingents from various states,\nconsisted of about 100,000 men at the siege of Nicopolis, 60,000 being\nhorsemen. An Eastern writer has estimated the number of fighting men at\n130,000 (Aschbach, _Gesch. K. Sigmunds_, i, 101, Saad-eddin, _Bratutti\nedition_). In his narrative of the action, Bonfinius (_Rer. Hung.\nDecad. III._, ii, 403) repeats the proud boast of the king of Hungary,\nthat not only should he turn the Turks out of Europe, but were the sky\nitself to fall, he was prepared to support it on the points of his\nlances.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cPudem.\u201d\u2014In the middle ages, this city was called Bdin or Bydinum\n(Schafarik, _Slawische Alterth\u00fcmer_, etc., ii, 217), transformed\nby Schiltberger into Pudem, and by Marshal de Boucicault (Petitot\n_Collect._, vi, 448) into Baudins. According to Mannert, quoted by\nHammer (_Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, i, 416), Widdin was situated on the site\nof the ancient Bononia, now called by the people Bodon; but he makes\nno mention of the \u0392\u03b9\u03b4\u1f7b\u03bd\u03b7 of the Byzantines, which he would have found\non consulting Acropolita. Widdin, the capital of Western Bulgaria, was\ninherited by J. Sracimir upon the death of his father, the King John\nAlexander, in 1365; and Eastern Bulgaria was bestowed by this sovereign\non his younger son, Shishman III. The former was under the necessity of\nacknowledging the suzerainty of the Porte, in the reign of Amurat I;\nand there is every reason for supposing that it was he whom Boucicault\n(448) designates the lord of the country, in saying, that he was a\nGreek Christian, forcibly subjected to the Turks.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cThe king took possession of this city also.\u201d\u2014Hammer (328) and\nEngel (_Gesch. d. U. R._, ii, 198) are of opinion, that Schiltberger\nhere refers to the city of Orsova; but the former allows, that the\ncity believed by Engel to be Orsova, was the Aristum of Bonfinius\n(_Rer. Hung. Decad. III._, ii, 377), called Raco by the French Marshal\n(449); it may therefore be conceded that the city in question was\nRahova, on the road taken by the Christian army, which would have been\nretracing its steps, had its aim, after the capture of Widdin, been the\nsiege of Orsova.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3A.) \u201cNicopoly.\u201d\u2014In my _Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von\nSchiltberger (Sitzungsberichte d. K\u00f6n. Bay. Akad._, 1869, ii, 271),\nI have endeavoured to shew that, in stating that the Infidels knew\nthe city of \u201cSchiltaw\u201d by the name of \u201cNicopoly\u201d, Schiltberger does\nnot call attention to the city of Nicopolis on the Danube, near the\nestuary of the Osma, but to ancient Nicopolis founded by Trajan, the\nruins of which are still to be seen near the village of Nikup, on the\nRushita, a tributary of the Yantra. I was formerly of opinion that the\nbattle which decided the Eastern question at that period, was fought\nnear the village, and this opinion, adopted by several authors of\nmerit, has recently been supported by M. Jirecek in his admirable work,\n_Geschichte der Bulgaren_, wherein reference is made to an ancient\nServian Chronicle in which it is recorded, that the battle took place\n\u201cna rece Rosit\u00ea u Nikopolju\u201d. It would appear, however, that the author\nof this notice, through some misapprehension, confounded the Rushita\nwith the Osma; and M. Kanitz (_Donau-Bulgarien_, ii, 58\u201370) having\nlately, on just grounds, condemned my hypothesis, I am now persuaded\nthat the Christians were defeated by Bajazet in the neighbourhood of\nthe present town of Nicopolis, which was in existence at that time,\nthough from what period is not known; nor are we able to determine when\nthe ancient Nicopolis \u201cad H\u00e6mum\u201d, disappeared.\nIf Schiltberger\u2019s contemporaries sometimes designated the one city by\nthe name of Great Nicopolis, they did so simply to distinguish it from\na fortress on the opposite, the left bank of the Danube, called Little\nNicopolis, that was taken by the Christians in the preceding campaign\n(Jirecek, 354). It is, therefore, just possible, that the sultan,\nhaving passed Trnov, or Ternova, when on his way to the besieged city,\nhad also entered Tchunkatch (see trans. of the Turkish historiographer,\nNeshry, in _Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl. Gesellsch._, xv, 346), the name\npossibly given by Neshry to the castle of Tchuka, the ruins of which\nare to be seen in the upper part of the city, called now as it was\nthen, Shvishtov, Shistov, Sistova, situated at a distance of fifteen\nmiles to the south-east of the field of battle. If such were indeed\nthe case, I would venture to suggest, until some better explanation is\noffered, that our author may, by mistake or through some misconception,\nhave given to the besieged city the name of Shistov, corrupted by him\nto \u201cSchiltaw\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3B.) Nicopolis, the city besieged \u201cby water and by land for XVI days\u201d,\nmust, unquestionably, have been the place of that name on the right\nbank of the Danube, and not ancient Nicopolis, \u201cad Istrum\u201d, as believed\nby some authors, the site of which, distant nearly forty miles from\nthe river, has been satisfactorily determined by M. Kanitz, from an\ninscription he has been fortunate enough to disinter out of a mass of\nits ruins. The present Nicopolis, built on a limestone cliff, fills a\nravine formed by two heights commanding the town. Sigismund may, or may\nnot, have occupied those heights; but, when surprised at his dinner, at\nten o\u2019clock in the morning on the day of the battle, by being informed\nthat the Turks were making their appearance (Froissart, iv, c. 52),\nhe advanced one mile only from his encampment outside the beleaguered\ncity, for the purpose of encountering Bajazet; and the French assumed\nthe offensive immediately after the \u201cDuke of Walachy\u201d had reconnoitred\nthe enemy\u2019s position. If a further advance was made at all, it could\nscarcely have covered much ground, seeing that the 12,000 foot-soldiers\nrouted by Sigismund had advanced to oppose him; and when the king\nwas about to follow up his victory by attacking a body of horse, the\nsultan being on the point of taking to flight, the timely aid of the\nlatter\u2019s ally, the despot of Servia, changed the fortunes of the day.\nThe battle, says Froissart, lasted three hours only, and the result,\nso disastrous to the Christian army, he attributes to the impetuosity\nof Philippe d\u2019Artois, Comte d\u2019Eu, who disregarded the instructions of\nthe king of Hungary. \u201cNous perdons hui la journ\u00e9e\u201d, said the latter to\nthe Grand Master of Rhodes, \u201cpar l\u2019orgueil et bobant (vanity) de ces\nFran\u00e7ois; et s\u2019ils m\u2019eussent cru, nous avions gens assez pour combattre\nnos ennemies.\u201d\nThe Christian soldiers fled in disorder, and being hard pressed by\nBajazet\u2019s troops, many were killed on the mountain, one of the heights\nnear Nicopolis, as they hurried to the Danube, many others being\ndrowned in their unsuccessful efforts to reach the shipping\u2014probably\nsome of the vessels of the Venetian blockading squadron, under the\ncommand of Giovanni Mocenigo, on board of which, Sigismund, and\nPhilibert de Noillac, Grand Master of the Order of St. John of\nJerusalem, were received; the latter being conveyed to Rhodes, whence\nthe ships sailed for Dalmatia to land the king. It seems pretty clear,\nfrom Schiltberger\u2019s narrative, that the battle of Nicopolis was fought\nin the immediate vicinity of the city on the Danube, and therefore at a\nconsiderable distance from the ancient Nicopolis, the city of Trajan.\nDetails of the action will be found in Aubert de Vertot d\u2019Aubeuff\u2019s\n_Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers de St. Jean de Jerusalem_, etc.,\nThere is no evidence that Schiltberger set foot in Shistova, but the\nname had doubtlessly become familiar to him, both before and after his\ncapture, at a time that he was totally unacquainted with the language\nof the people amongst whom he had fallen. If the incidents of his\neventful career were indeed dictated from memory, his statement that\nthe Infidels knew Nicopolis as \u201cSchiltaw\u201d, for Shvishtov, Shishtovo,\nmay be accounted for, by the accidental confusion of names.\u2014ED.\n(4.) \u201cWerterwaywod.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger evidently alludes here to John Mirca\n(John Mirtcha), prince or voyevoda of Walachia, called John, by Mme. de\nLusson (Engel, _Gesch. d. U. R._, iv, 160: iii, 5), and Marcus, by the\nByzantines (L. Chalco, 77). He was the son of the voyevoda, J. Radul,\nand having succeeded his elder brother, J. Dan, added the Dobroudja\nto his domains after the short reign of Ivanko or Iuanchus, \u201cfilius\nbon\u00e6 memori\u00e6 magnifici domini Dobrdize\u201d, as he is styled in the treaty\nconcluded with the Genoese in 1387 (_Not. et Extr._, etc., xi, 65; and\n_Mem. de l\u2019Inst. de France_, vii, 292\u2013334). There is no difficulty in\nrecognising the Bulgarian despot, Dobrotitch, in the person of the\nfather, who, after the death of Alexander, declared his independance in\nthe Dobroudja, whence, in all probability, its name. (Bruun, _Journ.\ndu Minis. de l\u2019Instruc. Pub._, St. Petersburg, Sept. 1877.)\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201che had come a great distance with six thousand men.\u201d\u2014The force\ncommanded by the Comte de Nevers, son of Philip, Duke of Burgundy,\nconsisted of 1000 knights, 1000 soldiers, and 6000 mercenaries. The\nCount was supported by the flower of the French nobility. Aschbach\n(_Gesch. K. Sigmund\u2019s_, i, 98) places the total at 10,000 men.\u2014ED.\n(6.) \u201cDuke of Iriseh, known as the despot.\u201d\u2014Stephen, prince of Servia,\nis here designated the despot of \u201cIriseh\u201d, because Servia at that time\nwas also known as Rascia. Thus\u2014\u201cipsum regnum Rasci\u00e6\u2014regno Hungari\u00e6;\nab antiquo subjectum\u201d, etc. (Engel, _Gesch. d. U. R._, iii, 370).\nWindeck, the contemporary biographer of Sigismund (Aschbach, _Gesch.\nK. Sigmund\u2019s_, i, 234), likewise states, that the king advanced \u201cgegen\nSirfien und Raizen, und bedingte mit dem Tischbot\u201d, that is to say,\nthe despot. As the Turks are in the habit of preceding with an I,\nall foreign names commencing with a consonant, so may Schiltberger\u2019s\ncomrades, as Magyars, have converted Rascia into Iriseh.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cDuke of Burgony.\u201d\u2014This Duke of Burgundy was the valiant Comte de\nNevers, aged 22 years only, afterwards surnamed Jean sans Peur; he\nwas uncle to Charles VI. \u201cHanns Putzokardo\u201d is easily recognised as\nthe John Boucicault already noticed. As to the lord \u201cCentumaranto\u201d,\nFallmerayer believes this person to have been Saint Omer, without,\nhowever, stating any reason for this belief; it is, therefore, more\nprobable that Ch\u00e2teaumorant should be substituted for the name given by\nSchiltberger.\nWe read in Boucicault, that one Jean Chasteaumorant arrived in\nTurkey, with the money for the ransom of the French knights. It is\nvery possible that a namesake, and even a near relative of this\nCh\u00e2teaumorant, was among them, to whom the marshal afterwards entrusted\nthe defence of Constantinople against the Turks, upon his own return to\nFrance.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER II.\n(1.) \u201cHannsen of Bodem.\u201d\u2014The Marshal Boucicault (Petitot _Collect._,\n465, 471) confirms Schiltberger\u2019s statement, to the effect that Bajazet\nconsented to spare the lives of a certain number of great lords, hoping\n\u201cto receive from them much treasure and gold\u201d. Henri and Philippe de\nBar, cousins-german of the king, the Constable Count d\u2019Eu, the Count\nde la Marche, and the Lord de la Tr\u00e9mouille, were of the number. No\nclue is given to the correct name and nationality of Stephen Syn\u00fcher,\nbut as he and the lord of Bodem (Widdin) are distinguished from the\ntwelve French nobles whose lives were spared, it is pretty certain that\nallusion is made to Stephen Simontornya, nephew to Stephen Laszkovitz,\nvoyevoda of Transylvania (Hurmuzaki, _Fragm. zur Gesch. der Rum._,\n225). Aschbach informs us, that the uncle and nephew, who had both\nassisted at the battle of Nicopolis, were the first to take to flight;\nbut it is very possible, that the nephew happened to be among those who\nfailed to reach the river in time to enable him to embark, and was thus\nmade a prisoner. John of Bodem was undoubtedly John Sracimir, king of\nWestern Bulgaria, whose capital was Widdin.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cKalipoli.\u201d\u2014Gallipoli, is mentioned (Ducas., _Hist. Byz._) as\nbeing the first town occupied by the Turks (1356) on the European\ncontinent. By the treaty of Adrianople, 1204, upon the fall of the\nEmpire, Gallipoli, which had been strongly fortified by the Byzantine\nemperors, fell to the Venetians; but the possession of an important\nstronghold commanding the entrance to the Marmora and Black Sea, was\ncontinually disputed by the Italians and Greeks, until the year 1307,\nwhen the Genoese and Greeks having, as allies, vanquished the Catalans\nin the Sea of Marmora, laid siege to Gallipoli, to which place those\nmercenaries of the Empire had been sent, who, after destroying the town\nand devastating the country around, withdrew into Attica and B\u0153otia.\nThe Turks rebuilt the fortifications, which were greatly strengthened\nby Bajazet, who also constructed a port for his galleys. The Count de\nNevers and 24 of his illustrious companions in arms, were detained in\ncaptivity at Gallipoli, and afterwards at Broussa, until ransomed for\nthe sum of 200,000 golden ducats. (Heyd., _Le Colonie Commer._, i, 347;\nHammer, _Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, i, 106.)\u2014ED.\n(3.) \u201cWindischy land.\u201d\u2014According to Froissart (iv, c. 52), Sigismund\nembarked at Constantinople on board of a vessel that had just\ndischarged a cargo of provisions. It is stated in the _History of\nCyprus_, that the king arrived in Dalmatia by way of Rhodes. Thwrocz\n(Schwandtnerus, _Script. Rerum Hung._, iv, 9) adds, that he afterwards\nlanded in Croatia, the country alluded to by Schiltberger as \u201cWindischy\nland\u201d. See \u201cWindische Mark\u201d, in _Cosmographey_.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER III.\n(1.) \u201cand the people he took away, and some he left in Greece.\u201d\u2014Baron\nHammer points out, that Styrian historians have not noticed this fact,\nwith which, in all probability, is connected the origin of certain\nSlave settlements in Asia Minor. M. Lamansky (_O Slav. v. Mal. Asii_)\nhowever, believes, they are of more ancient date.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cking-sultan.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger styles the sultan of Egypt,\nking-sultan, because, having the caliph at his court, he was considered\nas being at the head of all Mahomedan monarchs. The sultan at the\nperiod indicated was Barkok, the first of the dynasty of Circassian\nMamelouks, if we except Bibars II, whose reign, 1309\u20131310, was of the\nshortest duration. Twenty years before his accession (1382), Barkok was\ncarried as a slave into Egypt, from the Crimea, whither he had gone\nfrom his own native country in the Caucasus.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cking of Babylony.\u201d\u2014This king of Babylon was Ahmed, son of Oveis,\nson of the Jelarid Hassan the Great, the descendant of Abaka, the son\nof Houlakou, the son of Tuly, son of Jengiz Khan. Timour drove Ahmed\nfrom Baghdad, but he returned upon several occasions, notably in 1395,\nand remained until 1402. Previously to the battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet\nhad written to tell him that, in his opinion, the expulsion of Timour\nwas of greater moment than that of the Takfour, that is to say, of the\nGreek emperor (Hammer, _Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, ii, 466, note xv).\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cking of Persia.\u201d\u2014Even before the battle of Nicopolis, nearly the\nwhole of Persia had been subjugated by Timour, and divided between his\nsons, Omar Sheykh and Miran Shah, and other amirs. The Shah Mansour,\nwho had also appealed to Bajazet for succour, perished in 1393 at the\nbattle of Sheeraz; the other princes of the house of Mouzzafer had been\nput to death, with the exception of Zein Alabin, and Shebel, the two\nsons of the shah Shoudia, who ended their days at Samarkand (Weil.,\n_Gesch. d. Chalifen_, ii, 40); it is, consequently, somewhat puzzling\nto determine, to which sovereign of Persia the Christian captives were\nsent.\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201cWhite Tartary.\u201d\u2014According to Neumann, Schiltberger here seeks to\ndistinguish the free Tatars from the Black Tatars, that is to say, the\nvanquished and paying tribute. Erdmann (_Temud. d. U._, 194), on the\nauthority of Rashid uddin, considers that by White Tatars were meant\nthe Turk tribes, who were afterwards known as Mongols, the Black Tatars\nbeing the real Mongols. He tells us, that after having subdued the\nWhite Tatars and other Turk people, the Black resumed their ancient\nname of Mongols, and extended their sway to Eastern Europe, including\nunder the name of Tatars even the Turks in the West, with the exception\nof those by whom they were opposed in Asia Minor, and who afterwards\nbecame known in Europe as the Ottoman Turks.\nThis, however, does not explain to us where the White Tatars,\nrepeatedly mentioned by Schiltberger, dwelt. We learn from him, first,\nthat a powerful lord from their country was the son-in-law of Kady\nBourhan uddin, sovereign of Sebaste, who was put to death by Kara Yelek\nor Oulouk, chief of the Turkomans of the White Sheep: secondly; that,\nhaving laid siege to the city of Angora, which belonged to Bajazet,\nthey were forced to yield to him; and, thirdly, that at the battle of\nAngora, 30,000 of them went over to Timour, and were the cause of his\ngaining the day.\nTaking into consideration these several facts, is it not possible,\nthat the White Tatars of Schiltberger are to be identified with\nthose of the White Horde of Eastern writers; the Blue, as they were\nsometimes alluded to by Russian annalists, perhaps because of their\nencampments on the shores of the Blue Sea, the Lake Aral? This Horde,\nas the patrimony of the elder branch of the house of Jujy, whose\nchief town was Ssaganak, near the upper Syr Darya, was dependent to\na certain extent on the Golden Horde, ruled over by the descendants\nof Batou, the second son of Jujy. But this state of dependence was\nnot of long duration, for towards the close of the 14th century, the\nfamous Toktamish, a prince of the elder branch, succeeded in annexing\nthe whole of the Golden Horde to his possessions, after having, with\nthe assistance of Timour, rid himself of his uncle Ourous Khan.\nHaving quarrelled with his protector, this ambitious man was under\nthe necessity of courting the friendship of Bajazet, who was only too\npleased to secure another ally against the threatening domination of\nthe ruler of Jagatai; there is, therefore, nothing surprising in the\nfact of the sultan sending a certain number of Christian captives to\nToktamish, were it only to console him for the unfortunate termination\nto his war with Timour in 1395. At all events, the partisans of\nToktamish, who effected their escape under the leadership of Timour\nTash, upon the defeat of the former near the banks of the Terek, were\nreceived by the sultan with open arms. Savelieff (_Mon. Joud._, 314)\ngives it as his opinion, that Timour Tash who held the Crimea under the\nsuzerainty of Toktamish, was himself a member of the Jujy family; in\nwhich case the sovereign of Sebaste might well have given his daughter\nin marriage to him, without contracting a misalliance, and the very\nnature of this alliance, may have incited Timour Tash to treat his\nbenefactor with ingratitude in laying siege to Sebaste, his whole\nhousehold being in his suite, after the custom of the country. Having\nnecessarily become reconciled with the sultan, he might easily have\ntreated him with treachery at the battle of Angora, by passing over to\nthe ranks of his countrymen; in such a case they would have obtained a\nvictory, in consequence of defection amongst the Tatars in the service\nof Bajazet, as we are informed by Arabian authors, and not, as Persian\nand Turkish historians have imagined, through defection among \u201cthe Turk\nprinces of Asia Minor\u201d.\nIt is, nevertheless, no easy matter to reconcile this hypothesis\nwith the statement made by Clavijo (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._, 75). After\nalluding to the capture of Sebaste by Timour, the Spanish envoy\ncontinues:\u2014\u201cBefore he arrived there, he met with a race called the\nWhite Tartars, who always wander over the plain; and he fought and\nconquered them, and took their lord prisoner; and took away as many as\nfifty thousand men and women with him. He then marched to Damascus,\u201d\netc., etc.\nIn another passage, he returns to the Tartaros Blancos subdued by\nTamerlane, and says that they were encamped between Turkey (Asia\nMinor) and Syria. These White Tatars were evidently identical with\nthe White Tatars of Schiltberger, who had nothing in common with the\nTatars of the White Horde, frequently designated as being of \u201cGreat\nTartary\u201d. It may therefore be assumed that the White Tatars mentioned\nby both travellers, were Turkomans, inhabitants of the eastern parts\nof Asia Minor, whose descendants have to this day preserved the Mongol\ntype, and the same mode of living as the White Tatars of Schiltberger\nand Clavijo (Viv. de Saint-Martin, _Desc. de l\u2019A. M._, ii, 429).\nEast Cilicia was at that time actually divided between two Turkoman\ndynasties, which had not been vanquished by the Ottoman arms; small\nstates that had existed from the year 1378, the date at which the\nLusignans, who had succeeded the Roupenian dynasty of Little Armenia in\n1342, were expelled from Cilicia by the Baharite Mamelouks of Egypt.\nThe one reigned at Marash, the other at Adana; the latter being known\nas the Ben Ramazan, the former as the Soulkadyr or Joulkadyr, the name\nby which Marash was afterwards known amongst Turkish geographers. Both\ndynasties were in existence until 1515, when they were subjugated by\nthe sultan, Selim, and their territories incorporated with the empire\n(Viv. de Saint-Martin, _Desc. de l\u2019A. M._, i, 529).\nIt would appear that the rulers of the White Tatars, alluded to by\nClavijo, belonged to the family of the Joulkadyr. It was, at any rate,\nagainst that dynasty, Timour despatched a force after the capture of\nSivas, to punish it for its hostility towards himself, when besieging\nthat city (Weil., _Gesch. d. Chalifen_, v, 82); and the Mongols soon\nafterwards carried off all the herds belonging to a prince of this\nhouse, whose encampment was near Palmyra (_ibid._, 91). As was the case\nwith the White Tatars of Clavijo, those mentioned by Schiltberger drew\ntheir rulers, at least in part, from princes of this house. It was\nBajazet\u2019s desire, that his son should marry the daughter of Nazr uddin\nJoulkadyr, who would not have been forgotten at the distribution of\nprisoners taken at Nicopolis. This Nazr uddin had received his fugitive\nrelative, the son of Bourhan uddin, the brother-in-law, according to\nSchiltberger, of the ruler of the White Tatars. It appears to me that\nthe seeming diversity in the statements made by various authors, with\nregard to the nationality of the troops who went over to Timour at the\nbattle of Angora, is to be explained by admitting, that the Tatars\nwho betrayed the cause of Bajazet, were Turkomans who acknowledged\nthe authority of the Ben Ramazan and the Joulkadyr; that is to say,\nthat their rulers were princes holding possessions in Asia Minor. Our\nauthor\u2019s recital enables us to understand, why Oriental writers would\nseem to be at issue as to the nationality of the \u201cTatar Regiments\u201d\n(Weil., _Gesch. d. I. V._, 437) which deserted their colours at the\nbattle of Angora.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cGreater Armenia.\u201d\u2014Armenia proper is here called Greater, to\ndistinguish it from the Lesser, which was understood to be the eastern\npart of Cappadocia, near the Euphrates. In the middle ages, the\ndenomination Lesser Armenia included the whole of Cappadocia, inasmuch\nas it was inhabited by Armenians who had been expelled from their own\ncountry by the Seljouks and Turkomans (11th and 12th centuries). At a\nsubsequent period, the Armenians occupied nearly the whole of Cilicia\nand the west of Syria, anciently called Commagen, and afterwards known\nas Euphrates. All these new acquisitions were included under the name\nof Lesser Armenia.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER IV.\n(1.) \u201cKaranda.\u201d\u2014This city, on the site of ancient Laranda, is now known\nas Karaman, so named after the son of a certain Sophy, upon whom it\nwas bestowed (1219-46) by Ala uddin, sultan of Iconium, together with\na portion of Cappadocia and of Cilicia, that is to say, of Lesser\nArmenia. Mohammed, the son of Karaman, extended the limits of his\nstates in every direction, and even took possession of Iconium or\nKonieh. His son Ali Bek, surnamed Ala uddin, was married to Nefise,\nthe sister of Bajazet, an alliance, however, that did not restrain him\nfrom invading Ottoman territory, an act which resulted in war between\nthe brothers-in-law, and he was made a prisoner by the Turks after\nthe fall of Iconium, in 1392. According to Saad uddin (Zinkeisen,\n_Gesch. d. O. R._, i, 350), Karaman was killed by Timour Tash, governor\nof Angora, without the knowledge of Bajazet, who would have spared\nhis brother-in-law. Ahmed and Mohammed, the sons of Karaman, were\nafterwards reinstated by Timour in their possessions, which included,\nbesides Laranda, evidently the \u201cKaranda\u201d in the text, the cities\nof Ala\u00efa, Derendeh, Sis, Veysheher, Konieh, Aksheher, Aksera\u00ef, and\nAnazarba.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER V.\n(1.) \u201cSebast.\u201d\u2014Sebaste, called Sivas by the Turks, and Sepasdia,\nSevasdia, Sevasd, by the Armenians\u2014the capital of Lesser Armenia,\nafter being long subject to Constantinople, was ceded, in 1021, by\nthe emperor Basil to Senckharim, king of Armenia, in exchange for\nVasbouragan. It was taken in 1080 by the Greeks, who lost it to the\nSeljouks (J. Saint Martin, _Mem. sur l\u2019Arm\u00e9nie_, i, 187).\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER VI.\n(1.) \u201cWirmirsiana.\u201d\u2014According to Chalcocondylas, Orthobulus or\nErtoghrul, the eldest son of Bajazet, was made a captive by Timour at\nSebaste, in 1400, and shortly afterwards put to death; but no Arabian\nor Persian chroniclers have asserted this, nor does Shereef uddin\nallude to the circumstance. Arabshah (Weil., _Gesch. d. Chalifen_, ii,\n82) says that Souleiman, the son of Bajazet, was governor of Sebaste,\nwhich he must have quitted before its conquest by the Mongols.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER VII.\n(1.) \u201ccity of Samson.\u201d\u2014This is the ancient Amisos, still called Samsoun\nby the Turks. Fallmerayer (_Gesch. d. K. v. T._, 56, 289) observes,\nthat the Byzantines frequently added a prefix to a name, such as \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2,\nwhich, in time, became contracted to \u03b5\u03c2 and \u03c3, and in this way \u1f0c\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\nwas turned into \u03c3' \u1f0c\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u2014\u03a3\u1f71\u03bc\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. This city, the chief town of Janyk,\nwas then under the dominion of another Bajazet, surnamed the Impotent,\nwho perished in his struggle with Bajazet about 1392.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) Fallmerayer\u2019s explanation may be further illustrated, by quoting\nthe names of ancient cities in the Morea and in the island of Crete,\nthat have undergone change through the probable corruptions of a\nprefix. Hierapytna has become Tzerapetra; Itanus is now Tzetana,\nTsitana, and even Sitana. Etea has become Setea, while Stamboul,\nIstamboul, itself is a corruption of \u0395\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u1f79\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd. The modern Greeks\nwould also appear to be in the habit of thus corrupting words in\nordinary use, as, for instance, ampelon, vineyard, they call tsembela;\nkampos, a field, tzecampo, etc. (Spratt, _Researches in Crete_, i, 55,\nCHAPTER VIII.\n(1.) \u201cItalians of Genoa.\u201d\u2014It is not known when the Genoese\nfounded a colony at Samsoun, which they called Simisso. Heyd\n(_d. Ital. Handelscolon_, etc., in the _Zeitschrift f. d. gesam.\nStaatswissenschaft_., xviii, 710) justly observes, that they must\nhave been there previously to the year 1317, because the existence of\na Genoese consul at Simisso at that date, is proved by the records\nof Gazaria. In the Regulations for Gazaria, 1449 (_Zap. Odess._, v,\np. 629), no mention whatever is made of a consul being at Simisso; I\ncannot therefore agree with M. Heyd that the consulate was maintained\nuntil 1461, when Mahomet II drove the Genoese out of Samastris\n(Amastris), their principal port, and took possession of Sinope, where,\nto the year 1449, those Italians still had a consul (_ibid._, 809). The\nGenoese were driven out of Samsoun, in all probability in 1419, when\nthat quarter of the town \u201coccupied by infidels\u201d was taken by Mahomet\nI (Hammer, ii, 180, 472, note xiv). At this period Schiltberger was\nstill in Asia, and he appears to have been aware that the Genoese were\nobliged to quit the town. At any rate, in saying that the Italians\nof Genoa were still in possession of it, in the reign of Bajazet, he\nprobably wished to intimate that they had quitted it at a later\nperiod.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cTernowa.\u201d\u2014Trnovo or Ternov, the capital of Eastern Bulgaria,\nwas taken and destroyed by the Turks in 1393, at a moment that\nShishman happened to be absent. Turkish authors have recorded, that at\nNicopolis he surrendered at discretion, and died, according to some,\nin confinement, and at an advanced age; others, however, state that he\nwas beheaded, which, judging by the narrative in the text, would appear\ndoubtful. Alexander, Shishman\u2019s eldest son, having turned Mahomedan,\nwas appointed governor of Saroukhan, as we are informed by Rehm\n(_Gesch. d. Mittelalt._, iv, 2, 584); and it is possible that he was\ntransferred to Samsoun after the conquest of the province of Janyk, in\nthe province-general of Trebizond. His younger brother Fruzin remained\na Christian, and died at Kronstadt in 1460.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER IX.\n(1.) \u201cWurchanadin.\u201d\u2014It has already been noticed that Bourhan uddin\nwas prince of Sebaste or Sivas. The Turkish lord named Otman in this\nchapter, was Kara Yelek, chief of the Turkoman Horde of the White\nSheep.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) The death of Bourhan uddin.\u2014Oriental writers are at issue as to\nthe date of the death of Bourhan uddin, and of the incorporation of\nhis domains with those of Bajazet. Saad uddin (Weil., _Gesch. d.\nChalifen_, ii, 60, note i) observes, that various dates are given,\nfrom the year 794 to 799 of the Hegira = 1391\u201396. In his History of\nthe Ottoman Empire (i, 226), Hammer expresses himself in favour of the\nopinion of Nishandi, an Arabian author, who fixes the date at 795 =\n1392. This opinion is supported by Zinkeisen (_Gesch. d. O. R._, i,\n353), who states he has no doubt that \u201cthe course of events and the\nmost reliable authorities testify in favour of the year 1392\u201d, although\nWeil makes it clear, that the death of Bourhan uddin could not have\ntaken place before the year 800 = 1398. German historians are guided by\nthe statements of Oriental writers, who have apparently confounded two\nwars between Bajazet and the sovereign of Sebaste, the one having taken\nplace before, and the other after the battle of Nicopolis. Indeed we\nlearn from Schiltberger, that previously to the war in which he himself\nwas engaged (see page 17), the younger son of Bajazet had driven\nBourhan uddin out of \u201cMars\u00fcany\u201d, a city which, from being situated on\nthe borders of Karaman, must have been identical with Marsivan (Viv.\nde Saint-Martin, _Desc. de l\u2019A. M._, ii, 448) or Merzyfoun, as it\nwas called by Hadjy Khalpha (_Jihan-Numa_, etc., ii, 407), and was\nperhaps the village of Morivazou, the birth-place of St. Stephen of\nSougdaia (_Zap. Odess._, v, 625). In the introduction to his edition\nof 1859, Neumann submits that Amasia is here intended; but he is in\nerror, because that place had already been taken by Bajazet, not from\nBourhan uddin, but from Bajazet the \u201cImpotent\u201d, together with Samsoun,\nKastamouny, and Osmandjyk (Hammer, i, 312\u2013315).\nNeumann is certainly not justified in supposing that Schiltberger\nwould have alluded upon two occasions to the campaign in which he took\npart\u2014first, in chap. 5, casually; again in chap. 9, wherein we have all\nthe details as they are related by an eye-witness; for, in reference\nto this, the second campaign, we are informed that it was conducted by\nthe eldest son of Bajazet, and that this son was not Mouhammed; indeed,\nwe are previously told by Schiltberger, that Mouhammed was appointed\nby the sultan to command the forces sent to \u201cMars\u00fcany\u201d, it being the\nfirst expedition of that prince, who was aged 14 in 1392, for he died\nin 1421, in his 43rd year.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER X.\n(1.) \u201cMalathea.\u201d\u2014Malatia, the ancient Melitene, on the Euphrates,\nwas the station of the xiith Legion. Marcus Aurelius surnamed it\n\u201cFulminatrix\u201d, in consequence of a miracle that was there operated\n(Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_, etc., x, 860). Hammer (_Hist. de l\u2019E. O._,\n345), and Zinkeisen (_Gesch. d. O. R._, 356), assert, on the authority\nof Saad uddin, that the Ottomans took this and other cities subject to\nthe sultans of Egypt, between the years 798 and 800 of the Mahommedan\nera. Weil (_Gesch. d. Chalifen_, 70\u201373), however, does not think that\nthis occupation could have taken place earlier than 801, founding his\nopinion on the authority of Arabian writers, who have recorded Turkish\naggression as having occurred after the advent to the throne, of\nFaradj, who succeeded his father in 801 = 1399 (June 20). In support\nof this argument, Weil quotes the testimony of one of those writers\nwho had himself seen the letter, in which was announced to Itmish,\nthe atabek of the new sultan, the capture of Malatia; but it is also\npossible that the great dignitary had received this same letter in the\ntime of Barkok, by whom he must have been highly esteemed, for, when\non his death-bed, the sultan nominated him his executor. This view of\nthe case agrees with Schiltberger\u2019s recital, whilst his observations,\ntowards the end of this chapter, on the taking of Adalia, will serve\nto explain the strange passage that occurs in the Italian translation\nof the book of Saad uddin. \u201cEt havendo spedito al Conquisto di\nChianchria\u201d (Kiankary the ancient Gangra) \u201cTimurtas-Bassa\u201d (Bajazet\u2019s\ngeneral) \u201cper\u00f2 tutto quel Paese insieme con la Citt\u00e0 d\u2019Atena (la qual\u2019\n\u00e8 patria de\u2019 Filosofi) col suo Distretto pervenne in poter del R\u00e8;\nil quale prese anco dalle mani de\u2019 Turcomani la Citt\u00e0 di Bechsenia\u201d\n(Behesna) \u201ce di Mallatie\u201d, etc. \u201cThere is clearly a mistake in the\ntext or in the translation\u201d, says Weil (70), after showing that Hammer\nand Zinkeisen are greatly in error in supposing, upon the authority\nof this defective passage, that the city of Socrates could have been\ntaken by the Turks in the course of the same campaign as that in which\nMalatia fell into their hands; but there would have been nothing\nextraordinary in the fact of their attacking Angora after the fall of\nthis city, and then Satalia, near the ruins of the ancient Attalia\nin Pamphylia, in which Neumann fancies that he recognises the Adalia\nof Schiltberger, because it was situated on the sea-shore opposite\nto the island of Cyprus. In support of this, the esteemed editor of\nthe edition of 1859 might have quoted another passage, from the _Acta\nPatriarchatus Constantinopolitani_ (_Zap. Odess._, v, 966), wherein we\nfind it asserted, that the city of Satalia, having been occupied by the\nInfidels in 1400, the bishop of that city took his departure for Aenos.\nNotwithstanding these arguments, it appears to me that the Adalia of\nSchiltberger could not have been Satalia, but rather Adana in Cicilia,\nfor the following reasons.\nThis city of Adana, Adena, or Adan, is nearer to the island of Cyprus\nthan is Satalia, although not actually on the sea-shore, a situation\nnot attributed to his Adalia by Schiltberger. It belonged to the\nsultans of Egypt, which was not the case with Satalia, a city that\nfrom the year 1207 had been subject to the sultans of Iconium, to the\nSeljouk principality of Tekke, and to the kingdom of Cyprus, and was\nalready incorporated in the Ottoman Empire (Weil, i, 505; Heyd, xviii,\n714). Finally, Schiltberger\u2019s notice that the people about Adalia\nwere exclusively employed in the rearing of camels, is applicable\nto Adana rather than to Satalia; for in those days it was one of\nthe chief centres of commerce in the East, and was encircled by the\nsuperb gardens for which it is so celebrated in our own times. It may,\nI think, be conceded that Saad uddin, or Bratutti his translator,\nhave possibly confounded Athens with Attalia or Adana, and that this\nvery city might have been subjugated by Timour Tash, soon after his\nreduction of Behesna, Malatia, and other cities in Cilicia.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XI.\n(1.) \u201cThus Joseph expelled his rival, and became a powerful king.\u201d\u2014Upon\nthe death of the Sultan Barkok, his son Al-Melyk Al-Nazr Abou-Saadat\nFaradj, aged thirteen, ascended the throne. Schiltberger pronounces\none of the names of this monarch after his own fashion, and calls him\nJoseph, and elsewhere Jusuphda, evidently in place of Abou-Saadat. This\nprince, soon after his accession, was under the necessity of contending\nin arms with Itmish (who has already been noticed), one of his father\u2019s\ndependants, as Schiltberger represents Joseph to have done. Faradj\nperished, as did Jusuphda, for he was made a prisoner and beheaded in\n1412 (Weil, _Gesch. d. Chalifen_, ii, 124).\nEastern writers make no mention of the assistance rendered to Faradj by\nBajazet, upon the occasion of his struggle with his father\u2019s vassal at\nthe commencement of his reign; but their silence on this point is by no\nmeans conclusive as throwing doubt on the statement, twice repeated,\nof Schiltberger, who was himself serving in the force despatched by\nBajazet to the support of the sultan, in whom he hoped to secure an\nally against Timour, whose power menaced the safety of both. Had\nthe two sultans been indeed of one accord, the conqueror might have\nreceived a check. According to Aboul-Mahazin (Weil, ii, 71), Timour is\nreported to have said, on hearing of the death of Barkok: \u201cBajazet is\nan excellent general, but his troops are not worth much; the Egyptians\nand Syrians, however, are good soldiers, but they are badly handled\u201d.\nIt is very certain that Bajazet, in his turn, soon afterwards (1400)\nappealed for assistance to the sultan of Egypt, who refused to grant\nit, because the former\u2019s venture against Malatia was not forgotten\n(Weil, 81, note 42); but the necessity he was under of keeping his\ntroops for protection at home, was the truer cause.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XII.\n(1.) \u201ctook the city by force, although there were in it five thousand\nhorsemen sent by Weyasit.\u201d\u2014The walls of Sebaste, originally\nconstructed by Aladin Kekobady, a Seljouk king, were of extraordinary\nstrength, being twenty cubits in height, and ten cubits in thickness at\nthe base, narrowing to six cubits at the top. The place was stubbornly\ndefended, the besieged being well supplied with munitions of war; but\nthe besiegers constructed towers of greater height than the town, and\nplanted upon them machines for hurling huge stones, so that, at the\nexpiration of 18 days (the text says 21 days), the besieged sued for\nquarter. Timour spared all the Mussulmans, but the Christians were\nsent into slavery. The 4000 horsemen (5000 horsemen in the text) being\nArmenians, were flung alive into pits and covered with earth (Petis de\nla Croix, _Histoire de Timur Bec_, liv. v, 268).\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cThere were also nine thousand virgins taken into captivity\nby T\u00e4merlin to his own country.\u201d\u2014The contemporary historians,\nAboul-Mahazin and Arabshah (Weil, 81), describe in like manner the\ncruelties practised on the inhabitants of Sebaste in 1400, by Timour,\nwhose admirer even, Shereef uddin, differs but slightly in the horrible\ndetails (Hammer, _Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, ii, 59).\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XIII.\n(1.) \u201cScarcely had T\u00e4merlin returned to his own country.\u201d\u2014After the fall\nof Sebaste, Timour proceeded to Syria, where he took several cities,\nDamascus being of the number; and having recrossed the Euphrates, he\nentered Baghdad. Bajazet had in the meantime seized upon Erzingan,\nwhich belonged to Taharten, who had already acknowledged the supremacy\nof Timour; an act on the part of the sultan which accelerated the\nstruggle between himself and Timour, and to which Schiltberger alludes\nin this chapter. In chapters 14\u201319, he depicts the above-mentioned\ncampaigns and other expeditions of Timour, imagining that they\nwere conducted after the battle of Angora; but as he reports from\nhearsay only, he was not in a position to form a correct idea of the\nchronological order in which they occurred.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cTarathan.\u201d\u2014It is by the name of Tabarten that Eastern writers know\nthis prince, who, at that time, possessed the city of Erzingan; whilst\nClavigo, who enters into numerous details on the private affairs of the\n\u201cgran Caballero\u201d, calls him Zaratan. The residence of this ruler was\nnear the Kara-sou, at that time the great western arm of the Euphrates,\nat a place called by the Turks, Erznga or Eznga, a name derived from\nthe Armenian, Eriza, as I am informed by Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky of the\nArmenian church at Theodosia. According to Marco Polo, who called\nit Arzinga (Yule, 2nd edit., i, 47), it was the capital of Greater\nArmenia, Sis being that of Lesser Armenia. The apparent contradiction\nin our author\u2019s statements arises from the fact that, in another\nchapter, he represents Sis, Erzingan, and Tiflis, as being the chief\ntowns of the three divisions of Armenia. The first belonged to the\nsultan of Egypt; the others to the Timourides, actually to Shah Rokh,\nthe son of Timour. In ancient times, Erzingan was celebrated for the\ntemple of Ana\u00eftis (Strabo, xi, 14, 16), destroyed by St. Gregory the\nEnlightener. Procopius calls the place, Aurea Comana, and tells us that\nit contained a temple of Artemis, founded, according to tradition, by\nOrestes and Iphigenia; a temple already transformed into a Christian\nchurch at the time he wrote (_De Bell. Pers._, i, 177; Ritter, _Die\nErdkunde_, etc., x, 774).\nIn quoting, together with Arzes and Erzingan, the fortress of Chliat\nand Percri, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (_De Adm. Imp._, 44, 8)\nreferred to Akhlat or Gelath, and the modern town of Pergri on the\nBandoumaky, and not, as supposed by Ritter, to the village of Bagaran\nor Pacaran, near the ruins of Ani, the ancient capital of Armenia,\nclose to the river Arpa-tcha\u00ef. Erzingan was destroyed by the Mongols in\n1242; in 1387, Taharten acknowledged the suzerainty of Timour, and in\n1400 he was expelled by Bajazet, who, in his turn, lost the city to the\nTatars. It had not risen out of its ruins in the time of Barbaro, and\nnow they are scarcely to be traced. _Etiam periere ruin\u00e6!_\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cbut he died on the way.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger\u2019s silence with regard to the\ncage in which Timour confined his captive, agrees, says Neumann, with\nthe result of the researches of Hammer, who seeks to prove that the\ntale is the invention of a sworn enemy of Timour. The Baron\u2019s opinion\nis supported by the Russian Academician Sresneffsky, in his quotation\nfrom a Russian chronicler (Nikitin, in _Hojdenye za try Mory\u2019a_), a\ncontemporary of Timour, who, in alluding to the fate of Ilderim, has\nnot thought it necessary to speak of the cage in which he was made\nto follow his conqueror. Hammer\u2019s argument does not appear to have\nsatisfied Weil (ii, 96), on the grounds that the story of the iron\ncage does not emanate from Arabshah only, but also from other Arabian\nchroniclers. Weil equally disputes the assertion that the term cage\nwas intended to signify a litter, and disagrees with Rehm (iv, 3, 151)\nin his interpretation of the word _kafass_, that it implied a litter\nas well as a cage, the Arabian word for the former being _handedj_,\n_mahaffah_, and _kubbet_; and concludes by saying, that if Bajazet was\nnot really carried about in a cage, his litter must have been of most\npeculiar construction.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XIV.\n(1.) \u201cThe cities I have named are chief cities in Syria.\u201d\u2014These cities\nin Syria fell into Timour\u2019s hands in the year 1400, but the order\nof their conquest, as given in the text, differs from the records\nof Eastern writers. Aboul-Mahazin and Arabshah (Weil, _Gesch. d.\nChalifen_, ii, 82) state, that the first to surrender was Behesna,\n\u201cWehessum\u201d; then the tower of A\u00efntab, \u201cAnthap\u201d, whence Timour proceeded\nto Haleb, \u201cHallapp\u201d, now Aleppo, which was taken and dealt with as\ndescribed by Schiltberger. According to Shereef uddin, Timour Tash, the\nEgyptian amir and commander of the place, met with the same fate as did\nthe garrison; but Arabshah says, that his life was not only spared, but\nhe also received a robe of honour. Finally, the conqueror seized upon\nthe fortress of Kalat Erroum\u2014Fortress of the Romans\u2014called \u201cHrumkula\u201d\nin the text.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) Hrhomgla, for \u201cHrumkula\u201d, is the Armenian, as Ourroum Kaleh is\nthe Turkish, name of a now miserable village, situated on the western\nbank of the Euphrates, at the confluence of the river Marzeban. It\nis surmounted by a castellated building on a high hill. It was a\nplace of some importance from 1150 to 1298, as being the residence of\nthe patriarchs of Armenia. Quoting from Arabshah, Petis de la Croix\n(_Histoire de Timur Bec_, liv. v, 285) inserts a note to the effect\nthat Timour left Calat Erroum without attacking it, which he dared not\ndo, because the place was very strong.\nHaving regard to the geographical position of the places in this part\nof Mesopotamia, taken by Timour in 1400, his road to conquest must have\nlain thus\u2014Behesna, A\u00efntab, Aleppo, Ourroum Kaleh.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cAnd the city was pillaged.\u201d\u2014The Arabian authors, Aboul-Mahazen and\nIbn Khaldoun (Rashid-eddin, _Hist. des Mongols, etc._; by Quatrem\u00e8re,\n286), the latter being an eye-witness, are agreed that Timour himself\nordered the incendiarism of the mosque at Damascus, but they make no\nmention of the cruelties imputed to him by Schiltberger; they assert,\non the contrary, that he very graciously received the deputation headed\nby the kady, Taky uddin ibn Mouflyk. Other writers have recorded, that\nTimour was even anxious to save the mosque from the fire which had\nbroken out accidentally and destroyed the entire city. The magnificence\nof the great \u201ctemple\u201d at Damascus, as shown in the text, is confirmed\non the testimony of Eastern writers (Quatrem\u00e8re, ii, 262) who state,\nthat this edifice, considered as one of the wonders of the world, had\nfour gates. In saying that there were as many as forty outer gates,\nSchiltberger no doubt included those of the annexes which, together\nwith the main building, were surrounded by a wall having several\nentrances; this appears conclusive on consulting an Arabian record\nquoted by Quatrem\u00e8re (283), which represents that in front of the\nmosque were many spacious porches, each of which conducted to a large\ngate, etc. \u201cThe view of the buildings, of the domes, of the three\nminarets, and water courses, as seen from the court, is admirable, and\na sight to startle the imagination.\u201d There can be little doubt that the\ngates were numerous, and that Schiltberger should have estimated their\nnumber at forty is not to be wondered at, when we consider the practice\namong Orientals of designating any large number by the numeral forty,\nas, for instance, Kyrkyer, Kyrkeklesy, etc.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2A.) In Ibn Haukal\u2019s time (10th century), the mosque at Damascus was\nconsidered one of the largest and most ancient in the land of the\nMussulmans. Walid ben Abd-el-Melyk (the sixth Omniade caliph, 705\u2013715)\nhad beautified it with pavements of marble, and pillars of variegated\nmarble the tops of which were ornamented with gold and studded with\nprecious stones. The ceiling was covered with gold, and so great was\nthe cost that the revenues of Syria were expended on the work. Porter\n(_Five Years in Damascus_, ii, 62) describes the quadrangle as being\n163 yards in length, 108 yards wide, and surrounded by a lofty wall of\nfine masonry. The three sides of the cloister, in an adjoining court,\nare supported by arches resting on pillars of limestone, marble, and\ngranite, and on the south side of the court is the _harem_ (sacred\nplace), whose interior dimensions are 431 ft. by 125 ft. Two rows of\ncolumns, 22 ft. in height, extend the whole length of the building and\nsupport the triple roof. A transept across the middle, is supported\nby eight massive piers of solid masonry, each 12 ft. square, and a\nsplendid dome, nearly 50 ft. in diameter and about 120 ft. in height,\nstands in the centre. The interior of the mosque has a tesselated\npavement of marble, and the walls of the transept and the piers are\ncoated with marble in beautiful patterns. According to Arabshah\n(_Vattier edition_, v, 169), it was the Raphadites or Shyites (see\nchap. xxxiii, note 3, for this sect) of Khorasan who set fire to this\nnoble mosque, Timour being credited by various authors, as stated in\nthe preceding paragraph, with having wished rather to save the edifice\nfrom destruction. Much as records may differ, Schiltberger\u2019s relation,\nso graphic and detailed, merits the fullest consideration.\u2014ED.\n(3.) \u201cScherch.\u201d\u2014On March 19, 1400, Timour proceeded from Damascus by way\nof Roha (the ancient Edessa near Orfa), Mardin, and Mosoul to Baghdad\n(Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v, 91), after having despatched flying\ncolumns hither and thither to forage, some of his people reaching even\nto the neighbourhood of Antioch. A portion of his forces must therefore\nhave crossed the Antilibanus, called Jabal\u2014mountain\u2014also Shurky, which\nmay have been the \u201cScherch\u201d mentioned in the text.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XV.\n(1.) \u201cand the king kept his treasure there.\u201d\u2014This, in all probability,\nis the fortress of Alinjy or Alindsha, some miles to the south of\nNahitchevan. In 1394, Ahmed ben Oweis sent thither his family and\ntreasure, and it was not until the year 1401 that this fortress\nwas taken by Timour\u2019s troops, whilst he himself was laying siege\nto Baghdad with the bulk of his army. Faradj, who had been left in\ncommand by Ahmed, was forced to surrender, after a valorous defence\nof forty days. All the inhabitants were massacred, and the place was\ncompletely destroyed with the exception of the schools, mosques, and\nhospitals (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, 93). After taking Baghdad, July\n9, 1401, Timour passed through Tabreez, on his way to Karabagh, where\nhe purposed spending the winter, occupying the cities of Roha, Mardin,\nand Mosoul on his march. It would appear that it is to these places\nSchiltberger refers, but he has fallen into error in saying that they\nwere taken after the capture of Baghdad\u2014a mistake to be accounted for,\nfrom his not having served in the expedition.[1]\u2014BRUUN.\n  [1] See chapter xxxiii, note 12.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XVI.\n(1.) \u201cLesser India.\u201d\u2014Under this name Schiltberger includes the northern\nportion of the peninsula on this side of the Ganges, giving to the\nsouthern part the designation of Greater India. Marco Polo (Yule,\nii, 416, 417) employs the same names, but in another sense. His\nLesser India included Kesmacoran (Kij-Makrau, _i.e._, Makran), to\nthe whole Coromandel coast inclusive. Greater India extended from\nthe Coromandel coast to Cochin China\u2014Middle India being Abyssinia.\nTimour\u2019s expedition into India (1398) was conducted to the banks of\nthe Indus from Samarkand, by way of Inderab and Cabul. On crossing the\nriver near Kalabagh, he passed by way of Mooltan to Delhi, which he\noccupied, conducting himself as was his custom on such occasions; but\nSchiltberger makes no allusion to the cruelties he practised. Perhaps\nbecause the details of the expedition were related to him by\nthe Mongols themselves, and not by their enemies, the Arabs and\nPersians.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cand it is of half a day\u2019s journey.\u201d\u2014We are evidently given to\nunderstand here, that the narrow defile through which Timour had to\npass, was the famous Iron Gate, at all times considered the frontier\nlimit of India and Turania. In the year 328 B.C., Alexander of Macedon\nmade his way through this passage, described by his historians in\nlanguage identical to that of Schiltberger ... \u201csed aditus specus\naccipit lucem, interiora obscura sunt\u201d.... (Curtius, viii, 8, 19).\nVery similar is the testimony of the several Oriental writers quoted\nin the _Centralasiatische Studien (Sitzungsberichte d. Kais. Akad. d.\nWissenschaften_, lxxxvii, 1, 67, 184) by M. Tomaschek, who has availed\nhimself of the results of the Russian expedition to Hissar (_Ysvest.\nImp. Geog. Obshtchest._, xii, 70, 1876, 349\u2013363) to determine the exact\nlocality of the Iron Gate. There may have been near the Iron Gate, in\nSchiltberger\u2019s time, as there is now, a \u201cWinterdorf\u201d (Tomaschek, l. c.)\ncalled Darbend or Derbent, but it is not of this \u201ckishlak\u201d, but rather\nof the city of Derbent, in the Caucasus, that Clavijo observes, after\nstating that the possessions of Timour extended from the Iron Gates\nsituated near Derbent, to those in the land of Samarkand:\u2014\u201cE Darbante\nes una muy gran ciudad que se cuenta su se\u00f1orio con una grande tierra,\n\u00e9 las primeras destas puertas, que son mas cerca de nos, se llaman las\npuertas del Fierro de cerca Darbante, \u00e9 las otras postrimeras se llaman\nlas puertas del Fierro cerca Termit, que confinan con il terreno de la\nIndia menor.\u201d I prefer giving this extract in the original.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cthe lord T\u00e4merlin is come.\u201d The correct rendering of this passage\nis \u201cAmir Timour gheldy.\u201d\u2014The Amir Timour is come.\u2014ED.\n(4.) \u201cand of the elephants many were killed.\u201d\u2014This incident is\ncorroborated by Clavijo (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._, 153), who places at\nfifty the number of armed elephants opposed to Timour in the battle\nnear Delhi. The contest being renewed on the second day, \u201cTimour took\nmany camels, and loaded them with dry grass, placing them in front of\nthe elephants. When the battle began, he caused the grass to be set on\nfire, and when the elephants saw the burning straw upon the camels,\nthey fled. They say that the elephants are much afraid of fire because\nthey have small eyes.\u201d\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XVII.\n(1.) \u201cSoltania.\u201d\u2014Or Soultany\u00e0\u2014Royal city\u2014so named by Olja\u00eftou, son of\nArghoun Khan, the founder (1305), once the metropolis and largest city\nin the kingdom. Chardin (_Langl\u00e8s edition_, ii, 377) tells us that\nthere were not many cities in the world where vaster ruins were to be\nseen; and in Kinnear\u2019s time (_Geog. Mem. of the Persian Emp._, 123) the\nplace was reduced to a few wretched hovels. Colonel Yule (Marco Polo,\nii, 478) reproduces from Fergusson an illustration of the tomb built\nfor himself by Olja\u00eftu, or as his Moslem name ran, Mahomed Khodabandah,\nat Soultaniah, \u201cthe finest work of architecture that the \u2018Tartars of\nthe Levant\u2019 have left behind them.\u201d Kinnear describes it as being a\nlarge and beautiful structure ninety feet in height, built of brick,\nand covered with a cupola\u2014an edifice that would do honour to the most\nscientific architect in Europe.\nThis tomb of Olja\u00eftou was still magnificent, and especially noted for\nits colossal gates of damasked steel, even so late as the seventeenth\ncentury. \u201cThe city was reoccupied by some of the Persian kings in the\nsixteenth century, till Shah Abbas transferred the seat of government\nto Ispahan. John XXII set up an archbishopric at Sultaniah in 1318,\nin favour of Francis of Perugia, a Dominican, and the series of\narchbishops is traced down to 1425.\u201d (_Cathay, and the Way Thither,\nHakluyt Soc. Publ._, 49, note 3.)\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n(1.) \u201cand they were all trampled upon.\u201d\u2014This atrocious conduct on the\npart of Timour, is not the creation of Schiltberger\u2019s brain, but it\ncannot have reference to the capture of Ispahan in 1387, although it is\npossible that the evolutions of Timour\u2019s horsemen against children, was\nrepeated after the fall of Ephesus in 1403; this act of cruelty being\nimputed to him by several Oriental authors. His return to Samarkand\nfrom Ephesus, actually took place after an absence of at least seven,\nif not twelve years (Rehm, _Gesch. d. Mittelalt._, iv, 3, 78); and he\nwent there immediately after taking Ispahan in 1387. Schiltberger\u2019s\ndetails on the revolt of that city under the farrier, Aly Koutchava,\nand on the construction of the tower of human heads by order of Timour,\nagree with similar accounts from other sources.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XIX.\n(1.) \u201cbecause it was very cold in that country.\u201d\u2014Timour was desirous of\nadding China to the rest of his conquests, and had even embarked on an\nexpedition, placing himself at the head of a large army; but he fell\nill of fever upon reaching Otrar, and died February 19, 1405.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) Other authorities state Timour\u2019s death to have occurred the 17\nShabran, 807 (February 17, 1405).\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXI.\n(1.) \u201cwith whom I also remained.\u201d\u2014Pir Mohammed, son of Jehangir, the\neldest son of Timour, died in 1375. Shah Rokh was the youngest of\nthe two sons mentioned by Schiltberger. After the death, in 1410, of\nKhoulyl son of Miran Shah, the successor of Pir Mohammed who died in\n1407, Shah Rokh annexed Transoxana and Samarkand to his possessions,\nand reigned until 1446. After saying that he had remained with this\nsovereign at Herat, Schiltberger adds that it was under Miran Shah\nhe served; but he afterwards tells us that he only went over to the\nlatter after Shah Kokh had vanquished Kara Youssouf, ruler of the\nTurkomans of the Black Sheep.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXII.\n(1.) \u201cScharabach.\u201d\u2014According to Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky, this plain of\n\u201cScharabach\u201d is to be identified with the plain of Karabagh, near the\ntown of Bajazid, in Asiatic Turkey. Neumann is of a different opinion,\nand points to the district of Karabagh, which extends to the east of\nShirwan, as far as the junction of the Kour with the Araxes, anciently\ncalled Arzah by the Armenians. Whether the battle of \u201cScharabach\u201d\nwas fought in Georgia or in Turkey, there is every probability that\nSchiltberger was made a prisoner upon the occasion, as was also his\n\u201clord\u201d. It would never otherwise have occurred to him to say, that he\nwas turned over to Aboubekr after the execution of Miran Shah.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cso that Mirenschach also was put to death.\u201d\u2014Miran Shah actually\nsuccumbed in his struggle with Youssouf or Joseph (Dorn, _Versuch.\neiner Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch._, VI, iv, 579). His eldest brother, Miszr\nKhodja (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v, 46) had defended the city of Van\nagainst Timour in 1394, but contemporary authors do not say whether it\nwas he who put Jehangir to death in 1375. Miszr Khodja may have caused\nthe death of another son of Timour, whom Schiltberger has confounded\nwith Jehangir. Perhaps that of Omar Sheykh, upon the nature of whose\ndeath authors are not agreed; Rehm (_Tab. gen. des Timurides_, v. iv)\nstating that he died in 1427 only, and Hammer (_Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, ii,\n37) alluding to his sudden death, as having taken place at about the\ntime of the conquest of Van, by Timour, _circa_ 1394.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n(1.) \u201cAchtum.\u201d\u2014The author says nothing of the neighbourhood of\nNahitchevan, for which Neumann gives him credit, nor of that of\nErzeroum, which Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky believes to be the site of the\nbattle of \u201cAchtum\u201d, upon which occasion the Ilkhan Ahmed was defeated\nby Kara Youssouf. In the plain of \u201cAchtum\u201d we recognise the environs\nof Aktam, where Timour halted when returning from his last expedition\nagainst Toktamish (Dorn, _Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch._, 567;\nPrice, _Chron. Retros._, iii, 206, who says of Acataem or Actem, that\nit is a station to the eastward of Moghaun). Neumann agrees with Hammer\nthat Ahmed ben Owe\u00efs was beheaded in 1410, and this is also the opinion\nof Weil (_Gesch. der Chal._, v, 141); but Dorn (_ibid._, 573) has it,\nthat his conflict with Kara Youssouf did not take place until the year\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n(1.) \u201cAbubachir had also a brother called Mansur.\u201d\u2014Besides this Mansour,\nfor whose name I have searched in vain in the various works I have been\nable to consult, Aboubekr had another brother named Mirza Omar, upon\nwhom Timour bestowed the throne of Houlakou, and who fell out with his\nelder brother, the said Aboubekr, and had him confined in a fortress\n(Dorn, _Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch._, 570). Aboubekr\nafterwards obtained his freedom, and succeeded in ridding himself of\n\u201cMansur\u201d, to punish him, in all probability, for making common cause\nwith Omar.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXV.\n(1.) \u201cSamabram.\u201d\u2014Ibn Haukal describes Shabran as being, in his time, a\nsmall place, but \u201cpleasant, and well supplied with provisions\u201d. This\ntown appears as Sabran, in Castaldo\u2019s map, 1584, and De Wit\u2019s atlas,\n1688, and is called Schabran by Olearius (_Voyages_, etc., 1038). It\nhas now totally disappeared, its ruins being on the Shabran-tcha\u00ef, a\nsmall river flowing into the lake Ak-Sibir on the Caspian shore.\nSchiltberger states that the prince passed through \u201cStrana\u201d, \u201cGursey\u201d,\n\u201cLochinschan\u201d, \u201cSchurban\u201d, \u201cSamabram\u201d, and \u201cTemurtapit\u201d; but as the\nking\u2019s son was sent for, to return forthwith to his own country, it is\nmore probable that he selected a short route, in which case he would\nhave travelled, if the names are here correctly interpreted, through\nAstara, Shirwan, Shabran, Georgia, Lezghistan, and the Iron Gate,\nundoubtedly Derbent, which divided Persia from Tatary.\n\u201cStrana\u201d I take to be intended for Astara, for the following reasons.\nIt is stated in the last chapter, that Aboubekr took a country called\n\u201cKray\u201d; probably Kars, which had been occupied by Timour in 1393, after\nlaying siege to the fortress of Alindsha. Aboubekr than proceeded\nto \u201cErban\u201d, Erivan, where he seized upon his brother \u201cMansur\u201d, and\nstrangled him. \u201cZegra\u201d, being with Aboubekr, was therefore apparently\nin Armenia, and must have travelled northwards by keeping close to the\nCaspian, instead of traversing the heart of the Christian kingdom of\nGeorgia.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cTemurtapit.\u201d\u2014According to Sprengel (_Gesch. der wichtigsten Geog.\nEntd._, etc., 362, 99), the Iron Gate through which the author passed\nwhen on his way from Persia into Tatary, was not the Iron Gate at\nDerbent, in the Caucasus, but the Caspian Gate in Khorasan. Malte Brun\n(_Pr\u00e9cis de la G\u00e9og. Univ._, i, 188) and Sreznevsky (_Hojdenye za try\nmory\u2019a_, etc., 241) are of similar opinion, while Neumann has no doubt\nthat the Gate of Derbent, called Demyr kapou, Iron Gate, by the Turks,\nis the \u201cysen tor\u201d of the text, which, had it been other than that at\nDerbent, would hardly have been described as being near Georgia and\nShabran.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201ca river called Edil.\u201d\u2014Neumann attempts, but in vain, to identify\nthe city of \u201cOrigens\u201d, described as being in the middle of the river\n\u201cEdil\u201d, with Astrahan, although it is clear that the author was not\nignorant of the real name of the latter place, Hadjy-tarkhan being\nincluded among the cities he visited in Tatary (\u201cHaitzicherchen\u201d, see\nChapter 36). It is not even necessary to conclude that \u201cOrigens\u201d,\nlike Astrahan, was bathed by the waters of the Volga, though the Turk\nname of that river is actually Etel, or Edil, a designation that\nmay have been applied to some other river, because Schiltberger\nstates elsewhere (Chap. 36) that \u201cOrden\u201d, Ourjenj, the chief town of\n\u201cHorosaman\u201d, Khwarezm, was situated near the \u201cEdil\u201d, and it cannot be\ndoubted that he there alludes to the Jyhoun, or Oxus, and not to the\nVolga.\nThe first large river the author got to after leaving Derbent, was\nthe Terek; we are, therefore, at liberty to suppose that \u201cOrigens\u201d\nwas in the delta of that river. G\u00fcldenstadt (_Reisen durch Russl._,\ni, 166) informs us that the vestiges of the ancient cities of Terki\nand Kopa\u00ef-Kala\u2014now known as Guen-kala, the Burnt Fortress, were close\nto that locality, and that near the mouth of the river were other\nruins, which he took to be those of the cities of Tumen and Bortchala,\nor \u201cthe town of the three walls\u201d. It is certain that in these parts\nmust have been the residence of the Khozar kings, called Semender, or\nSara\u00ef-Banou\u2014the lady\u2019s palace\u2014Hammer, (_Gesch. d. G. H._, 8) distant\na four days\u2019 journey only from Derbent, but a seven days\u2019 journey\nfrom the Itil (Dorn, _G\u00e9og. Cauc._ in _M\u00e9m. de l\u2019Ac. de St. P._, vi,\nser. vii, 527), which is equal to the twenty farsangs that separated\nthis city from the great river Varshan, or Orshan, alluded to in\nthe celebrated letter of the king of the Khozars to the minister of\nAbdor-Rahmen III. (D\u2019Ohsson, _Des Peup. du Cauc._, Par. 828, p. 208.)\nIn these same parts, also, should be placed the residence of the\nTchamkal, known to the natives by a name that it was found impossible\nto pronounce. This name, so difficult of pronunciation, may have\nbeen transformed by Schiltberger into \u201cOrigens\u201d, seeing that Russian\nannalists have construed it into Ornatch or Arnatch, evidently to be\nidentified with Tenex or Ornacia (Ornatia, Oruntia, Cornax, Tornax).\nThe monk Alberic (_Rel. de Jean du Plan de Carpin_, 114) tells us\nthat this city was taken by the Mongols in 1221, upon the occasion\nof their irruption into the territory of the Comans and Russians, a\ncity apparently identical with Ornas, \u201ccivitas Ornarum\u201d, inhabited by\nRussians, Alans, and other Christians, but belonging to the Saracens.\nIt was completely destroyed by the hordes of Batou, before their\ninvasion of the country of the Russians and Turks (Turcorum, Taycorum,\nand Tortorum), as we learn from Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine and his\ntravelling companion.\nIt is to be regretted that, whilst admitting the identity of this city\nunder its various denominations, authors are unable to agree as to\nits site. Karamsin, D\u2019Avezac, and Kunik are in support of Thunmann\u2019s\ntheory, that it was Tana, the modern Azoff. Others, Leontief (Propilei,\niv), for instance, are in favour of Frachn\u2019s (Ibn Foszlan, 162) opinion\nthat the Oruntia of Alberic, the Ornas of Giovanni dal Piano di\nCarpine, and the Arnatch of the Russian chroniclers, were all identical\nwith the Ourjenj of Khorasan. I did at one time support these views,\nbut have since sought to prove (_Sitzungsberichte d. K\u00f6n. Bay. Akad._,\n1869, ii, 276 _et seq._) that the city in question was equidistant\nfrom Azoff and Ourjenj, or, in other words, that it coincided with\n\u201cOrigens\u201d, situated, as we read in the text, on the \u201cEdil\u201d, a great\nriver, viz., the Terek. It is pretty clear that \u201cOrigens\u201d, and Ornatch\nor Arnatch of the Russians, are corruptions of Anjadz or Anjak, which,\naccording to Khanikoff (_M\u00e9moire sur Kh\u00e2c\u00e2ni_, vi, v) was a port in the\nCaspian Sea near Astrahan, of which the people of the eastern provinces\nnear the Caspian might have availed themselves for the purpose of\npenetrating into Southern Russia.\nThere can scarcely, however, be a doubt that the city of \u201cOrigens\u201d\nmust be looked for near the Caucasus, seeing that Schiltberger quitted\nit just before entering the mountains of \u201cSetzulet\u201d, manifestly the\n\u201cZulat\u201d, which we are told in Chapter 36 was the chief city of the\nmountainous country of \u201cBestan\u201d. We cannot fail to recognise in this\n\u201cSetzulet\u201d, or \u201cZulat\u201d, the city of Joulad, where Timour, in 1395,\ngained a signal victory over Toktamish, after having annihilated\na body of Kaitaks near Terky or Tarkou. Little enough is left to\nattest to the ancient splendour of Joulad, situated on the Terek, at\nno great distance from Yekaterynograd; but G\u00fcldenstadt found in its\nneighbourhood numerous remains, including Christian monuments, chiefly\nat a place called Tatar Toup\u2014Hill of Tatars. Klaproth (_Voy. au Caucase\net en G\u00e9orgie_, ii, 161) saw three minarets standing, that greatly\nresembled others at Joulad; also the ruins of two churches, which he\nattributes, as does G\u00fcldenstadt, to the 16th century, and to the Greek\nfaith, whilst admitting the assertion of the Circassians, that those\nedifices were constructed by Franks, that is to say, by Europeans\nfrom the West, who had taken up their residence among the Tatars. This\nis confirmed by Barbaro (_Ramusio edition_, 109). \u201cCaitacchi i quali\nsono circa il monte Caspio ... parlano idioma separate da gli altri.\nsono christiani molti di loro: dei quali parte fanno alla Greca, parte\nall\u2019Armena, et alcuni alla Catholica.\u201d In the face of such evidence,\nit is not strange that Schiltberger should have met, to the north of\nthe great range of the Caucasus, a Christian bishop and Carmelites\nwho worshipped in the Tatar tongue, although the Carmelites, an order\nof friars originated at Mount Carmel, were not introduced into Europe\nby St. Louis until the year 1328; and in alluding to the mountainous\ncountry of \u201cBestan\u201d, in which was the city of Joulad, the Bishtag\u2014Five\nmountains\u2014where Ibn Batouta (_Lee edition_, 76) met the Khan Uzbek,\nSchiltberger must have had in view the environs of Yekaterynograd,\nstill called Beshtamak, because the country is watered by five\ntributaries to the Terek (Klaproth, i, 327).\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cZegre.\u201d\u2014This \u201cZegre\u201d or \u201cZeggra\u201d, was in all probability Tchekre,\ncoins of whose reign, struck in 1414\u20131416, at casual encampments\u2014at\nBolgar, Astrahan, and Sara\u00ef, are preserved (Savelieff, _Mon. Joud._,\nii, 337).\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201csavages, that had been taken in the mountain.\u201d\u2014This couple may\nhave been brought from northern Siberia, where the rigorous nature\nof the climate compelled the natives to wear, by night and by day,\nas they do now, clothing made of the skins of animals. Schiltberger\nsomewhat assimilates them to monkeys, which reminds us of Herodotus,\nwho described the Neurians as being transformed into wolves, during six\nmonths of the year, because they were in all probability clothed in\nwolf-skins, so long as winter lasted.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cUgine.\u201d\u2014One is liable at first sight to identify the \u201cUgine\u201d with\nthe Ung of Marco Polo (Yule, i, 276), whom he distinguishes from the\nMongols proper; \u201ctwo races of people that existed in that province\n(Tenduc) before the migration of the Tartars. _Ung_ was the title of\nthe people of the country, and _Mungul_ a name sometimes applied to the\nTartars.\u201d Pauthier (Marco Polo, i, 218) explains, that by Ung are meant\nthe Keraits, or subjects of Prester John, so named because, like them,\nhe was a Nestorian. A descendant of this Prester John, named George,\nmentioned by Marco Polo, was converted to Catholicism by Giovanni di\nMontecorvino, who had numerous partisans in China during the stay\nin that country of Giovanni de Marignolli (_Reis. in das Morgenl._,\n41); Pauthier is therefore of opinion that, in Schiltberger\u2019s time,\nthere were Christian Ung in Northern Asia, who, if not Catholics, were\nperhaps Nestorians. There could scarcely, however, have been anything\nin common between the Ung and the \u201cUgine\u201d, for the author says that,\nalthough they worshipped the infant Jesus, they were not Christians;\nand this he makes more explicit in Chap. 45, where he includes them\namong the five classes of infidels known to him, being those who\nconfessed the three kings before receiving baptism. None of the three\nkings became the founder of any religion whatsoever. Neumann\u2019s views\nmay, therefore, be accepted, viz., that Schiltberger alludes to\nBuddhism, introduced among the Mongols by Jengiz from Thibet. I should\nconsequently prefer to associate the \u201cUgine\u201d, not with the Keraits, but\nwith the great Turk tribe, the Ung-kut, in whom Colonel Yule (Marco\nPolo, i, 285) recognises the real Ung of Marco Polo.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n(1.) \u201cbut he was killed in a battle.\u201d\u2014Tchadibek Khan was raised to the\nthrone by Ydegou or Edekou in 1399, upon the death of his brother,\nTimour Koutlouh. The coins struck during his reign and Russian\nchronicles show, that his rule lasted until 1407, in the early part\nof which year Toktamish died near Tioumen, in Siberia, whither he had\nretired after his defeat by Ydegou and Timour Koutlouh in 1399. Clavijo\nsays that he had effected a reconciliation with Timour, who desired\nto oppose him to Ydegou, the latter having refused to acknowledge his\nsuzerainty. Upon his return from Siberia, Ydegou quarrelled with\nTchadibek, who did not lose his life, but fled to the Caucasus, never\nagain to return to the Horde\u2014a statement which, though at variance\nwith Schiltberger\u2019s narrative, is based on a coin of the reign of\nTchadibek, struck at Shemah\u00e0. Of this coin, Savelieff (_Mon. Joud._,\nii, 225) says, \u201cIt certifies that although Tchadibek\u2019s influence in\nthe Horde was lost to him, he contrived to enjoy an appanage in the\nCaucasus.\u201d But this unique coin might have been struck when Tchadibek\nwas still at Sara\u00ef, for we learn from Dorn (_Versuch. einer Gesch. d.\nSchirwan-Sch._, 572) that prayers were offered at Shirwan in the name\nof Tchadibek, and in the presence of Ydegou so late as the year 1406,\nand nothing can force us to admit that the same honours would have been\npaid to the khan after his expulsion by that same amir, or that an\nappanage would have been bestowed upon him in the Caucasus.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cPolet, who reigned one year and a half.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger may have\nslightly shortened the duration of the reign of this khan, who was\nthe son of Timour Koutlouh, and was placed on the throne by Ydegou,\nas successor to Tchadibek. His coins, struck at Sara\u00ef, Bolgar, and\nAstrahan, prove that he must have reigned in Kiptchak from 1407 to\n1410, when he was expelled by Jalal uddin, the \u201cSegelalladin\u201d of the\ntext, who was the son of Toktamish.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cThebachk, who fought with him for the kingdom and killed him.\u201d\u2014It\nis stated in Penzel\u2019s Edition (1814) of Schiltberger, that Tamir,\nthe brother of Polet, reigned fourteen months and was then expelled\nby Jalal uddin, who occupied the throne for a like period, fourteen\nmonths, and was then deposed by his brother, \u201cThebachk\u201d. Coins and\nannals establish the fact of the existence of a brother of Poulad,\nnamed Timour, who, having ruled in the Crimea in 1407, forcibly seized\nupon the throne of the Golden Horde in 1411, and was dethroned the\nfollowing year by Jalal uddin, the Zelenii Soultann of the Russian\nannalists (Savelieff, _Mon. Joud._, ii, 329), who would not be entitled\nto reproach Schiltberger for the free and easy manner in which he\ndeals with the names of the suzerain lords. The brother and murderer\nof Jalal uddin, named \u201cThebachk\u201d in the text, was probably no other\nthan Kepak, some of whose coins, struck at Bolgar and Astrahan, are\npreserved, but the year is unfortunately wanting. Chroniclers make no\nmention of this prince, attributing the death of Jalal uddin to another\nbrother, Kerym byrdy, who, according to our author, must in his turn\nhave been expelled by \u201cThebachk\u201d; yet Russian annalists have asserted\nthat Kerym byrdy was killed by another brother, whose name was Yerym\nferdyn or Yarym ferden. From the resemblance of the name Jebbar or\nTchebbar, by which he was known to Mussulman authors, to that of his\nelder brother Kepek, Schiltberger may have mistaken the former for the\nlatter, calling him also \u201cThebachk\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cand he fought with Machmet and was killed.\u201d\u2014It is not determined\nwhen and where Tchekre\u2019s career terminated, because Eastern and other\nauthors are silent on the disastrous attempt made by this prince to\nrecover the throne from which he had been overthrown by Oulou Mohammed,\nthe great Mohammed, whose origin is uncertain. The author informs\nus that the death of Tchekre occurred subsequently to the struggle\nMohammed had to sustain, first, in his conflict with \u201cWaroch\u201d, and\nafterwards with \u201cDoblabardi\u201d. It is evident that in the latter name we\nhave Devlett byrdy, son of Timour Tash, and grandson of Oulou Mohammed,\nwhilst \u201cWaroch\u201d stands for Borrak, son of Ourous Khan, who fled to\nOulouk Bek, the son of Shah Rokh in 1424, the same year in which he\nexpelled Oulou Mohammed, that is to say about three years before\nSchiltberger\u2019s return to his own country. It is certain that all the\nauthor relates, having reference to the Golden Horde, took place during\nhis captivity, so that the proof of Tchekre\u2019s death having taken place\nbetween the years 1424 and 1427 is unquestionable; and it is not in\nthe last, but in one of the two preceding years that Devlett byrdy\u2019s\nreign of three days should be determined, notwithstanding that coins\nof this prince, struck in 1427, have been recovered, for there is\nlittle enough likelihood of the opportunity having been afforded him\nfor issuing a fresh coinage during a three days\u2019 reign, especially as\nanarchy pervaded the Horde. There would have been nothing extraordinary\nin his again dethroning his grandfather after the death of Tchekre, and\nretaining the sovereignty for a longer period.\nThe author\u2019s relation of his own lot, after Tchekre\u2019s first defeat by\nOulou Mohammed, is by no means clear, for it is not easy to determine\nwhether he accompanied Tchekre on his flight, or followed the fortunes\nof Ydegou, upon his being made a prisoner. As to the ultimate fate\nof this king-maker, opinions are divided. Hammer (_Gesch. d. G. H._,\n382) writes that in 1423 he was still the sovereign of an independent\nstate on the shores of the Black Sea, and must have perished either\nin the war with Kadyr byrdy, son of Toktamish, or he may have been\ndrowned in the Jaxartes. According to another source (Berezin, _Yarlik\nToktamysha_, 61), he was killed by a Tatar of the Barin tribe, from\nwhom his head was stolen by a friend, who, having presented it to Oulou\nMohammed, received in recompense that prince\u2019s daughter in marriage.\nThat Schiltberger and Ydegou both actually fell into the hands of Oulou\nMohammed, seems more probable, because the author speaks of the latter\nas his master, \u201cmin herr Machmet\u201d; but it is not easy to understand why\nhe should have stated in another place (chap. 67), that after Tchekre\u2019s\nescape he had for his master one of the old councillors of that prince,\na certain \u201cManstzusch\u201d, whose name at least reminds us of one of the\nchief princes of the Golden Horde (Hammer, _Gesch. d. G. H._, 391), the\nManshuk killed in 1440 by Koutchouk Mohammed, Mohammed the Less, the\nvanquisher of Mohammed the Great.\nWhen, at a later period, Tchekre again sought to dispute the throne\nwith Mohammed, he probably entered into negotiations with this\nex-councillor, who would have quitted the country for the express\npurpose upon the fall of the Pretender. In any case \u201cManstzusch\u201d left\nKiptchak a short time only before Schiltberger\u2019s escape, because the\nlatter was never separated from his master until after his return\nfrom Egypt, where he had assisted at the marriage of the daughter of\nSultan Boursba\u00ef\u2014a sovereign who ascended the throne in 1422 only.\nIf, as I have endeavoured to show, Schiltberger was at that time in\n\u201cManstzusch\u2019s\u201d service, it is very possible that the latter took him\nto Egypt, whither he may have been sent by Oulou Mohammed, perhaps to\ncongratulate Boursba\u00ef upon his accession, or for some other\npurpose.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n(1.) \u201cSadurmelickh.\u201d\u2014Sadra, in Arabic, is the feminine of Sadyr\u2014first,\nforemost. Melyka is queen, and here we have Sadra Melyka, the first\nof queens; the queen who is prudent above all others. But Sadry is a\nwoman\u2019s name in Persia, and amongst Tatars, and malachya signifies\nliterally, in Persian, an angel, so that the heroine in question may\nhave been one distinguished for her exceptional qualities\u2014Sadry, the\nangel.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n(1.) \u201ckocken.\u201d\u2014The koggen was a vessel with rounded bow and stern,\nperhaps similar to the \u03b3\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 alluded to by Epicharmus and Herodotus.\nThe kind of vessel actually in question is mentioned in a statute of\nGenoa, dated 15th February 1340, entitled _De securitatibus super\nfactis naviganti_. \u201cEt de navibus, Cochis, galeis et aliis lignis\nnavigabilibusque vendentur in callegam accipiunt, tot asperos qui\nvaleant perperos tres auri ad sagium Constantinopolim....\u201d Cogge,\nthe Anglo-Saxon word for cock-boat, is a name that occurs in _Morte\nArthure_.\n  \u201cThen he covers his cogge, and caches one ankere.\u201d\nIn the time of Richard II, a coggo was a vessel employed in the\ntransport of troops, and coggle is a name still given to small\nfishing-boats on the coast of Yorkshire and in the rivers Muse and\nHumber (Campe, _W\u00f6rterbuch_; Jal., _Gloss. Naut._; Smyth, _Sailor\u2019s\nWord-book_).\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cBassaw.\u201d\u2014This is the Slave name for the city of Kronstadt in\nTransylvania, the chief city in Burzelland. It is situated near the\nriver Burtzel or Burzel, a name given, according to some geographers\n(Vosgien, _Dict. G\u00e9og._, i, 157), to the territory through which\nit flows. This name may, however, owe its origin to Bortz, a Coman\nchief, who is mentioned in a Brief of Pope Gregory IX., dated 1227,\naddressed to the archbishop of Gran: \u201cNuper siquidem per litteras\ntuas nobis transmissas accepimus quod I. Ch. d. ac d. n. super gentem\nCumanorum clementer respiciens, eis salvationis ostium aperuit his\ndiebus. Aliqui enim nobiles gentis illius cum omnibus suis per te ad\nbaptismi gratiam pervenerunt, et quidem princeps Bortz nomine de terra\nillorum cum omnibus sibi subditis per ministerium tuum fidem desiderat\nsuspicere Christianam.\u201d (Theiner, _Vet. Mon. Hist. Hung._, i, 86.)\nThis prince did certainly seek a refuge in Transylvania, as did many\nof his countrymen, upon the irruption of the Mongols into Kiptchak. We\nhave it upon the authority of Mussulman writers, that among the eleven\nComan tribes settled in this country, were the Bourtch-oglon; evidently\nsubject to the princes Bourtchevitch mentioned in Russian annals\n(Berezin, _Nashestvye Mongolov_, ix, 240).\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n(1.) \u201cKallacercka.\u201d\u2014The author does not here allude either to Galata,\nas Jirecek (_Gesch. d. Bulgaren_, 324) supposes, or to Callatis, as\nbelieved by Fallmerayer, but rather to the castle of Kaliakra, the\nruins of which are still visible on the headland of that name. It is\nthe \u03a4\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f77\u03b1 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1 of the ancients, marked Caliacra in the charts\nof the 14th century, and known as \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u1f71\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1 in the _Acta Patriarch.\nConstant._, i, 52, 272. Evliya Effendi (_Travels_, etc., 70\u201372) having\nbeen shipwrecked near the coast of Kilghra, when on his voyage from\nBalaklava to Constantinople, in 1643, was hospitably entertained by\nthe dervishes of the monastery, near the castle which was then in\nexistence. In 1406, this territory belonged to Mirtcha (Jirecek, 346);\nbut ten years later he ceded his possessions south of the Danube to his\nsuzerain lord, the Sultan Mahomet I.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cSalonikch.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger may have touched at Salonica when upon\nhis voyage to Egypt, referred to in chap, xxvi, note 4\u2014performed, in\nall probability, on board of an Italian vessel from Caffa, upon which\noccasion he passed the island of Imbros, described in chap. 58. There\nis no evidence whatever that he went to Salonica after his return from\nAsia to Constantinople, nor is it at all probable that he stopped there\nwhen being carried away into slavery after the battle of Nicopolis,\nnotwithstanding that the town belonged to the Turks and not to the\nGreeks (Zinkeisen, _Gesch. d. O. R._, i, 287). Bajazet would scarcely\nhave selected so circuitous a route for sending captives to Broussa.\nThere are good reasons for surmising that the voyage was performed in\na Venetian vessel which touched at Salonica. This town, given up in\n1403 by Souleiman, son of Bajazet, to the Greeks, was by them sold, in\n1423, to the Venetians, who would undoubtedly have taken all necessary\nmeasures for putting it into a state of defence and supplying it with\nprovisions, including salted fish from the Sea of Azoff. Another reason\nfor the supposition that Schiltberger\u2019s journey into Egypt could not\nhave taken place earlier than 1423, is to be found in the fact that,\nfrom Egypt he passed over into Arabia, on a pilgrimage to the holy\nplaces of the Mahomedans, having, as it would seem, turned Mussulman\nthrough compulsion; and if he has avoided all reference to the journey,\nit was out of a natural desire not to be reminded of the painful\ncircumstance of his apostacy.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cfrom whose grave oil flows.\u201d\u2014Hammer observes that Schiltberger\nconfirms the story told of St. Demetrius, and not of St. Theodora,\nas erroneously related in Anagnosta\u2019s _De Thessalonicensi excidio\nnarratio_, the fact being, that the tomb of St. Theodora was close\nto that of St. Demetrius, from whose foot flowed the oil which was\ncollected annually, and distributed to all believers (_Pout. Rouss.\nloud._, 47). Professor Grigorovitch tells us that the well is still\nshewn beneath the floor of the church, but he was unable to certify\nthat the miracle continued to be operated!\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cAsia.\u201d\u2014Fallmerayer and Hammer maintain that Schiltberger was\nmistaken in saying that the city in which was the tomb of St. John,\nwas called Asia, the correct name being Ephesus, known to the Turks\nas Aisulugh, and as \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 to the Byzantines, who\nthus styled St. John. The author\u2019s learned countrymen might, however,\nhave admitted in his justification the evidence of Codinus (_Urb. nom.\nimm._, 316), to the effect that the ancient name of the eparchiate of\nEphesus was \u1f08\u03c3\u1f77\u03b1 \u1f21 \u1f1c\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2. Schiltberger may have learnt the\nancient name from the monks, who would have employed it in those\ndays.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4A.) The church at Ephesus, erected over the tomb of St. John the\nEvangelist, was enlarged by Justinian, and afterwards turned into a\nmosque (Ibn Batouta). Here, also, as at the grave of St. Demetrius at\nSalonica, the mortal remains were invested with miraculous powders,\nfor a peculiar kind of dust, in substance like flour, and compared by\nSt. George of Tours to manna, worked its way out of the sepulchre, and\nbeing taken about, effected many marvellous cures (Baillet, _Vie des\nSaints_, viii, 624).\u2014ED.\n(5.) \u201cSaint Nicholas was bishop there.\u201d\u2014St. Nicholas, the patron of\nRussia, was bishop of Myra in Lycia, which the author confounds with\nIsmir, the Turkish name for Smyrna. De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 4)\ncommits a similar error in quoting Lisemiere, together with Feule la\nvielle for Fogliavecchia, and Porspic for porto di Spiga.\nSmyrna, a possession of the knights of Rhodes, was taken by Timour\ntowards the close of the year 1402 (Hammer, _Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, ii,\n116), upon which occasion Schiltberger must have visited it, without,\nhowever, having been afforded the opportunity of seeing the picturesque\nvalley where Fellows, in 1838 (_Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_,\netc.), discovered the imposing ruins of Myra, or Demir, so called by\nthe Turks. It is recorded that in 1087, the relics of St. Nicholas\nwere removed to Bari, and the church in which they were originally\nlaid having fallen to ruins, a small chapel was erected on the site.\nThe restoration of the sacred edifice, completed in 1874 at a cost of\n10,000 roubles, was commenced on the initiative of M. Mouravieff.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cMaganasa\u201d.\u2014Magnesia was styled \u201cad Sipylum\u201d, to distinguish it\nfrom Magnesia \u201cad M\u00e6andrum\u201d, the remains of which have been discovered\nnear a village called A\u00efneh-bazar, distant sixteen miles from Ephesus.\nThe former, the Manissa of the Turks, near the Hermus at the foot of\nMount Sipylus, has ever been a city noted for its extent, commerce, and\npopulation.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cDonguslu\u201d.\u2014Denizly, a densely populated town in the time of Hadjy\nKhalpha, was no longer included in the district of Saroukhan, but was\nadded to that of Koutahieh. Near this place, pleasantly situated in\na rich and well-watered plain, are the ruins of Laodicea, one of the\nSeven Churches to which St. John addressed his Revelations.\u2014BRUUN.\n(8.) \u201cWegureisari.\u201d\u2014This town, which occupies the site of the ancient\nGangra, is the principal in the district. In the days of Hadjy Khalpha,\nit contained a fortress and an imperial residence, which must have been\nin existence in Schiltberger\u2019s time, and accounts for his addition of\nthe word sara\u00ef\u2014palace\u2014to Kiankary, and thus converting the name to\n\u201cWegureisari\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(9.) \u201cIn this country Saint Basil was bishop.\u201d\u2014It was generally\nbelieved that the remains of St. Basil, interred at C\u00e6sarea, were\nnever disturbed; the Abbey of St. Philibert at Tournes in Burgundy,\nthe cities of Bruges, St. Armand in Flanders, and Rome, each claim the\npossession, but how they came by them is not satisfactorily explained\n(Baillet, _Vie des Saints_, iv, 710).\u2014ED.\n(10.) \u201cKureson.\u201d\u2014Near this city, commonly called Kerasous, Keresoun,\nsituated between Samsoun and Trebizond, are still to be seen the ruins\nof ancient \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 or Parthenium. There was at one time, on the coast\nnear Trebizond, another even more ancient Kerasous, that of Xenophon,\nof which a lovely valley still retains the name, being known as\nKerasoun-der\u00e8; but of the city itself, there are no traces.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n(1.) \u201cThen he left her.\u201d\u2014Virgin\u2019s towers are by no means uncommon\nin the East. Rich (_Residence in Kourdistan_, i, 172) mentions a\nKiz-Kalesi\u2014girl\u2019s castle\u2014as being on a hill above the Kizzeljee in\nKourdistan. Hear a place called Ak-boulak, about twenty-five miles\nto north-east of Shousha in Transcaucasia, are the ruins of Kiz\nKaleh\u2014Virgin\u2019s castle\u2014situated on a hill in a perfectly impregnable\nposition. Another Virgin\u2019s castle in that part of Asia, is at Bakou; an\ninscription on its walls, in Cufic characters, deciphered by Khanikoff\n(_Ysvest. Geog. Obshtchest._, ix), records its construction by Masoudi,\nthe son of Daud, one of the \u201cSamiardi fratres\u201d mentioned in the history\nof Otto, bishop of Freising. Again, there is a tower, erected on the\nhighest pinnacle of the rocky mount upon which stand the fortifications\nof Soldaya, now Soudagh, in the Crimea, called Kiz-Koula by the Tatars\n(_The Crimea and Transc._, ii, 158). The ruins of another fortress,\nKaleh Dokhter, are described by Abbott (_Southern Cities of Persia_,\nMS.) as crowning the height above the city of Kirman; and visitors\nto Constantinople are familiar with the construction on the rock off\nScutari, unaccountably called by Europeans the Tower of Leander, but\nknown, more legitimately, as the Maiden\u2019s Tower, ever since it became\nthe burial-place of Damalis, wife of the Athenian general Chares, who\nwas sent to the assistance of the Byzantines against Philip of Macedon.\nThe author says, that on quitting the neighbourhood of the mysterious\ncastle, he proceeded to Kerasoun; it is, therefore, just possible that\nthe legend of the sparrow-hawk was attached to an ancient Kiz-Kalesi\nseen by Ainsworth (_Travels in Asia Minor_, etc., i, 87) near Tash\nKupri, close to the road that leads from Kastamuni to Boiabad, both to\nthe south-west of Sinope. I am unable to discover why the name was so\nfrequently given in the East, to such peculiarly situated strongholds,\nand would suggest that it was owing to their unassailable position.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n(1.) \u201cLasia.\u201d\u2014The territory of the Lazi was part of Colchis, and lay\nbetween the Phasis and Armenia. The mountainous country belonged at\nthat time to the empire of Trebizond.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cKayburt.\u201d\u2014Neumann is persuaded that Schiltberger alludes to\nBa\u00efbourt (or Pa\u00efpourt), a very ancient fortress to the north-west\nof Erzeroum, that was restored by Justinian I. Procopius (_De Bell.\nPers._, iii, 253) calls it Baerberdon. Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky is of\nopinion that \u201cKayburt\u201d stands for Ka\u00efpourt, called Kharpert by the\nnatives, situated in a far more fertile country than is Ba\u00efbourt. In\nMarco Polo\u2019s time, Paipurth was a castle on the road from Trebizond\nto Tabrecz; and we learn from Barbaro that the fortress of Carpurth,\ndistant a five days\u2019 journey from Erzingan, was the residence of\nDespina Caton, a princess of Trebizond, the consort of Hassan\nBey.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2A.) \u201cKayburt\u201d, in a fertile country, is doubtlessly Kharput,\ndistant seventy miles, in a direct line, from Erzingan. The Special\nCorrespondent of _The Times_ (January 20th, 1879), has lately described\nthis place as being situated on the edge of a cliff at the top of a\nmountain in a very picturesque situation; but very difficult to get\nat, for it takes an hour to ride from the level of the plain to the\ntown. The plain of Kharput is twenty miles long and twelve miles wide,\npresenting 153,600 acres of splendid land, well irrigated, and in a\nhigh state of cultivation.\u2014ED.\n(3.) \u201cKamach.\u201d\u2014Kemakh is on the site of the ancient city of Ani,\nthirty miles from Erzingan and close to the Euphrates, and not to be\nconfounded with the Ani referred to in Chapter xiii, note 2. Near\nKemakh was the temple of Jupiter, constructed by Tigranes, and the city\nafterwards became the principal seat of the worship of Hormuzd; it was\nalso a state prison, and the burial-place of the Arsacid\u00e6 (Ritter, _Die\nErdkunde_ etc., x, 782\u2013789). Constantine Porphyrogenitus called this\nstronghold of the Byzantines, \u039a\u1f71\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1. Kemakh was celebrated among\nthe Turks for its fine linen, as Erzingan was noted for its good\nbreed of sheep, and Ba\u00efbourt for the beauty of its women. \u201cKamahoum\nbesy\u2014Erdshenshan kousy\u2014Baibourdin kysy.\u201d\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cnobody knows where it goes.\u201d\u2014This observation on the peculiarities\nof the Upper Euphrates, is confirmed by other authors (Procopius, _De\nBell. Pers._, i, 17; and Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., x, 736). On\nemerging from a narrow valley, the river completely disappears amongst\nreeds, which, though annually taken and burnt, again grow very fast,\nand so thickly, that carts might be driven over them to cross the\nriver.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4A.) The recent survey of the Euphrates shows that the river really\ndisappears in the Lamloun marshes, its width diminishing to 120 yards\ntowards the town of Lamloun. It again widens at Karayem, where the\nSerayah branch on the western side, and the Nahr Lamloun branch on the\neastern side, reunite with the main stream. Colonel Chesney makes no\nallusion whatever to an overgrowth of reeds, and adds (_Exped. to the\nEuphr. and Tigris_, i, 58, 59): \u201cBeing thus reunited to its former\nwaters, and at the same time free from those marshes in which it had\nbeen supposed to be lost, the Euphrates suddenly reappears on its\nformer scale, enclosed between high banks covered with jungle.\u201d\u2014ED.\n(5.) \u201cKarasser; it is fertile in vineyards.\u201d\u2014Several travellers and\nauthors, such as Aboulfeda, Tavernier, Otter, Golius, Ritter, etc.,\nhave represented, that the best wines of the country were to be\nobtained at Amadia, fifteen miles from Kohrasar\u2014\u201cKarasser\u201d\u2014which Hammer\n(_Denkschr. d. K\u00f6n. Akad. d. Wissensch._, ix) fancifully transfers to\nKara-hissar in Armenia. Kohrasar is quite uninhabited and deserted,\nbut the ruins of what were at one time magnificent churches and other\nedifices, excited the admiration of Tavernier (_Six Voy. en Turquie_,\netc., en 1642) and Ainsworth (_Trav. in Asia Minor_, etc., 1842). They\nindicate the site of the ancient city of Constantine. It is to be\ndeplored that those travellers could not afford the time to explore the\nlocality.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cthe people are warlike\u201d.\u2014The warlike inhabitants of Black Turkey\nwere the Turkomans of the White Sheep, who, under Kara Yelek, their\nchief, seized upon Amid (Amed, Hamith, Karamid), the capital of\nDyarbekr, in Mesopotamia, after the death of Timour; it is now known\nby the same name as the province, but was called Kara Amid\u2014Amid the\nblack\u2014from the colour of its walls. Many traces of its grandeur are\nleft. The academician, Ba\u00efer (_De numo Amid._, 545), shows that it was\nconstructed by Severus Alexander, and fortified by Justinian.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cBestan.\u201d\u2014This name is probably intended for Bistan, near the\neastern frontier of the pashalik of Soulimanieh. It is now a village of\nno importance, but near it are the ruins of an ancient castle, also the\ntumuli known as the Roustan tepe and Shah tepe, in which many objects\nof antiquity have been found. Judging by its style of architecture,\nthe castle, constructed of bricks, is believed to be of the Sassanian\nperiod; but it may have been occupied at a later date, even to the time\nof Schiltberger, when it was, perhaps, the capital of Kourdistan. The\npasha\u2019s residence at Soulimanieh is a modern edifice, having been built\ntowards the end of the 18th century (Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., xi,\n566).\u2014BRUUN.\n(8.) \u201cZuchtun.\u201d\u2014The noxious nature of the climate on the eastern\nsea-board of the Black Sea, has been fully proved by Russian garrisons\nto their cost, and especially at \u201cZuchtun\u201d or Soukhoum Kaleh. Near this\nplace stood the ancient Dioscurias, subsequently called Sevastopolis,\nafter an old Roman fortress in the neighbourhood. It was of great\nstrategic importance to the Empire in the reign of Justinian (_Novell.\nconstit._, 28; and Procopius, _De Bell. Goth._, iv, 4), and became\na prosperous commercial port after the Black Sea was opened to the\nItalians. The Genoese established a consulate at Savastopoli, which was\nmaintained until the year 1449 (_Zap. Odess. Obstschest._, v,\n809).\u2014BRUUN.\n(8A.) \u201cZuchtun\u201d, intended, as shown above, for Soukhoum, and named\nSoukhoum Kaleh in the year 1578, when Amurat III., as suzerain of\nAbhase, Mingrelia, Imeritia, and Gouria, arrogated to himself the\nright to fortify and occupy it as one of two points on the coast (Poti\nbeing the other), is the chief town of Abhase, and distant about sixty\nmiles to the north of Poti. The yearly mortality, according to late\nofficial returns (1874), was reported as being at the rate of 3 per\ncentum.\nThe small, square, flat cap seen by Schiltberger, is now in great\nmeasure substituted in Abhase by the g\u2019h\u2019tapt or bashlyk, a pointed\nhead-covering of great antiquity, adopted in winter by the troops in\nRussia, and in fashion among the ladies in that country; but it is\nstill extensively worn by the Imeritians and Mingrelians, who call\nit papanaky, and consider it sufficient covering for their heads of\nbushy hair, of which they are very proud, and which they periodically\nshave to improve the growth. The flat cap, or papanaky, is a small\nlozenge-shaped piece of leather, cloth, or silk, laid over the fore\npart of the head, and fastened with strings under the chin. When worn\nby nobles, the papanaky of velvet is made very ornamental, with gold\nand silver embroidery. Their Mussulman conquerors used to call the\nImeritians, bashashyk\u2014bare-heads (_The Crimea and Transc._, i, 120; ii,\n(9.) \u201cKathon.\u201d\u2014There can be little doubt that Batoum is here intended,\na place which appears as Vati or Lovati, in the charts of the 14th\ncentury.\u2014BRUUN.\n(9A.) In the present chapter, the capital of Mingrelia is called\n\u201cKathon\u201d; in chapter 67, it is named \u201cBothan\u201d. Neumann suggests that\nfor \u201cKathon\u201d we should read Gori; Professor Bruun is of opinion\nthat Batoum is intended, and Hammer (_Denkschr. d. K\u00f6n. Akad. d.\nWissensch._, ix) thinks that \u201cKathon\u201d should be Kargwel or Karduel, and\n\u201cBothan\u201d, Cota\u00efs; but it may fairly be inferred from Schiltberger\u2019s\naccount, that this \u201cKathon\u201d or \u201cBothan\u201d, as it also appears in the\neditions of 1475 (?), 1549, and 1814, stands for Poti. In both chapters,\nthe author speaks of the chief town of \u201cMegral\u201d, \u201cMagrill\u201d\u2014Mingrelia\u2014as\nbeing situated on the Black Sea, and says that on leaving it, he rode\nalong the sea-shore until he reached a mountainous country. Poti, the\nancient Phasis, a place of importance from the most remote times,\nlays in an unexceptionably flat country, from which it would have been\nnecessary for Schiltberger, who was effecting his escape and must\ntherefore have been travelling south, to ride fully ten miles by the\nsea-side, before he could have reached a highland. Gori and Kouta\u00efs,\nbeing inland towns, are quite out of the question, and had the author\ngot to Batoum, he would already have been in a mountainous country, and\nneed not have described his ride before attaining it. I cannot find any\nrecord that Batoum, situated in Lazistan, formerly included in Colchis,\never formed part of the principality of Mingrelia.\u2014ED.\n(10.) \u201cMerdin\u201d.\u2014With the exception of the citadel, which remained in\nthe hands of a prince of the Ortok dynasty, this place, formerly a\nchief town of Mesopotamia, had to submit, with many others, to the\nyoke of Timour. Upon the death of the conqueror, his heir, afterwards\nassassinated by Kara Yelek, called to his assistance Kara Youssouf,\nchief of the Turkomans of the Black Sheep, and gave to him Mardin, in\nexchange for Mosoul, where he was poisoned. His son transferred the\nroyal residence to Sindjar, and died of the plague in the year 814 of\nthe Hegira. These were the last members of the Ortok dynasty, which\nreigned three hundred years.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n(1.) \u201cThaures.\u201d\u2014Tabreez, founded by Zobeide the wife of\nHaroun-al-Rashid, was long distinguished for the extent of its\ncommercial relations, in which the Genoese and Venetians took part.\nAlthough frequently pillaged at the hands of enemies, notably by\nJanibek in 1357, and by Toktamish in 1387, Tabreez soon recovered\nfrom its misfortunes. This capital even became the principal dep\u00f4t\nfor merchandise from India and China, after the destruction of the\ncities of Ourjenj and Astrahan by Timour, who established a commodious\nroute between Tabreez and Samarkand by way of Kashin and Soultany\u00e0.\nSchiltberger\u2019s statement as to the custom\u2019s revenue at Tabreez,\nwill not seem exaggerated in presence of the fact, that in 1460 it\namounted to 60,000 ducats. Ramusio observes that Tabreez, the great\ndep\u00f4t, rivalled Paris in its magnificence, and in the number of its\ninhabitants.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) Writing in 1868, Abbott (_Persian Azerbaijan_, MS.) says that\nTabreez was the principal seat of commerce in all Persia, and the mart\nfrom which nearly all the northern and midland countries were supplied\nwith the produce and manufactures of Europe, conveyed to it chiefly by\nland transport from the Black Sea; the yearly value was estimated at\n\u00a31,750,000, the value of goods imported from England being probably\nthree-fourths of that sum. The city contained about 3100 shops of all\ndescriptions; thirty karavansara\u00efs, occupied by merchants and traders;\nand about forty others devoted to the accommodation of muleteers and\ntheir cattle. Abbott adds, that the commerce of Tabreez had made great\nadvances since 1830, having increased eight-fold in 1860.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cRei.\u201d\u2014After passing Teheran, upon the occasion of his journey\nfrom Soultany\u00e0 to Samarkand, Clavijo perceived, at a distance of two\nleagues, a great city in ruins ... \u201cbut there appeared towers and\nmosques, and the name of the place was Xahariprey\u201d\u2014Shehri-Rei, the\ncity of Rei, \u201cat one time the largest city in all the land\u201d, says\nKhanikoff, \u201cthough it is now uninhabited\u201d. But Rey did not remain long\nthus unpeopled, because the Russian merchant Nikitin (who visited India\nthirty years before Vasco de Gama), though leaving Teheran unnoticed,\nas does Schiltberger, speaks of his stay at Rey, where he witnessed the\ncelebration of the famous Persian festival, instituted in commemoration\nof the death of Hussein, the son of Ali and grandson of the prophet.\n(_Poln. Sobr._, etc., vi, 332.)\u2014BRUUN.\n(2A.) To the above might be added the evidence of Ibn Haukal, that there\nwas not in the eastern regions any city more flourishing. Rey was\ncelebrated for its gates, for its many remarkable quarters and streets,\nits numerous bazaars, karavansara\u00efs, and market-places. The fine\nlinen, camelot, and cotton manufactured at Rey, was sent to all parts\nof the world. Late travellers have found its site marked by hollows\nand mounds; mouldering towers, tombs, and wells, constructed of burnt\nand sun-dried materials (Ker Porter, _Travels in Georgia, Persia_,\netc., 1822; Mounsey, _Journey through the Caucasus_, etc., 1872).\nIn the 3rd century of Mahomedanism, Rey was specially noted for its\nwealth, and was styled, The First of Cities\u2014The Spouse of the World\u2014The\nMarket of the Universe. (Chardin, _Langl\u00e8s edition_, ii, 411.)\u2014ED.\n(3.) \u201cRaphak.\u201d\u2014If Schiltberger\u2019s companions, when on his journey to Rey\nor Rhe, were Sunnites, they probably looked upon the people of that\ncity as apostates from the faith; for \u201cRaphak\u201d, therefore, we should\nread Raphadzhy\u2014abjurer\u2014a term applied to renegades. These disciples\nadmit themselves to be Shey\u2014partisans\u2014whence the term Shyites, and in\nthe present instance they were evidently called by the opprobrious name\nof Raphadzy, as being apostates, by those of a different sect. Ibn\nBatouta met at Kota\u00eff (Katiff of Benjamin of Tudela), on the Persian\nGulf, some Arabs of the Rafiza sect, who were most enthusiastic,\npublishing their sentiments everywhere, and fearing no one.\nThere are Shyite Tatars in Transcaucasia, chiefly in the valley of the\nAraxes, also in the richly cultivated province of Ouroumyeh, the seat\nof the Christian Nestorians, where they people eight villages. These\nShyites call themselves Ali Allahy\u2014Worshippers of Ali\u2014and are not\naverse to drinking wine.\u2014ED.\n(4.) \u201cNachson.\u201d\u2014Clavijo (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._, 80) sojourned for a time\nin a city which he calls Calmarin, and attributes its foundation to a\nson of Noah. This place was probably Sourmalou on the Araxes, taken\nby Timour in 1385. Tutan, the Turkoman who resided here, might have\nbeen the \u201cTetani, Emperor of Tartary\u201d, who, according to Clavijo,\nhad conquered the place, though only a viceroy. There was a Titanus,\nVicarius Canlucorum, of the Genoese, in 1449; the Tautaun, Taudoun,\nof the Avares and Khozars. Two days before reaching Calmarin, Clavijo\npassed the night in a town called Naujua, where there were many\nArmenians, which must have been the \u201cNachson\u201d of Schiltberger, now\nknown as Nahitchevan.\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201cMaragara.\u201d\u2014There are numerous remains of ancient fortifications on\nthe heights around Meragha. In a westerly direction, at a distance of\nthirteen miles to the south-west of Tabreez, are the foundations of a\nround tower, believed to have been the celebrated observatory of Khodja\nNazr uddin\u2014defensor fidei\u2014the friend of Houlakon, who transferred his\nresidence to Meragha after the capture of Baghdad in 1258. To this day\nis shown his tomb,[1] and that of his wife Dogous or Dokouz Khatoun,\nthe protectress of Christians, but especially of Nestorians, in whose\ndoctrines she had great faith (Hammer, _Gesch. der Ilchane_, etc.,\ni, 82). Shortly after her death, the patriarch, Iabellasa, agreed to\nrecognise the supremacy of the Pope, the act having been presented\nto Benedict II. by a Dominican friar named Jacob. Mosheim (_Hist.\nTartarorum Eccles._, 92) pronounces against the authenticity of this\ndocument, an opinion shared by Heyd (_Die Colon. der R\u00f6misch. Kirche_,\netc., 322), on the grounds that it was signed at Meragha. It may,\nhowever, be contended that the patriarch might have resided for a time\nat Meragha, after the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols, considering\nthat his successors had no fixed residence to 1559, in which year\nthe patriarch Elias definitively established the seat at Mosoul; and\nthat a tradition is preserved amongst the Nestorians or Chald\u00e6ans\nof Kourdistan, to the effect that their ancestors, who had resisted\nTimour, were domiciled between the lakes Van and Ouroumyeh.\nIn the early part of the 14th century, another brother preacher,\nJordanus Catalani, recorded in his _Mirabilia_ (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._,\n9), that those schismatics had adopted the Catholic faith in several\ncities of Persia, to wit, at Tabreez, Soultany\u00e0, and at \u201cUr of the\nChaldees, where Abraham was born, which is a very opulent city, distant\nabout two days from Tabriz\u201d. Heyd says that this Ur cannot be Orfa,\na town in central Mesopotamia, which has been identified with the\nUr-Khasdim of the Arabians (Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., x, 333); but\nis more probably the ancient city of Maranda, not far from the lake\nOuroumyeh and fifty miles only from Tabreez. But Meragha was, in like\nmanner, at no great distance from the said lake, and only twenty-four\nmiles, or, according to Hadjy Khalpha, seven farsangs from Tabreez; we\nare, therefore, justified in concluding, that it was this place the\nfriar designated as Ur of the Chaldees, especially as it was a large\ncity and a bishop\u2019s see in 1320 (Galanus, _Concil. Eccl. Arm. cum\nRom._, i, 508; quoted by Heyd, 324). The same cannot be said of Maranda.\nBartholomew of Bologna has given evidence of his zeal, in the fact that\nmany of the Armenian clergy went over to the Church of Rome, and with\nthe view of cementing this union, a new Order, \u201cFratres pr\u00e6dicatores\nUniti\u201d, was founded and affiliated to the Dominicans, whose head-centre\nwas at Meragha. But the theory propounded by Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky is\nworthy of consideration, viz., that Ur is no other than Urmi or Ormi, a\ntown of some size, hitherto largely inhabited by Nestorian Chald\u00e6ans,\nand that has given its name to the lake Ourmiah, Ormi, or Ouroumyeh.\nIt is believed to be the birth-place of Zoroaster, who might have been\nmistaken for Abraham as easily as he has been for Moses.\u2014BRUUN.\n  [1] Abbott says (_Persian Azerbaijan_, MS.) that the tomb\n  of Houlakou, or its reputed site, is pointed out near the\n  town of Meragha.\u2014ED.\n(6.) \u201cGelat.\u201d\u2014Khelat was taken in 1229 by the sultan, Jalaluddin, after\na three days\u2019 siege. Aboulfeda quotes Abou Said, who says that it\nrivalled Damascus. Bakui (_Not. et Extr._, ii, 513) extols Khelat for\nits good water, fruit, and the fish taken from the lake, especially the\ntamrin, possibly the dorakine found in the Kour, as related by Ystachry\n(_Mordtmann edition_, 1845). The numerous ruins in the neighbourhood\nare of the time when Akhlat was the residence of the Shahy Armen\u2014kings\nof Armenia; they include those of a superb palace, of gorgeous tombs,\nartificial grottoes, and of a fortress on the shore of Lake Van. Khelat\nis now a miserable hamlet occupied by Kurds.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6A.) Khelat, Ghelath, Ashlath, was long the residence of a suffragan\nbishop of the Armenian Church.\u2014ED.\n(7.) \u201cKirna.\u201d\u2014On the Gharny-tcha\u00ef, a tributary of the Zenga, east of\nErivan, is Gharny or Bash Gharny, now an insignificant village, but\nat one time a place of considerable importance. According to the\nold Armenian chroniclers, Kharny was founded 2000 B.C. by a prince\nKegham\u00e8, who named it after himself; but the name was afterwards\nchanged by Kharnig, the grandson of Kegham\u00e8, to Kharny. It was here\nthat Tiridates, 286\u2013314, constructed for his favourite sister a superb\nresidence, to which Moses Chorensis (_Whiston edition_, 1736), the\nArmenian chronicler of the 5th century, thus refers: \u201cPer id tempus\nTiridates castelli Garnii \u00e6dificationem absolvit, quod quadratis et\nc\u00e6sis lapidibus, ferro et plumbo coagmentatis construxit, atque ibi\numbraculum statuit et monumentum mirifica arte c\u00e6latum, pro sorore\nsua Chosroiduchta, in eoque memoriam sui gr\u00e6cis literis inscripsit.\u201d\nThis remarkable edifice is alluded to by Kiracos of Gantzac, also an\nArmenian chronicler, of the 13th century, as \u201cthe marvellous throne\nof Tiridates\u201d, in front of the cemetery of Kharny (_Hist. d\u2019Arm\u00e9nie_\ntrans. by M. Brosset, St. Petersburg, 1870). It is now a heap of ruins,\nknown to the natives as Takht Dertad\u2014Throne of Tiridates.\nAt a short distance above Gharny, also on the Gharny-tcha\u00ef in the\nGoktcha valley, is the venerable monastery of A\u00efrits vank, Ghergarr or\nKeghart, noted for its memorial inscriptions of the 12th, 13th, and\n14th centuries (_The Crimea and Transc._, i, 211, 221).\u2014ED.\n(8.) \u201cthe priests are of the Order of Preachers, and sing in the\nArmenian tongue.\u201d\u2014What Schiltberger says with regard to \u201cMeya\u201d\u2014Magou\u2014is\nconfirmed by Clavijo (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._, 83). \u201cOn Sunday, the first\nof June, at the hour of vespers, they came to a castle called Maca,\nbelonging to a Catholic Christian called Noradin, and the people who\nlived in it were Catholic Christians, though they were by birth and\nlanguage Armenians, and they also knew the Tartar and Persian tongues.\nIn this place there was a monastery of Dominican friars. The castle was\nin a valley, at the foot of a very high rock, and there was a village\non a hill above, and on the top of the hill there was a wall of stone\nand mortar, with towers, and against the wall there were houses. There\nwas also another wall with towers, and the entrance to it was by a\ngreat tower, built to guard it, along steps cut in the rocks. Near the\nsecond wall there were houses cut in the rock, and in the centre were\nsome towers and houses, where the lord lived, and here all the people\nin the village kept their provisions. The rock was very high, and rose\nabove the walls and houses; and from the rocks an overhanging part\nstretched out, which covers the castle, walls, and houses, like the\nheaven that is above them.\u201d\u2014BRUUN.\n(8A.) Tradition asserts that Makou, Makouyeh, in the Armenian province\nof Artazo-Tasht, to the east of Ararat and south of the Araxes, is\nbuilt over the place where St. Thaddeus suffered martyrdom. The\nfortress is situated in a gorge above the village (J. Saint Martin,\n_M\u00e9m. sur l\u2019Arm\u00e9nie_, i, 135).\u2014ED.\n(9.) \u201cRess.\u201d\u2014Resht, the chief town of Ghilan, a place of great\ncommercial importance in Schiltberger\u2019s time, is distant six miles from\nthe Caspian Sea. The Genoese and Venetians secured the rich produce of\nthis province, especially the silken stuffs made there or imported from\nYezd and Kashan. Marco Polo (Yule, i, 54) speaks of silk called Ghell\u00e8,\nafter the name of the country on the Sea of Ghel or Ghelan\u2014the\nCaspian.\u2014BRUUN.\n(10.) \u201cStrawba.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger changes Astrabad to \u201cStrawba\u201d, just as\nhis Italian contemporaries have called the place Strava, Strevi, and\nIstarba. Its commerce was not considerable, but Astrabad was of some\nimportance as being the dep\u00f4t for merchandise in transit across the\nCaspian, from India and Bokhara.\u2014BRUUN.\n(11.) \u201cAntioch.\u201d\u2014Several cities of Asia were in ancient times called\nAntiochia. Stephen of Byzantium knew of eight, two of which, Edessa\nand Nisibis, were in Migdonia; and as each, in its turn, had become\nthe foremost bulwark of Christianity, their possession was frequently\ndisputed by the Infidels. Allusion is made in the text to Nisibis, with\nits ramparts of brick, rather than to Edessa, which was encircled by\nwhitewashed walls.\u2014BRUUN.\n(12.) \u201cAluitza.\u201d\u2014If the author here alludes to the same fortress\n(Alindsha?) as is mentioned in chapter 16, of which there can scarcely\nbe a doubt, that is to say, the fortress in which Ahmed ben Oweis kept\nhis treasure; then the story of its siege by Timour for the space of\nsixteen years, was a gross exaggeration on the part of his informants,\nbecause we know from contemporary authors that the siege of Alindsha\nlasted eight years only.\u2014BRUUN.\n(13.) \u201cThere is a city called Scheckhy; it is in a fertile country near\nthe White Sea.\u201d\u2014It will be generally admitted that this White Sea is\nno other than the Caspian. Hammer (note, p. 45) says it was so called\nto distinguish it from the Black Sea; but Wahl (_Allg. Beschr. d.\npersischen Reichs_, ii, 679) attributes the distinctive name to the\npetrified shells, white and gray sand, with which the bed of the sea is\noverspread. It is pretty certain that White Sea is not a name invented\nby the author, but that he supplies us with the literal translation\nof the Georgian words\u2014Tetrysea and Sywa, which have a similar\nsignification, and are even now employed to designate the Caspian Sea.\nHammer is mistaken in saying that Schiltberger called the eastern shore\nof the Caspian by the name of Scherky, as the word appears in Penzel,\nand which is simply a corruption of \u201cScheckhy\u201d, now known as Sheky,\non the left bank of the river Kour, between Georgia, the districts of\nGandja, Shirwan and Daghestan. It is said that this part of the country\nwas occupied as early as the 10th century by the Shekis or Shekines, a\nChristian people given to commerce and industrial pursuits (D\u2019Ohsson,\n_Des Peup. du Cauc._ 18, and note xiv).\u2014BRUUN.\n(14.) \u201cthe kingdom Horoson, and its capital is called Hore.\u201d\u2014As stated\nby Neumann, these places are intended for Khorasan and Herat. According\nto Masoudi (Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., x. 65), there existed at the\ntime of the conquest of Hira near the Euphrates, _circa_ A.D. 637,\nthe negotiator Abd-el-Mesy, a man greatly revered by the Arabs in\nconsequence of his wisdom and great age. He had attained his 350th\nyear, and enjoyed the distinction of being considered, if not a saint,\nat least a servant of God, that is to say, an Ibadite or Jacobite\nChristian.\nIbn Haukal states that the city of Hira, which was still in existence\nin the time of Edrisi (_Recueil des Voy. et des M\u00e9m._, iii, 366),\nwas distant one farsang from Koufa, which with Basra was called\nBasraten\u2014dualis of Basra\u2014or the two Basras, the metropolis of the\nNestorians at Basra being known as Euphrates Pherat Mesene or Perat\nMeissan, a name it had borne since A.D. 310. We are informed by\nEastern writers, that at Konfa was the tomb of the saint, Adam\n(Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., x, 179\u2013184), a name that reminds us of\n\u201cPhiradamschyech\u201d, whose age coincided with that of Abd-el-Mesy.\nSchiltberger may perhaps have applied to Herat, which he visited, the\nlegend of Hira, a Shyite place of pilgrimage.\u2014BRUUN.\n(15.) \u201cPhiradamschyech.\u201d\u2014This is one of the few names in Schiltberger\u2019s\nnarrative that appears somewhat difficult to determine. Pir, in\nPersian, signifies an old, a venerable man; also, a chief. Sheykh has\na similar meaning in Arabic. Adam is the Persian, Turkish, and Arabic\nfor man; so that \u201cPhiradamschyech\u201d consists of three substantives, and\nbeing interpreted, reads thus: A chief\u2014a man\u2014a chief.\nA very similar story is related by Ibn Batouta, Schiltberger\u2019s\npredecessor by about fifty years. After passing the Hindu Kush, he got\nto a mountain called Bashai where he saw in a cell an old man named Ata\nEvlia\u2014Father of the Saints\u2014said to be 350 years old, but who appeared\nto be about fifty. Every hundred years he had a new growth of teeth and\nhair. There is no doubt whatever of Ibn Batouta\u2019s own incredulity as\nto the reputed history of this man, to whom he put several questions,\nwhich, being unsatisfactorily answered, caused him to apprehend that\nthere was no truth in the wonderful statements made about him.\u2014ED.\n(16.) \u201cSchiras.\u201d\u2014\u201cKerman.\u201d\u2014Sheeraz, the birth place of Saadi and Hafiz,\ntwo of the most celebrated and popular poets of Persia, was so called,\nsays a rare Persian manuscript, after a word in the old Persick\nlanguage signifying\u2014Lion\u2019s paunch\u2014because all the wealth of every town\nin the same region was transported thither not to return elsewhere\n(Ouseley, _Travels_, etc., ii, 23). Edrisi\u2019s definition (_Jaubert\nedition_, 392) is somewhat clearer, for he says that the name was given\nbecause the place consumed without producing anything. This city is\nsaid to have been founded in the earliest years of Islam; the walls,\nwhich measured 12,500 paces in circumference, being constructed in the\n10th century. Kazvini (quoted by Ouseley) observed nine gates, and in\n1811 Ouseley saw six only. Ibn Haukal (_Ouseley edition_, 101) wrote of\nSheeraz as being a modern city.\nIn 1627, Sir Thomas Herbert (_Travels into Divers Parts_, etc., 127)\nfound some of the old walls of \u201cthe pleasantest of Asiatick cities\u201d\nstill standing, but in Chardin\u2019s time (_Langl\u00e8s edition_, viii, 414)\nthey had disappeared. The present fortifications, erected by Kerim\nKhan in the middle of the 18th century, were ruined by Aga Mohammed\nShah after the struggle between the Zund and Kujjar families. They are\nof the extent of about three and a half miles, and were originally of\nsuch massive construction, that it was said three horsemen might have\nridden abreast on them. The population in 1850 was estimated at 35,000\nto 40,000; but the general want of employment begat amongst the people\nthat disposition for mischief, brawls and insurrections, for which the\nplace was remarkable beyond any other town in Persia (Abbott, _Southern\nCities of Persia_, MS.).\nKirman, also visited by Abbott, is encircled by walls of two and a half\nmiles to three miles in circumference, and had a population (1850)\nnot exceeding 25,000. The appearance of this town and the scenery\naround, are extremely unpromising and dreary, from the scarcity of\ntrees, the little cultivation, and the few villages about. A vastly\ndifferent condition to the \u201cgood country\u201d noted by Schiltberger, and\nthe statement of Marco Polo (Yule, i, 92), that on quitting the city of\nKerman \u201cyou ride on for seven days, always finding towns, villages, and\nhandsome dwelling-houses, so that it is very pleasant travelling\u201d.\nAbbott says further, that Kirman was not of much commercial importance,\nbeing so far removed from the direct lines of communication between\nother chief places, and being adjacent to vast and unproductive regions.\nIt is by no means clear that Schiltberger was ever at Kirman; but if\nhis account of that town and of the islands in the Persian Gulf is\ngiven from personal observation, which is very doubtful, it is possible\nthat he followed the same route as traced by Colonel Yule in Marco\nPolo\u2019s _Itineraries_, No. ii.\u2014ED.\n(17.) \u201cKeschon\u201d, \u201cHognus\u201d, \u201cKaff\u201d.\u2014Kishm, Hormuz, and Kais, are three\nislands in the Persian Gulf, which, however, Schiltberger does not\nparticularise as such. Kishm, the largest of the three, is called by\nthe Persians, Draz Jazyra\u2014Long Island\u2014the more familiar name being\nHarkh. An excellent harbour is formed on the south side by the island\nof Angar. Kishm was occupied in 1622 by an English force, which\ndestroyed a fort the Portuguese had erected the previous year, one of\nthe few Englishmen killed upon the occasion being William Baffin who in\n1616 sailed round Baffin\u2019s Bay.\nColonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 113) has clearly established the site of\nancient Hormuz on the main land, a city that was abandoned for the\nisland of Zarun, afterwards Hormuz, in 1315 (Ouseley, _Travels_, etc.,\ni, 157), as a protection, says Aboulfeda, from the repeated incursions\nof the Tatars. Already, in the days of Ibn Batouta, who mentions both\nOld and New Hormuz (_Lee edition_, 63), was Harauna, the new city and\nresidence of the king, a large and beautiful place; and Friar Oderic,\nhis contemporary, remarks on the efficient fortifications of Ormes, and\nits great store of merchandise and treasure; so that its reputation\nas a great commercial dep\u00f4t was well established in Schiltberger\u2019s\ntime. Of the many travellers who have described the island, Varthema,\n1503-1508 (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._, 94), reported, that as many as three\nhundred vessels belonging to different countries were sometimes\nassembled at the noble city of Ormus, which was extremely beautiful;\nand some years later, 1563, Cesare Federici (Hakluyt _Voyages_, ii,\n342) noticed a great trade there in all sorts of spice, drugs, silk,\ncloth of silk, brocardo, and other merchandise. Hormuz, like Kishm, was\nalso recovered from the Portuguese by the English for Shah Abbas in\n1623, until which period it was a stately and rich place, of which the\ninhabitants made the boast that \u201cif the world were a ring, Ormus must\nbe considered as the diamond\u201d.\nThe city has now completely disappeared, and over the space of\nabout one square mile of its site may be seen, here and there, the\nfoundations of houses, those near the sea being the most visible. In\nthe neighbourhood are several hundred reservoirs, and many Mussulman\ntombs, some of which are enclosed within domed buildings that had some\npretensions to architecture (_Persian Gulf Pilot_, 1870, 148).\nKais is mentioned by many authors as being a place of considerable\nimportance. It was the ancient \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1f77\u03b1 (_Nearchi Paraplus ex Arriano_,\n31; _Hudson edition_, i), is called Keis by the Arabs, is named Ken\nby Kinnear (_Memoirs of the Persian Empire_, 17), and appears in the\nAdmiralty chart as Kais or Gais, inhabited by pearl fishers. Yagout\n(Barbier de Meynard, _Dict. G\u00e9og._, etc., 499) in the 13th century says\nof Kisch, that it was the residence of the sovereigns of Oman, whose\nauthority extended over all the sea, on which they were very powerful;\nit was the place of call for vessels trading between Fars and India,\nand a celebrated pearl fishery. Kazvini (_Kosmographie_, 235) speaks of\nKis as the resort of merchants who went there to trade; and Benjamin of\nTudela, a century earlier, describes it as being a port of transit.\nThe ancient town of Harira is now represented by tottering masses of\nmasonry; a portion of a minaret of well cut stone, and many fallen\npillars of the mosque to which the minaret belonged, being the only\narchitectural remains. Great quantities of broken pottery, some of fine\nquality, lie scattered among the _d\u00e9bris_. At a distance of a quarter\nof a mile are large reservoirs for water, all faced with masonry, but\nin a sad state of decay; some measure 120 ft. in length, by 24 ft., and\nare 24 ft. in depth.\nAdmitting the authority of a Persian manuscript, says Ouseley (_l. c._,\ni, 170), the name of the island may be assigned to the 10th century,\nwhen one Keis, the son of a poor widow in Siraf, embarked for India\nwith his sole property, a cat. There he arrived at a fortunate time,\nfor the king\u2019s palace was infested with mice. Keis produced his cat,\nthe noxious animals disappeared, and the adventurer of Siraf was\nmagnificently rewarded. He returned to his home, but afterwards settled\nwith his mother and brothers on the island, which was named Keis, or,\naccording to the Persians, Keish. Modern attempts to rationalise\nWhittington may surely be given up, observes Colonel Yule with\nreference to this story related by Wassaf.\u2014ED.\n(18.) \u201cWalaschoen.\u201d\u2014This name, employed also by Orientals, is now\nBadakshan, called Badashan by Marco Polo, who says that rubies were\nfound in the province. Ibn Haukal was also aware that Badakshan yielded\nrubies and lapis-lazuli, and Ibn Batouta asserts that the rubies\n(balas rubies) from the mountains of Badakshan were commonly called Ak\nBalaksh. A river flowed from these mountains, the water of which was\nas white as that of the sea. He adds that Jengiz, king of the Tatars,\nruined the country, so that it never flourished afterwards. Judging,\nhowever, from Schiltberger\u2019s account, it is probable that its condition\nhad improved.\nThe unicorns may have been horses of a good breed, as alluded to\nby Marco Polo (Yule, i, 166), who states that, \u201cnot long ago they\npossessed in that province a breed of horses from the strain of\nAlexander\u2019s horse, Bucephalus, all of which had from their birth\na particular mark on the forehead\u201d. If we consider that in the\ntime of Timour, the nationality of the inhabitants, the military\nadministration, and the breed of horses in this country, were the same\nas in the days of Kublai, the ruler had, no doubt, ever been a \u201cNone\u201d,\nNono, which Marco Polo (_idem_, i, 183) gives as the equivalent for\nCount. Whatever the origin and primitive significations of this term, I\nmay, perhaps, not be far out in asserting, that in the present instance\nit designated a noyon or myriarch, such as was Jebe, the vanquisher of\nthe Russians at the battle of the Kalka in 1223 (Berezin, _Nashestvye\nMongolov_, 226), and No\u00eb, Duke of Sousdal, who, at about the same\nperiod, gave to Julian the missionary, letters of recommendation to\nBela IV., King of Hungary (Kunik, _Outch. Zap._, etc., iii, 739), and\nTolak Timour the cruel governor of Soudak (_Zap. Odess. Obstschest._,\nv, 507).\u2014BRUUN.\n(18A.) When Captain Wood was in Badakshan, he was told that the valley\nof Meshid was extremely populous in former times, and a legend was\ncurrent to the effect that it used to be greatly infested with\nscorpions (_Journey to the Source of the River Oxus_, 1872). Colonel\nYule thinks, that if the existence of unicorns was not a mere fable,\nthe animal referred to was probably the rhinoceros, at that time common\nin the country near Peshawur\u2014not very far from Badakshan.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n(1.) \u201cMarburtirudt.\u201d\u2014These measurements agree so exactly with the\ndimensions to be found in Herodotus, who gives the height of the walls\nof Babylon at 200 cubits and their thickness at 50 cubits, that the\nextent of the city, 480 stadia, was probably obtained from the same\nsource. But four stadia do not make one Italian mile. The Italian\nmile is equal to eight stadia, 480 stadia are, therefore, 60 Italian,\nor 55-1/5 English miles, no great difference from the 75 miles or 25\nleagues noted in the text as being the extent of the wall of Babylon.\nThe Tower of Babel, represented as being 54 stadia from the city,\nmust have been distant 6.75 Italian, or 6.21 English miles, precisely\nthe position of Birs Nimroud\u2014Prison of Nimrod\u2014called \u201cMarburtirudt\u201d,\nfor Marbout Nimroud. It was to these ruins that Benjamin of Tudela\n(Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., x, 263) referred when describing the\ntower constructed before the dispersion of the people, situated on the\nright bank of the Euphrates, and one and a half hour\u2019s journey from\nHillah; it measured 240 yards in diameter, and was about 100 canna\nin height; a gallery conducted to the summit, whence the view around\nextended over the plain to a distance of eight leagues. Schiltberger\nexpresses himself to the same effect when he says, \u201cin several places\nit is x leagues in length and in breadth\u201d. In adding that the tower\nstood on the Chald\u00e6an side of the Arabian desert, he has no intention\nof directing us to Arabia proper, but to Irak Araby, the country of the\nancient Chald\u00e6ans.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cAnd one inch is the first member of the thumb.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger fails\nto distinguish the Italian from the Lombard mile; we are therefore at\nliberty to conclude that he here alludes to the ancient Roman mile,\n.75 of a degree, which consists of 59,800 untz or zoll, the zoll being\nequal to the English inch. In saying that the Italian or Lombard mile\nconsists of 45,000 inches only, Schiltberger gives us to understand\nthat the \u201cschuch\u201d was one-fourth shorter than the foot; in other words,\nhe refers to the palma, an Italian measure of his day. It follows,\ntherefore, that the pace of five palmas must have measured 3 ft. 9\nin.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cSchatt.\u201d\u2014The Tigris is still known as the Schat (Ritter,\n_Die Erdkunde_ etc., xi, 4), not only from its junction with the\nEuphrates, but also along the whole of its upper course (Rachid-Eddin\nby Quatrem\u00e8re, xxix), which justified Barbaro in having said that\nHassanchiph was near the Set.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3A.) This is confirmed by Colonel Chesney (_Exped. to the Euphr.\nand Tigris_, i, 60), who writes that Shatt, or more correctly\nShatt-el-Arab, is the name given to the rivers Euphrates and Tigris\nafter their junction at the walled town of Kournah; but that the\ndesignation belongs properly to the Tigris. This river is clearly\ncalled Schot by Olearius.\u2014ED.\n(4.) \u201cKinna.\u201d\u2014This fruit, called \u201ckurnia\u201d in Penzel\u2019s edition, is\nprobably the khourm\u00e0, date-plum\u2014Diospyros lotus\u2014an ebanaceous tree\ngrowing plentifully in Persia and Transcaucasia, and perhaps the\nkheilan of Ibn Batouta. The berry is largely imported into Russia, and\na favourite spirit distilled from it. It is totally distinct from the\ndate-palm\u2014Ph\u0153nix dactylifera\u2014called in the East, taltal. Marco Polo\n(Yule, i, 110) speaks of a very good wine made from dates, mixed with\nspices.\u2014ED.\n(5.) \u201cIn this kingdom the people are not warlike.\u201d\u2014It is not surprising\nthat Schiltberger should have been struck by the pacific disposition\nof the people of Baghdad, a city that owed its opulence to industry\nand commerce. Baghdad was reconstructed by Ahmen ben Oweis after\nits destruction by Timour (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v, 98). The\ninhabitants were Arabs and Persians, as they are now. That a large park\nand menagerie should have existed is in the highest degree probable,\nfor we read in Zosimus (_Hist. Rom._, iii, 23), that the troops of the\nemperor Julian discovered a royal garden in Mesopotamia, in which wild\nbeasts were kept: \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f77\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1f73\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u1f75\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u1f71\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. The Greeks\nof Heraclius\u2019s expedition, A.D. 627, found a large park close to the\nresidence of Chosroes (Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., ix, 503), in which\nwere many ostriches, wild boar, peacocks, pheasants, lions, tigers,\netc. Another instance was the residence, near Baghdad, of the caliph\nEl-Harim, which stood within grounds wherein were wild beasts of every\ndescription (_ibid._, x, 258).\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cIt has long fore-legs, and the hinder are short.\u201d\u2014Soon after the\nbattle of Angora, the sultan Faradj sent two ambassadors with rich\npresents to Timour, one being a giraffe (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v,\n97), which Clavijo, who met the Egyptian envoys at Khoi, designated\na gornufa. Schiltberger must have originally written surnofa, rather\nthan \u201csurnasa\u201d. The giraffe he saw in Timour\u2019s possession was probably\none of the finest of its species, so that allowance should be made for\nhis ascribing to its neck a length of four fathoms; indeed, we learn\nfrom Clavijo that this very animal was able to extend its neck so as to\nreach herbage at a height of 30 feet to 36 feet.\nSchiltberger was under the impression, as was his contemporary De\nLannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 88), that the Nile traversed India before\nentering Egypt,[1] which accounts for his supposition that the giraffe\nwas indigenous to the former country.\u2014BRUUN.\n  [1] That Ethiopia was called India, and thus confounded\n  with real India, is fully set forth by Colonel Yule in a\n  note to Marco Polo, ii, 426.\u2014ED.\n(6A.) Zerypha\u2014yellow-coloured\u2014is the Persian for giraffe, from\nzerd\u2014yellow\u2014and fam\u2014colour; a name corrupted by the Turks and Arabs\nto zeraf\u00e8, whence \u201csurnasa\u201d. The giraffe at the British Museum could\nhave reached food at a height of at least twenty feet, as Dr. G\u00fcnther,\nKeeper of Zoology, has been good enough to inform me. The finest\nspecimen at the Museum d\u2019Histoire Naturelle, at Paris, is even inferior\nin size, according to the measurements kindly supplied by Professor\nMilne-Edward of that institution. Schiltberger must have greatly\nmiscalculated the proportions of the animal he saw, allowing even for\nprobable degeneration; large giraffes having now become very scarce.\n(7.) \u201cZekatay.\u201d\u2014Jagatai owes its name to the second son of Jengiz Khan,\nwho received in appanage the countries to the east and south-east\nof the Oulons of Jujy, that is to say, from the limits of Khorasan\n(until taken from the Jujy by Timour) on both sides of the Amu-Darya,\nto Turkestan. All those territories were included under the name\nof Jagatai, as were also the dialects of the inhabitants. The last\nprinces of the house, and in whose name Timour ruled, were Suurgatmysh\nand Mahmoud; their coinage was struck at Bokhara, Samarkand, Termed,\nKesh, Badakshan, and Otrar; but their residence was at Besh balyk\u2014Five\nCities\u2014until transferred by Timour to Samarkand, which the despot\nsought to place at the head of all cities in Asia, by means of the\nvigorous measures to which Clavijo bears witness.\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n(1.) \u201cGreat Tartaria.\u201d\u2014The details entered into by Schiltberger\nin this chapter, demonstrate that he includes in Great Tatary the\npossessions of the three branches of the Jujy. First, the Ordou Itchen\nor the White Horde, who were the successors of the eldest son of\nJujy. Secondly, those of the Golden Horde, the successors of Batou,\nthe second son; and, Thirdly, those of Sha\u00efban, the fifth son, who,\nin recompense for his brilliant services during Batou\u2019s campaign in\nRussia, received from the Ordou Itchen some territories near the\nUral for his summer encampment; and for his winter use, those near\nthe Syr Darya, that is to say, the actual steppe of the Kirghis, so\nthat the domains of the Sha\u00efbani separated the Golden Horde from the\nWhite Horde. Their dominions afterwards extended northwards, when they\nnominated khans to Siberia.\n(1A.) \u201cTartaria\u201d and \u201cTartaren\u201d, as the names are spelled throughout\nthe text, are substituted in these Notes by Tatary and Tatars, it is\nhoped on fair grounds. Professor N\u00e8ve asserts (_Expos\u00e9 des Guerres de\nTamerlan_, etc.: _d\u2019apr\u00e8s la Chronique Arm\u00e9nienne in\u00e9dite de_ Thomas de\nMedzoph, 24) that Tatar is the term employed by Armenian chroniclers,\nand he names no exceptions; and is not her ancient literature one\nof the several excellencies of which Armenia may be justly proud?\nA note by Dr. Smith in Gibbon (_Rise and Fall_, etc., iii, 294)\nshows how the Tatars became accidentally named Tartars, through an\nexclamation of St. Louis of France, although it must be admitted that\naccording to other authors, the use of the word Tartar, in Western\nEurope, is of earlier date; and Genebrard states (_Lib. Heb. Chro.\nBib._, i, 158) that Tatar, which in the Hebrew and Syriac signifies\nabandoned, deserted, should more correctly be written without an r.\nThe Russians, whose pronunciation of these words is, for obvious\nreasons, entitled to every consideration, speak of Tat\u00e1ry\u2019ya-Tatary\u2014and\nTat\u00e1ry\u2014Tatars\u2014unquestionably the sound uttered by the various people\nthemselves, claiming the distinctive appellation, whether on the\nbanks of the Volga, in South Russia, the Crimea, or in the steppes\nand lowlands of Transcaucasia, as the writer of this note is prepared\nto testify. The Russian word Tatarui, or Tatars, says Ralston (_Early\nRussian History_, 198, wherein is cited F. Porter Smith\u2019s _Vocab._,\netc., 52), modified in Western Europe by a reference to Tartarus into\nTartars, is now generally applied by Russian writers to what used\nto be the Turkish subjects of the Mongol Empire. It is said to be a\ncorruption of Tah-tan, the name under which the Mongols were anciently\nknown to the Chinese. Morrison writes T\u0103t\u0103 as Chinese for Tartars.\nColonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 12) calls attention to an article in the\n_Journal Asiatique_, ser. v, tom. xi, 203, to show that the name Tartar\nis of Armenian rather than of European origin, whilst admitting that\nTatar was used by Oriental writers of Polo\u2019s age, exactly as Tartar was\nthen, and is still, used in Western Europe as a generic title for the\nTuranian hosts who followed Chingis and his successors; but he believes\nthat the name in this sense was not known in Western Europe before the\ntime of Chingis.\nIn Howorth\u2019s _History of the Mongols_, 1877 (the one volume as yet\npublished), a ponderous book of 743 pages, replete with the most\nerudite information, but unhappily unprovided with any guide to its\ncontents, will be found at page 700, a long note, in which admission is\nmade that the word Tartar has given rise to much discussion; and whilst\nthe Russian and Byzantine authors, the Bohemian chronicler Dalemil, Ivo\nof Narbonne, and Thomas of Spalatro, are cited in favour of the use of\nTatar, other authorities are quoted to establish a respectable pedigree\nfor Tartar.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cSeat him on white felt, and raise him in it three times.\u201d\u2014The\nraising to the White Felt is similarly described by Giovanni dal Piano\ndi Carpine (_Recueil de Voy. et de M\u00e9m._, etc.). Vambery (_Trav. in\nCentral Asia_, 356) says that the being raised to the White Felt is\nstill the exclusive privilege of the gray-beards of the tribe of\nJagatai, and that the custom is kept up at the investiture of the khans\nof Khokand.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n(1.) \u201cEdil, which is a great river.\u201d\u2014The large river here called \u201cEdil\u201d,\nthe Turkish for river, could have been no other than the Oxus or\nAmu-Darya. Orden cannot in any manner be identified with \u201cOrigens\u201d,\nmentioned in chapter 25, where the author stayed when on his journey\nfrom Derbent to Joulad. That city of \u201cOrigens\u201d, however, was also at an\n\u201cEdil\u201d, so that Schiltberger may possibly have confounded its name of\nOrnas, Arnatch, or Andjaz, with Ourjenj, equally situated on an \u201cEdil\u201d\n(in this instance not the Terek but the Oxus); the possessions of his\niron lord extending from the neighbourhood of one river to that of the\nother.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cA city called Haitzicherchen, which is a large\ncity.\u201d\u2014Hadjy-tarkhan was situated on the right bank of the Volga, a few\nmiles above the modern Astrahan, and near Itil, capital of the kingdom\nof the Khozars, an ancient city that had already disappeared in the\ntime of Rubruquis, 1253, when Hadjy-tarkhan itself, it would appear,\nhad scarcely begun to exist. Ibn Batouta (1331) notes having sojourned\nat the last-named place upon the occasion of his journey from Soudagh\nto Sara\u00ef; and Pegolotti says that travellers tarried there when on\ntheir way to China. The name appears as Azitarcan in the Catalan atlas,\n1375, in which work, and in the splendid map of the brothers Pizzigani,\nwe also find \u201cCivitat de ssara\u201d, or \u201cCivitas Regio d\u2019Sara\u201d, the city\nof New Sarai, destroyed by Timour, and mentioned by Schiltberger. Its\nruins are still to be seen near the town of Tzaref on the Akhtouba,\nan arm of the Volga. There was, however, the other Sara\u00ef, spoken of\nby Aboulfeda, Ibn Batouta, and Pegolotti, the remains of which are\nvisible, also on the Akhtouba, but at a distance of two hundred miles\nto the south of Tzaref, and near Seliterny-gorodok, where numerous\ncoins of the khan Uzbek have lately been found by a professor of the\nUniversity of Kazan. No such coins have ever been picked up at Tzaref,\nwhich is not surprising, seeing that it was Janibek, the son of Uzbek,\nwho transferred his residence from Sara\u00ef to the new city of that name,\nas Colonel Yule has already shown in one of his notes to Marco Polo\n(i, 6), and as I have since sought to prove in an article that was\npublished at Kieff in 1876 (_Troudy 3go. Archeo. Syezda_).\nAlthough old Sara\u00ef was depopulated by the plague in 1347\u201348, and\nnew Sara\u00ef was destroyed by Timour, both cities recovered from those\ncalamities, and in the later map of the world, by Fra Mauro, they\nappear near a tributary on the left bank of the Volga, but at a\nconsiderable distance from each other. The northernmost is known to the\nRussians as Great Sara\u00ef.\nPreviously to selecting old Sara\u00ef for his residence, the khan Barka\nwas at Bolgar, the ancient capital of the kingdom of the Bolgars\non the Volga, which had been subdued in 1236 by his brother and\npredecessor Batou, the \u201cterrible Batou\u201d of the Russians, surnamed\nby the Tatars, Sa\u00efn\u2014The Good. An indigent Russian village stands\non the site of the city, in the midst of ruins which impress the\ntraveller by their extent; an impression I received when engaged\nin the Fourth Arch\u00e6ological Congress (1877), the members of which\nstarted upon their excursion from Kazan, and descending the river to\nSpassky-zaton, visited the locality distant seven miles in a direct\nline from the river. Considering the importance of these ruins, the\nlarge extent of ground they cover, the prodigious quantity of ancient\noriental coins and other antiquities that are being continually\nrecovered; considering, also, the testimony of Arabian authors and\ntravellers on the commercial relations of the ancient Bolgars of the\nVolga, the question has frequently arisen\u2014Why should that people\nhave preferred to establish themselves at so great a distance from\nthe river, after the manner of the inhabitants of the \u201ccity of the\nblind\u201d, instead of selecting a more advantageous site? The enigma has\nbeen solved by Professor Golovkinsky (_Sur la formation permienne\ndu bassin Kama-Volgien_, etc., in the _M\u00e9m. de la Soc. Min\u00e9r. de\nSt. P\u00e9tersbourg_, tom. i; and _Anciens d\u00e9bris de l\u2019homme au Gouv^t.\nde Cazan_, in the _Travaux de la r\u00e9union des Natur. de Russie_, St.\nP\u00e9tersbourg, 1868), formerly of the University of Kazan, now Rector of\nthat at Odessa. The distinguished geologist shows, that the Volga and\nthe Kama have been subjected to great changes in their course above\ntheir junction; that to a comparatively recent period, the eastern\nbank of the bed where the two rivers united, was close to the height\nupon which is the village of Bolgar, and that this ancient bed is to\nbe traced to an arm of the Kazanka called the Boulak, and to the lake\nKaban, both of which flow through the city of Kazan, and through a\npartly dried up marsh near the said village.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201ca city called Bolar, in which are different kinds of\nbeasts.\u201d\u2014These were probably furred animals, furs having been\nfrom all time the staple of commerce at Bolgar (whose locality is\nnow established), at Sara\u00ef and Astrahan. Schiltberger leads us to\nthe supposition that those cities had recovered from the state of\ndesolation in which they were left by Timour.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cIbissibur.\u201d\u2014In chapter 25, Schiltberger describes a country called\n\u201cIbissibur\u201d. That there was a city of the name is clearly established\nby the Catalan atlas and Pizzigani map, in which we find Sebur, near\na chain of mountains called \u201clos montes de Sebur\u201d, evidently the South\nUral, styled Sibirsky kamian in a Russian work on ancient hydrography\n(_Knyga bolshem. Tchertejou_, 151, St. P., 1838).\nThe Sibir of the Russians, known also as Isker, was situated on the\nIrtysh, ten miles from Tobolsk; it was the residence of the Sha\u00efbani\nkhans, and was taken in 1581 by a handful of Cossacks under their\nataman Yermak, who, in his turn, was besieged by the Tatars, and lost\nhis life in the river during a sortie (1584). His countrymen have\nerected a monument at Tobolsk in honour of this Russian Cortez.\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201cAlathena.\u201d\u2014Alla Tana for Tana, which stood where is now Azoff,\nwas a place of great importance in the 14th and 15th centuries. It was\ncompletely destroyed by Timour in 1395, but the Venetians returned soon\nafterwards, as would appear by the statement of Clavijo, that \u201csix\nVenetian galleys arrived at the great city of Constantinople to meet\nthe ships which were coming from Tana\u201d. They maintained commercial\nintercourse with Tana even after its destruction by the Tatars in 1410,\nby the Turks in 1415, and later again by the Tatars; and there is\nthe evidence of De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 43) that in 1421, four\nVenetian vessels arrived at Caffa from that port. Schiltberger, who\nvisited Tana at this period or shortly afterwards, proves that it had\nrecovered its commercial prosperity, at all events so far as regards\nthe fisheries, a fact supported by Barbaro.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cVulchat.\u201d\u2014In saying that \u201cVulchat\u201d, intended for Solkhat, was the\ncapital of \u201cEphepstzach\u201d or Kiptchak, Schiltberger may not have been\naware that this latter name included the whole of South Russia and the\nCrimea, of which, Solkhat, afterwards Esky Crim, actually became the\nchief town. Neumann believes the author to have made a mistake, which\nmay have arisen from the fact that in his time there were many princes,\nas has already been shown, who disputed the sovereignty; and a large\nportion of Kiptchak may have recognised the authority of one or the\nother of those princes who had taken up his residence at Solkhat, as\nfor instance, the \u201cviel empereur\u201d to whom De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._,\n42) was accredited as the ambassador of Vithold in 1421, and who died\nat an unfortunate moment, because the knight leaves us in ignorance\nof his name. I believe that ruler to have been Ydegou, in the absence\nof any proof of Hammer\u2019s statement (_Gesch. d. G. H._, 352), that\nVithold\u2019s old ally was the chief of an independent state on the shores\nof the Black Sea so late as the year 1423.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cFour thousand houses are in the suburbs.\u201d\u2014The importance attached\nto Caffa and the description of that city, is confirmed from other\nsources, except with regard to the estimated number of houses within\nthe walls, and in the suburbs. That there were \u201ctwo kinds of Jews\u201d\n(the Talmudists and the Kara\u00efms) is a well-authenticated fact. The\nfour towns at the sea-side, dependant on Caffa, must have been Lusce,\nGorzuni, Partenice, and Ialita, now known as Aloushta, Gourzouff,\nPartenite, and Yalta, all on the south coast of the peninsula, and the\nonly places, besides Caffa, at which Genoese consuls were\nstationed.\u2014BRUUN.\n(8.) \u201cKarckeri.\u201d\u2014Kyrkyer, now Tchyfout Kaleh\u2014Jew\u2019s Fortress\u2014at one time\nthe residence of the Crimean khans, is at present occupied by three\nor four Kara\u00efm families only. It is situated in the hilly part of the\nCrimea, which was called Gothia in the 15th century, a name carelessly\ntranscribed in the text as \u201cSudi\u201d, where the people were derisively\ncalled by the Tatars \u201cThat\u201d or \u201cTatt\u201d, a Turkish designation for a\nconquered race.\u2014BRUUN.\n(9.) \u201cThat.\u201d\u2014Mourtadd is the Turkish for renegade. Pallas (_Voy. d.\nles gouv. m\u00e9ridionaux de l\u2019emp. de Russie_, ii, 150) found that the\nCrimean Tatars applied the contemptuous term of Tadd to the Tatars on\nthe south coast, because they did not consider them of pure descent, in\nconsequence of the intercourse of their ancestors with the Greeks and\nGenoese during the occupation by those Christian people of that part of\nthe peninsula.\u2014ED.\n(10.) \u201cSerucherman.\u201d\u2014The author was well informed in saying that the\nmartyrdom of St. Clement took place here, the Saroukerman of Aboulfeda\nwho had never been in those parts; the \u201cKersona civitas Clementis\u201d of\nRubruquis (_Recueil de Voy. et de M\u00e9m._, etc., iv) and which had been\nconstituted a bishop\u2019s see in 1333.\u2014BRUUN.\n(10A.) Sary kerman\u2014Yellow Castle\u2014was the name by which Cherson, near\nmodern Sevast\u00f3pol, was known to Eastern writers. Pope Clement I. was\nexiled by the Emperor Trajan to that part of the Tauric Chersonesus,\nand suffered martyrdom by being thrown into the sea. According to\nthe legend, the sea receded upon every anniversary of the saint\u2019s\ndeath, leaving the body exposed on the shore during the space of seven\ndays, until in the 9th century, Cyril and Methodius the Apostles of\nthe Slaves (the originators of the Slave alphabet), caused it to be\ninterred at Cherson, whence the remains were subsequently removed to\nKieff by the grand-prince Vladimir upon his conversion to Christianity.\nThe Church of Rome gives a different version of this legend, and\nmaintains that the relics of the pontiff are preserved in the church of\nSt. Clement on the Esquiline (_The Crimea and Transc._, i, 22, 98).\u2014ED.\n(11.) \u201cthey suppose that a man struck by lightning is a saint.\u201d\u2014The\n\u201cStarchas\u201d or Tcherkess\u2014Circassians\u2014were known to Giovanni dal Piano\ndi Carpine, Aboulfeda, Barbaro and others, and were more generally\ncalled Zikhes and Cossacks, two branches of that people. The proof of\nthe identity of the Zikhes with the Cossacks or Tcherkess is to be\nfound in Interiano (_Ramusio edition_, 196), who visited the country\nin 1502: \u201cZychi in lingua vulgare, greca et latina cosi chiamati, et\nda Tartari et Turchi dimandati Ciarcassi\u201d. Their identity, however, is\nestablished in the present work, and therefore before the Italian\u2019s\ntravels; it being stated in chapter 56 that the Turks designate the\n\u201cSygun\u201d\u2014Zikhes\u2014by the name of \u201cIscherkas\u201d\u2014Tcherkess. In the days of\nConstantine Porphyrogenitus (_De Adm. Imp._, c. 42), their territory\nextended along the Black Sea shore over a distance of three hundred\nmiles, from the river Oukroukh (Kouban), which separated them from\nTamatarcha (Taman), to the river Nicopsis at the frontier of Abhase, a\ncountry that reached to Soteriopolis situated in all probability where\nis now Pytzounda the ancient Pityus, to the north west of Soukhoum\nKaleh, for it is stated by Codinus (_Hieroclis Synecdemus_, etc., 315)\nthat Pityus was at one time called Soteropolis.\nThe Abhases and the Tcherkess speak different dialects of the same\ntongue (G\u00fcldenst\u00e4dt, _Reisen durch Russl._, i, 463). The former\nwere converted to Christianity through the exertions of the emperor\nJustinian, about A.D. 550; but Christianity was spread among the Zikhes\npreviously to this, and if many adopted the Mahomedan faith, proofs are\nnot wanting that they did so from political motives and to please the\nTurks (Marigny, _Voy. dans le pays des Tcherkesses_, in Potocki, ii,\n308). Their conversion to Christianity has never kept them from a love\nof pillage and the sale of their own children, as is reported of them\nby Schiltberger and confirmed by Marigny, who is unable to conceive\nhow a people to whom freedom is the greatest boon could think of thus\ndisposing of their own offspring.\nMarigny also confirms the statement that thunder was held in great\nveneration by the Tcherkess. \u201cThey have no god of lightning\u201d, says\nthis author, \u201cbut we should deceive ourselves in supposing that they\nnever had one. They hold thunder in great veneration, for they say it\nis an angel who strikes the elect of God. The remains of one killed by\nlightning are buried with the greatest solemnity, and whilst mourning\nhis loss, relatives congratulate each other upon the distinction by\nwhich their family has been visited. When the angel is on his aerial\nflight, these people hurry out of their dwellings at the noise he\nmakes; and should he not be heard for any length of time, they pray\naloud entreating him to come to them.\u201d\u2014BRUUN.\n(11A.) The Tcherkess, which include the Natouha\u00eftz, Shapsoughy,\nAbadzehy, Abhase and other tribes, were known to Strabo and Procopius\nas persistent slave dealers and pirates, occupations which, according\nto the records of every age, they pursued unceasingly until the\ncomplete subjugation and annexation of their country by Russia in\n1863. Dubois de Montp\u00e9reux (_Voy. autour du Caucase_, etc., i, 258)\nsays, writing in 1839, that even under the suzerainty of Russia the\nAbhases would not give up the nefarious traffic which embraced, under\ncertain circumstances, the sale of a son or daughter or sister; and so\nlately as 1856, Oliphant (_Trans.-Cauc. Campaign_, 125) found that the\nAbhases indulged chiefly in the plunder of human beings. \u201cSeizing the\nhandsomest boys and the prettiest girls, they would tear them shrieking\nfrom their agonised parents, and swinging them on their saddle-bow,\ngallop away with them through the forest, followed by the cries and\nexecrations of the whole population.\u201d\nThe custom of placing the dead upon trees is practised at the present\ntime in Abhase, where they are suspended in coffins to the branches,\nwhich creak as they are swayed by the wind, and produce melancholy\nnoises (_The Crimea and Transc._, ii, 136).\u2014ED.\n(12.) \u201cOne is called Kayat, the other Inbu, the third\nMugal.\u201d\u2014Considering the little care taken by Schiltberger and his\ntranscribers to hand down to us proper and geographical names with\nsufficient exactness to enable us to prove their identity, it is no\neasy task to determine what were the \u201cKayat\u201d and \u201cInbu\u201d who, with the\nMongols, formed the population of Great Tatary. Whatever the correct\nnames, they were probably communicated to Schiltberger by the natives\nor their Mongol chiefs. The latter were able to distinguish from their\nown people, those who had retained for a longer period than others\ntheir hereditary chiefs under the suzerainty of the descendants of\nJengiz Khan. The principal tribes were undoubtedly the Kera\u00eft and\nU\u00efgour, whose rulers, named Edekout, a name reminding us of the\ncelebrated \u201cEdigi\u201d whom Schiltberger accompanied to Siberia, preserved\ntheir independence until the year 1328 (Erdmann, _Temud. d. U. R._,\n245). Neumann asserts that two of the tribes named were the Kajat or\nKerait, and the Uighur, a statement he leaves unsupported; we are\ntherefore justified in assuming that reference is made rather to the\nKa\u00eftak and Jambolouk, two tribes the author must have had frequent\nopportunities of meeting.\nIn Masoudi\u2019s time, the Ka\u00eftak or Ka\u00efdak inhabited the northern slopes\nof the Caucasus towards the Caspian Sea. There, also, Aboulfeda placed\nthem, and there they are to this day. We have seen how futile were\ntheir endeavours to oppose Timour upon his last expedition against\nToktamish, and that Romanists and Christians of other denominations\nsoon afterwards introduced themselves amongst them; but that they\nhad not discontinued their evil practices is proved by the bitter\nexperience of the Russian merchant Nikitin, who was plundered when\nshipwrecked on their coast in 1468. It was in vain that he sought\nto recover his property, even though he appealed to Shirvan Shah,\nbrother-in-law to Ali Bek their prince (Dorn, _Versuch einer Gesch. der\nSchirwan-Sch._, 582). The Ka\u00eftak were a people of sufficient importance\nto have attracted the notice of Schiltberger, when he passed through\ntheir territory on his way from Persia to Great Tatary.\nWhilst in those parts, the author must have spent some time amongst the\nNoga\u00ef of the tribes of Jambolouk or Yembolouk, as they are designated\nby Thunmann (B\u00fcsching, _Gr. Erdbeschr._, iv, 387), and who were so\nnamed because their earliest settlements were near the Jem or Yemba\nwhich flows into the Caspian. It was only towards the close of the 18th\ncentury that they moved to the western shores of the Sea of Azoff,\nwhere they met with other Noga\u00ef, at a time that the territory was being\nannexed to the Russian empire. The wandering life of these Tatars,\nand their frequent internecine divisions, justify us in assuming that\nin Schiltberger\u2019s time the greater number, if not the whole of the\nJambolouks, had moved their encampments in a westerly direction, and\nthis explains why the Tatar duke met by De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._,\n40) in 1421, who lived on the ground with all his people, was named\nJambo. It was in the power of the descendants of that duke to remove\nto any other more convenient site; it is, therefore, very possible,\nthat the fortress and town of Yabou, ceded in 1517 by the Crimean Khan\nto Sigismund of Poland, together with other places on the Dnieper,\nmay have belonged to him (_Sbornyk_ by Prince Obolensky, i, 88). I\nfeel that we are at liberty to infer from these several facts that the\n\u201cInbu\u201d were Tatars of the Jambolouk Horde.\u2014BRUUN.\n(13.) \u201cand has daily twenty thousand men at his court.\u201d\u2014In writing after\nhis own fashion the native name of Fostat as \u201cMissir\u201d, erroneously\ncalled Old Cairo by Europeans (Abd-Allatif, _S. de Sacy edition_, 424),\nSchiltberger imagined that the name was equally applicable to Cairo,\nbecause at that period the two towns had largely extended towards\neach other, so as to form one city. De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 80)\ndistinguishes Cairo from Fostat or Misr, which he calls Babylon, a name\nit had received in consequence of the settlement there of a Babylonian\ncolony in the reign of Cambyses (Noroff, _Pout. po Yeghyptou_, i, 154).\nEven now the Copts include a part of Cairo and of Fostat under the\nname of Boblien\u2014Little Babylon\u2014the new Babylon of the writers of the\nmiddle ages, who took it upon themselves to bestow on the sovereigns\nof Egypt the title of Sultan of Babylon, and some of whom, Arnold of\nLubeck for instance (_Geschichtschr. der Deutsch. Vorzeit._, etc., xiii\n_Jahrhund._ iii, 283), have even confounded the Euphrates with the\nNile. De Lannoy assists us in a measure to discern the error into which\nSchiltberger has fallen ... \u201cest \u00e0-s\u00e7avoir que le Kaire, Babillonne et\nBoulacq furent jadis chascune ville \u00e0 par lui, mais \u00e0 pr\u00e9sent s\u2019est\ntellement \u00e9diffi\u00e9e, que ce n\u2019est que une mesme chose, et y a aucune\nmani\u00e8re de fossez entre deux plas sans eaue, combien qu\u2019il y a moult\nde maisons et chemins entre deux, et peut avoir du Kaire \u00e0 Babillonne\ntrois milles et de Boulacq au Kaire trois mille.\u201d Noroff considered\nBoulak to be the Egyptian Manchester, because of the manufactories\nestablished there by Mehemet Ali. The population of the three towns\nwas quite in proportion to their extent, and certainly so continued\nuntil about twenty years before De Lannoy\u2019s arrival, when it decreased;\nindeed it is stated by Aboul-Mahazin, that Egypt and Syria had fallen\npreys to every sort of calamity during the reign of Faradj, 1399\u20131412.\nApart from the Mongol invasion and incessant civil war, those countries\nwere assailed by the European maritime powers, and visited by plague\nand famine, so that the population was reduced by one-third.\nThere was a time when it was generally believed that the people in\nCairo could not be numbered, because it was considered the most\npopulous city in the world, with more inhabitants than all Italy\ncontained, the vagabonds it sheltered sufficing to fill Venice! In\nsaying this, Breidenbach (Webb, _A Survey of Egypt and Syria_, etc.)\ndoes not fail to observe: \u201cAudita refero\u2014neque enim ipse numeravi.\u201d\nSchiltberger may have thought the same, when he computed the streets in\n\u201cMissir\u201d to be as numerous as were the houses in Caffa; and this he did\nthat his readers might be the better able to judge of the difference\nbetween the two cities.\nThat the sultan\u2019s suite consisted of twenty thousand men is most\nprobable, allusion being made to the dwellers in the citadel. Thus, De\nLanuoy:\u2014\u201cest ledit chastel moult grant comme une ville ferm\u00e9e, et y\nhabite dedens avecq le soudan grant quantit\u00e9 de gens, en esp\u00e9cial bien\nle nombre de deux mille esclaves de cheval qu\u2019il paye \u00e0 ses sould\u00e9es\ncomme ses meilleurs gens d\u2019armes \u00e0 garder son corps, femmes et enffans,\net autres gens grant nombre.\u201d\nIn 1778, thirty thousand people lived in the citadel, one half of that\nnumber being troops (Parsons, _Travels in Asia and Africa_, etc.,\n382).\u2014BRUUN.\n(14.) \u201cno person can be made king-sultan unless he has been sold.\u201d\u2014The\nMamelouk militia, formed, as the name indicates, of old slaves,\narrogated to themselves the right of elevating to the throne one\nof their own number, upon the death of the sultan. See De Lannoy\n(83).\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n(1.) \u201cand on the spike he must rot.\u201d\u2014Among those who had reigned or\nassumed the supreme power in Egypt, appear the names of \u201cMarochloch\u201d\nand \u201cJusuphda\u201d, intended for Barkok and Faradj; also \u201cMathas\u201d,\nwhose reign intervened between that of \u201cMarochloch\u201d and \u201cJusuphda\u201d.\nThe successors of the latter were \u201cZechem\u201d, \u201cSchyachin\u201d, and\n\u201cMalleckchafcharff\u201d also known as \u201cBalmander\u201d, who was no other than\nBoursba\u00ef, 1422\u20131438; he assumed upon his accession, according to\ncustom, the title of Ak Melyk, and the distinctive prefix of Alashraf\nSeif uddin Aboul-Nazr\u2014The most Noble Sword of the Faith, and Father of\nVictory (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v, 167). \u201cMathas\u201d was Mintash or\nMantash, governor of Malatia, who, after having for a time replaced\nBarkok, perished in 1393 by being broken on the wheel. It is possible,\nhowever, that Arabian authors have otherwise described the mode of\nMantash\u2019s execution, through misapprehension, because the sawing in two\nparts was a punishment of antiquity, practised in eastern countries\nother than Egypt. Dion Cassius (lxviii, 32) relates that the Jews in\nCyrene and Egypt, under Trajan, having revolted, sawed in two the\nRomans and Greeks who fell into their hands, staining their faces with\nthe blood of their victims, and adorning themselves with the skin. In\none of the admirable notes to his translation of Makrizi, Quatrem\u00e8re\n(i, 72, note 103) cites numerous instances of this kind of punishment\nin Schiltberger\u2019s day, not in Egypt only, but also in Persia and among\nthe Mongols. The Russian princes captured after the battle of the\nKalka, in 1223, were thus tortured (Karamsin, _Hist. de Russie_, iii,\n\u201cZechem\u201d is to be identified with Jakam, governor of Syria, who\nrevolted against Faradj. He was acknowledged as sultan in Syria, but\nsuccumbed in a war with Kara Yelek in 1405\u201306.\n\u201cSchyachin\u201d is a name that slightly recalls to mind Sheykh Mahmoud,\nsultan in 1421; he was successor to the caliph Abbas al-mustein Billahy\nwho reigned for a few months after the death of Faradj in 1412; but\nSheykh Mahmoud died a natural death at an advanced age, and could not\ntherefore have been the ruler whose execution Schiltberger describes\nso minutely, that he must have been a witness to his torments. None of\nBoursba\u00ef\u2019s predecessors\u2014Ahmed, the eldest son of Mahmoud\u2014Tater, an old\nMamelouk\u2014or Mohammed, the youngest son of Mahmoud, deposed by Boursba\u00ef,\nmet with the fate of \u201cSchyachin\u201d, a name intended perhaps for Azahiri,\ngovernor of Safad, who raised the standard of revolt at the very\ncommencement of Boursba\u00ef\u2019s reign. He was deserted by his followers,\nand having surrendered was put to torture, 1422, perhaps enduring the\nsufferings to which \u201cSchyachin\u201d was subjected.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201chis title and superscription.\u201d\u2014Neumann believes that this letter,\nwith the titles it confers on the sultan, was the invention of the\nArmenians who communicated it to the author; but there is nothing\nvery extraordinary or improbable in the statement, that Boursba\u00ef had\nsent letters to various Christian potentates upon the occasion of his\ndaughter\u2019s marriage, because that sovereign entertained diplomatic and\ncommercial relations with the maritime republics of Italy, with the\nkings of Aragon and Cyprus, and the emperor of Byzantium, to each of\nwhom, and not to the Pope, was addressed the letter to \u201cRom\u201d, a word\nallowably substituted for Roum, a name which included Greece and the\nTurkish possessions in Europe.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cthe all-powerful of Carthago.\u201d\u2014Boursba\u00ef certainly committed an\nanachronism in styling himself the autocrat of Carthage, for he could\nonly have possessed the ruins of that city. As the successor of the\nFatimites, or protector of the Abbasside caliphate, the sultan may have\nclaimed Tunis, built partly at his own expense, near the remains of\nRome\u2019s ancient rival, whose renown in Africa must have survived, and\nwhose name may therefore have been preferred to that of Tunis. But I am\nmore inclined to substitute for Carthage that noted sanctuary of Islam,\nKairvan, called by Aboulfeda, Cayroan, and which was considered the\nmost beautiful city in Magreb.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cLord of Zuspillen, Lord of the highest God in\nJherusalem.\u201d\u2014\u201cZuspillen\u201d is applicable either to Sicily, which at one\ntime belonged to the Aghlabites, or still more so to Seville, called\nIshbilia by the Persians.\nIn a letter to Shah Rokh the son of Timour, in 833 of the Hegira, the\nsultan Boursba\u00ef styles himself Lord of Jerusalem; possibly the sense of\nthe passage turned by Schiltberger into \u201cain herr des obristen gots,\u201d\nwhich, being an imitation of the Hebrew, was Hebrew to him.\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201cCapadocie.\u201d\u2014It is doubtful whether Boursba\u00ef, or the inventor of\nhis titles, would have mentioned any one place for the second time,\nyet the name \u201cCapadocie\u201d appears twice. In his letter to Shah Rokh,\nBoursba\u00ef entitles Jerusalem, the Venerable; so that this \u201cCapadocie\u201d\nmay have been similarly intended for an appellation, since the region\nof that name would be quite out of place between Jerusalem and the\nJordan. It is possible, however, that for \u201cCapadocie\u201d we should read\nCapernaum, now known as Tell-Hum, where are many ruins which comprise\nthose of an edifice surpassing in grandeur and magnificence anything\nRobinson (_Biblical Researches_, etc.) saw in Palestine.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cher son our nephew of Nazareth.\u201d\u2014It may fairly be doubted whether\nthis passage was really included amongst the sultan\u2019s titles, its\nappearance in the MS. being due to some misconception on the part\nof the author, from his being but indifferently initiated in the\nmysteries of Mahomedanism; how, otherwise, could he have supposed\nthat his protector had entitled Jesus his \u201cneff\u201d\u2014nephew. With regard\nto Bethlehem and Nazareth, names conceivably included in the list,\nSchiltberger may have been informed that Mahomedans revere our Saviour\nas being one of their own Neby or chief prophets; or he may have been\ntold that Christ was designated Neffs, Neps\u2014spirit, soul. Jesus is also\ncalled Rouh\u2014the Spirit of God.\nThrough some similar misconception, Boursba\u00ef is made to boast of\nhis relationship to the Virgin Mary, which could not have been\nthe case either, seeing that she, in like manner, is venerated by\nMussulmans.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cseventy-two towers all embellished with marble.\u201d\u2014That the number\nseventy-two was employed by Asiatics to designate a large number,\nis demonstrated by numerous examples, other than the following.\nSeventy-two was the number of tribes in Syria; of the Mahomedan sects;\nof the disciples of our Saviour; of the Persian Mushids; of the towers\nof Jeziret-ibn-Omer, etc., etc. As to the seventy-two towers of\n\u201cGermoni\u201d, Robinson (_Biblical Researches_, etc.) has noted that Hermon\nis surrounded as if by a belt of temples.\n\u201cTalapharum\u201d is the well-known Tell-el-Faras at the termination of\nJabal-el-Heis, a spur of Jabal-el-Sheykh or Hermon.\u2014BRUUN.\n(8.) \u201cinhabited by seventy-two languages.\u201d\u2014This \u201cgreat forest\u201d is the\nCaucasus, the extent of the great mountain range in a direct line from\nsea to sea, agreeing exactly with the length given. The seventy-two\nlanguages are the seventy-two nationalities (Dorn, _Geog. Cauc._, 221),\neach of which spoke a different tongue; they were the seventy-two\nnations confined by Alexander beyond the Caspian Gates.\nThere exists a tradition, that when upon his death-bed Mahomet\nrecommended to the faithful the conquest of the Caucasus, a country he\nhad ever held in special veneration, so that several Shyite sects place\nit, in point of sanctity, above the cities of Arabia (D\u2019Ohsson, _Des\nPeup. du Cauc._, ii, 182). It is therefore not at all strange that the\nsovereignty over a region so specially blessed and in which the sultan\nhimself was born, should have been included amongst his dignities,\nsince he was entitled, in a measure, to consider the power of the\nfounder of Alexandria to be his heritage.\nClaiming the monarchy, as he did, over the forests of the Caucasus,\nthe sultan naturally added thereunto his possession of Cappadocia, a\nportion of which did indeed belong to him, and wherein he had every\nright to situate Paradise. Mahomedans believe, as do Christians and\nJews, that the Garden was in a beautiful land called Adn, watered by a\nmarvellous river which was the source of the Euphrates, of the Tigris,\nthe Jihoun (Pyramus of the ancients) and the Syhoun (Sarus), all in\nCappadocia or in its immediate neighbourhood. Really, Boursba\u00ef was\nno farther out in his calculations, than were those learned men who\nrecognised the two last-named rivers in the Oxus and Jaxartes (Hammer),\nin the Araxes and Phasis (Brugsch), and even in the Volga and Indus\n(Raumer).\u2014BRUUN.\n(9.) \u201cthe guardian of the caves.\u201d\u2014The disappearance, A.D. 873, at the\nage of twelve, of Mohammed the descendant of Ali and the twelfth and\nlast Imam, in a cave near Sermen Rey, distant thirty-two miles from\nBaghdad, gave rise to numerous conjectures, all of equal absurdity.\nThe Shyites believe that this Mehdy, or celestial judge, is still in\nthe unknown cave, and they await his return as impatiently as do the\nJews that of the Messiah. The Sunnites are satisfied that when the\nworld comes to an end, he will make his appearance accompanied by three\nhundred and sixty celestial spirits, and prevail upon the people of the\nearth to embrace Islamism (D\u2019Ohsson, _Tableau. g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l\u2019E. O._, i,\nThe sultan of Egypt is said to have styled himself \u201cthe guardian of the\ncaves\u201d (ein vogt der hellen), perhaps because the cavern was under his\nprotection; but it is also possible that for \u201chellen\u201d we should read\nHelle or Halle, the German for Hillah, on the site of ancient Babylon,\nand celebrated for such holy places in its neighbourhood as Kerbela and\nMesjyd Ali, the Campo Santo to which the Shyites perform pilgrimages\n(Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., ix, 842, 869, 955).\u2014BRUUN.\n(10.) \u201cDestructor of the Gods.\u201d\u2014It is impossible to agree with Penzel,\nthat Schiltberger entertained the strange notion of having seen a\nprotector of hell in that Boursba\u00ef, whom Penzel himself admits had\nglorified himself as being the friend of all gods (aller G\u00f6tter\nFreund), because the last title on the list is \u201cDestructor of the\nGods\u201d (Ain m\u00e4g der g\u00f6tter). But here Penzel is again at fault in his\ninterpretation of Schiltberger\u2019s meaning, because the monarch who\nclaimed to be the Light of the true Faith (S. de Sacy, _Chrestom.\nArabe_, 322), rather than boast of his friendship for the gods,\nwould have declared himself to be, in keeping with the tenets of his\nreligion, the implacable enemy to idolatry, a destructor of gods, a\nMahhy, transformed in the text into \u201cm\u00e4g\u201d.\nThere is some difficulty in accounting for the sultan\u2019s usurpation of\nthe title of \u201cthe mighty emperor of Constantinoppel\u201d. In his letter to\nShah Rokh, alluded to in note 4, page 184, he wrote as follows: \u201cThe\nkings of the earth have come from all parts as the bearers of their\nhomage. The King of Hormuz, the Sultan of Hisn, the son of Karaman;\nthese princes, sovereigns of their countries, the Sultan of the revered\ncity of Mecca, the Sultans of Yemen, of Magreb, and of Tekrour, the\nKing of Cyprus, since dead, all have presented themselves at my Court\u201d.\nThis king of Cyprus, who was named John and died in 1432, was captured\nby the Egyptians on their expedition to the island in 1426, and being\nforced to acknowledge the suzerainty of the sultan, agreed to pay\nannual tribute to the amount of twenty thousand dinars, to enable him\nto obtain his freedom (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v, 177). John II.,\nemperor of Byzantium, sought, but in vain, to intercede for the king by\nentering into negociations with the sultan (_ibid._, 173), upon which\noccasion he may possibly have stooped to pay homage as others did, for\nhe was not ashamed at another time to prostrate himself and kiss the\nPope\u2019s slipper. It is likely enough that he presented himself under the\nname of Tekrour, a country Silvester de Sacy is at a loss to determine.\nTekrour, however, need not have been the name of a country at all, but\na corruption of Takfour, a designation in the East for the emperor of\nConstantinople.\nThe homage of the ruling powers on earth, did not suffice to satisfy\nthe despot Boursba\u00ef, for his ambition wafted him to the skies (\u201cthe\nlord [of the places] where Enoch and Helyas are buried\u201d), the place of\nsepulture, say the Mahomedans, of their prophets Enoch, and Elias the\nprotector of travellers, and who is believed by the Jews to have been\nborne away to heaven (D\u2019Ohsson, _l. c._, i, 51, 111).\nAnother title, though less bombastic, is still more puzzling, unless\n\u201cKaylamer\u201d is to be identified with the fortress of Kalamil visited\nin 1221 by Willbrand of Oldenburg (Viv. de Saint-Martin, _Desc. de\nl\u2019A. M._, i, 488), after leaving Mamistra (Mopsvesta of the ancients,\nMimistra of the Byzantines, the actual Missis). When upon this\njourney, Willbrand left on his right hand a place called the King\u2019s\nBlack Castle, an indication that conducts us with Saint-Martin to the\ndefile known to the ancients as the Pyl\u00e6 Armeni\u00e6 or Pyl\u00e6 Cilici\u00e6,\nnow called Demyr Kapou by the Turks; evidently the same locality\nas that noticed by Marino Sanudo (_Liber Secret. Fidel._, etc.,\n221\u2014Pauthier, Marco Polo, cxxxii, 1). \u201cTartari autem sequenti anno\n(1260) violenter irrumpentes, ceperunt Alapiam, Harem, Hamam, Calamelam\net Damascum.\u201d The fortress of Calamela being included among the\nchief cities in Syria, it is to be inferred that its strategical and\ncommercial importance had greatly increased during the half century\nthat transpired after Willbrand\u2019s visit. Nor does Calamila seem to\nhave escaped the notice of Italian navigators, for the name, slightly\nvaried, appears in the hydrographic charts of the 14th century. In the\nCatalan atlas, 1375, for instance, Caramila is evidently the same as\nthe Cramela spoken of by the author of _Liber Secretorum Fidelium_,\netc., who observes that it stood on the site of ancient Issus, the gulf\nof this city being marked on the chart, \u201cgolfo de Cramela\u201d. At that\ntime, Cramela divided the possessions of the sultan of Egypt from those\nof the king of Armenia; and considering its importance, the sultan may\nnot have disdained to style himself amir of Calamila, transformed by\nSchiltberger into \u201cAmorach of Kaylamer\u201d.\nThe next name, \u201cGalgarien\u201d, is undoubtedly intended for Khozary or\nGazary, described by Marino Sanudo (Kunstmann, _Stud. \u00fcber M. S._\n105) as Galgaria, a dependancy of the Tatars, inhabited by \u201cGothi et\naliqui Alani\u201d. It was a Genoese possession in the Crimea, whence was\ncarried on a large export trade, chiefly in slaves to Alexandria,\nwhere many afterwards became men of note; but Khozary was a dependancy\nof Kiptchak, a name that signifies\u2014hollow tree\u2014the distinctive title\nimmediately following that of \u201cthe mighty emperor of Galgarien\u201d as\n\u201cthe Lord of the withered tree\u201d. The rulers of Kiptchak, or khans of\nthe Golden Horde, were long bound by the strictest ties of friendship\nto the sultans of Egypt, and as zealous followers of Mahomet, were\nnot likely to question their right to hold the first place among the\nmonarchs of Islam.\nThat the high position attained by those sultans did not influence them\nagainst according their protection to Christian potentates, is evident\nfrom the intimate relations that existed between themselves and the\nkings or emperors of Abyssinia, among whom should certainly be included\n\u201cPrester John, in enclosed Rumany\u201d.\nIt is now generally admitted that Marco Polo, with his usual good\nfaith, stated the precise truth in affirming that in his time, one\nGeorge, a descendent of Prester John, became the governor of a province\nas a vassal of China. This prince professed the Roman Catholic faith,\ninstead of Nestorianism as did his grandfather Ovang Khan, chief\nof the Keraits, and not, as Oppert has sought to prove (_Der Presb.\nJohannes in Sage und Gesch._, etc., Berlin, 1864) of the Gour Khan\nof the Karakhitaians mentioned by Rubruquis. In either case it is\npretty certain that so soon as European intercourse with the interior\nof Asia decreased, the existence of a Christian state on the Nile,\nto the south of Egypt, became more generally known; a state to which\nHaythoun, the Armenian historian, had already directed the Pope\u2019s\nattention (_De Tartaria_, c. 57, apud Webb, _A Survey of Egypt and\nSyria_, etc., 394), and it thereafter became the custom to metamorphose\nthe Christian monarch of the Nubians and Abyssinians into Prester John.\nLike Schiltberger, De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 93) knew of no other\nPrester John, and far from admitting his dependance on the sultan, a\ncondition to be inferred by the title of protector attributed to the\nlatter by Schiltberger, the knight implies that it was rather the\nsultan who was in a state of dependance on Prester John, in whose power\nit lay to \u201cdestourber le cruschon\u201d of the Nile, which he certainly\nwould have done, but for the fear of victimising the many Christians in\nEgypt.\nIn another chapter, De Lannoy terms these Christians \u201cChristians of\nthe girdle\u201d, a name that was applied, says his commentator (Webb), in\nconsequence of a law promulgated A.D. 856 by the caliph Motonakek,\nwhich prescribed that Jews and Christians should wear a broad leathern\ngirdle. It appears, however, that in course of time the Nestorians and\nJacobites also became subject to the same law, and this accounts for\nthe expression, \u201cPrester John, in enclosed Rumany\u201d, which, if intended\nfor Abyssinia, a country mistaken by Marco Polo and De Lannoy for that\nof the Brahmins, would indicate that the former was inhabited by the\nChristians of the girdle. (De Lannoy styles the primate of the Copts,\nthe primate of India.) That they were believed to be in Abyssinia is\nproved in the following lines from Juan de la Encina\u2019s narrative of his\njourney to Jerusalem in the year 1500.\n \u201cHay muchas naciones alli de Christianos,\n  De Griegos, Latinos, y de Jacobitas,\n  Y de los Armenios, y mas Maronistas\n  Y de la cintura, que son Gorgianos:\n  Y de estos parecen los mas Indianos,\n  De habito y gesto mas feo, que pulcro:\n  Mas quanto al gozar del Santo Sepulcro\n  Son pr\u00f3gimos todos en Christo y hermanos.\u201d\nThis author evidently confounds the Georgians with the Abhases and the\nlatter with the Abyssinians, as had frequently been done before him.\nIn quoting from documents preserved among the archives at K\u00f6nigsberg,\na letter from Conrad of Jungingen, Grand-Master of the Teutonic\nOrder, dated January 20, 1407, and addressed to Prester John, \u201cregi\nAbassi\u00e6\u201d, Karamsin (_Hist. de Russie_, iii, 388), observes, that\nthe superscription applies to the king of Abhase in the region of\nthe Caucasus, and not to the king of Abyssinia. We read, likewise,\nin the chronicle of Alberic (_Rel. de Jean du Plan de Carpin_, 161)\nthat the legate Pelagius \u201cmisit nuntios suos in Abyssiniam terram et\nGeorgianorum, qui sunt viri catholici\u201d.\nThe friendship that existed between the \u201cnegus christianissimus\u201d and\nthe sultan was certainly but rarely interrupted, probably because\nthey sympathised in each other\u2019s apprehensions; but the sentiments\nentertained by Boursba\u00ef towards the caliph, must have been of a\ndifferent nature, so that he may have taken upon himself to borrow the\ntitle of \u201cguardian of Wadach\u201d, or Baghdad.\u2014BRUUN.\n(11.) \u201cThis is done on all the roads of the king-sultan.\u201d\u2014It would\nappear that during the author\u2019s stay in Egypt, the ladies of that\ncountry exceeded all bounds in the abuse of the freedom they were\npermitted to enjoy during the Ba\u00efram festivities, judging by the severe\nmeasures adopted by the sultan, to their prejudice, in 1432 (Weil,\n_Gesch. der Chal._, v, 208). It was forbidden to every woman, and there\nwere no exceptions, to leave her house, so that the unmarried even\nincurred the risk of dying of starvation. This law was subsequently\nmodified in favour of coloured slaves and old women, and the young\nwere only permitted to leave their home for the bath, on the express\nunderstanding that they returned immediately afterwards.\nBy another decree, promulgated in the early part of his reign, the\nsultan Boursba\u00ef abolished the ancient custom which required that the\nground should be kissed by all who were admitted to his presence; and\nit was thenceforth ordained, that according to the rank of the person\nintroduced, so his hand or the hem of his garment should be kissed. But\nhe was soon persuaded to resort to the old usage, except that instead\nof kissing the ground with the mouth, those presented were to touch the\nground with the hand, which was then to be kissed. Schiltberger could\nnot have been in Egypt before the abolition of the above ridiculous\nand barbarous custom, in the first year of Boursba\u00ef\u2019s reign; but there\nwere no doubt numerous instances in his day of obsequious courtiers and\nother parasites who did actually kiss the ground. The ceremonial and\netiquette observed at the presentation and reception of ambassadors,\nwas in accordance with the customs of the Turks and Tatars upon such\noccasions.\nThe little bell for post-horses was introduced by the Mongols into\nRussia, and having been in use on post-roads ever since the time of\ntheir domination, has substituted the horn of the French and German\npostillion.\u2014BRUUN.\n(12.) \u201cand they send it to whosoever it belongs.\u201d\u2014Pigeons were employed\nin Asia as earners, in very remote times. It was pigeon service of\nwhich the daughter of the governor of Atra, Hatra, or al Hadr, availed\nherself, that enabled Sapor, king of Persia, 240\u2013271, to capture the\ncity which the emperor Severus had failed to take. It is recorded by\nnumerous European and Eastern writers, that the pigeon-post was in\ngeneral use in Syria and Egypt during the Crusades. In his story of the\nCrusade under Henry VI., in 1196, Arnold, bishop of Lubeck, describes\nthe training of pigeons, which was similar to what we read in the\ntext, and observes that \u201cthe Infidels are more highly gifted than the\nchildren of light\u201d, the training of pigeons being the invention of the\nInfidels, whose practice was imitated by their enemies. After the fall\nof Ba\u00efrouth in 1197, Boemund, prince of Antioch, announced the good\ntidings to his subjects by despatching a pigeon.\nKhalil Daheri (Quatrem\u00e8re, i, 55, note 77), an Arabian writer of the\n15th century, reports that Belbeis, Salehieh, Katia, and Varradeh or\nBarideh, were the pigeon-post stations on the road to Syria. According\nto Makrizi (_ibid._, 56), Varradeh was distant eighteen miles from\nAlarih. Query? Fort Arich or el-Arich in Lower Egypt, where the French\ncapitulation was signed in 1800. Aboul-Mahazin declares that Bir\nal-Kady\u2014The Kady\u2019s well\u2014must have marked the limits of Syria and Egypt.\nAnother Arabian writer (Abd-Allatif, _S. de Sacy edition_, 43) calls\nAlarich, Alaris\u2014changed by the bishop of Lubeck, as his German editors\nbelieve, into Ahir, a name almost to be identified with \u201cArchey\u201d, one\nof the principal pigeon stations.\u2014BRUUN.\n(13.) \u201csacka.\u201d\u2014Literally, in Turkish, a water-carrier. A pelican is s\u00e1k\u00e0\nko\u00fatchou.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.\n(1.) \u201cThe Infidels call the mountain Muntagi.\u201d\u2014Hushan dagh, the correct\nname given by the Arabs, is here handed down to us as \u201cMuntagi\u201d, which\ndiffers so widely from the native appellation of Sina\u00ef, that it may\nhave been derived from the word Montagna, possibly the generic name by\nwhich the mount was known to pilgrims. In such a case, Schiltberger\u2019s\ncompanions would have been Italians, who, on the supposition that\nthey were mariners, supplied him with the details he gives on the Red\nSea\u2014its breadth, which is represented at double its actual extent\u2014and\nthe information that it had to be crossed to attain Sinai; although\nwe know from De Lannoy that the journey from Egypt was performed \u201cen\ncostiant la mer\u201d. The knight makes no mention of the wonderful supply\nof oil at the monastery of St. Catherine, nor of the other miracles\nperformed by the saint; but he explains why the Infidels went to Sinai.\nAt the foot of the mount was a church of St. Catherine, \u201c\u00e0 mani\u00e8re d\u2019un\nchastel, forte et quarr\u00e9e, o\u00f9 les trois lois de Jh\u00e9su-Crist, de Moyse\net de Mahommet sont en trois \u00e9glises repr\u00e9sent\u00e9es\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) This somewhat confused description of St. Catherine\u2019s mount and\nof Mount Sina\u00ef, is to be accounted for by Schiltberger\u2019s statement\nthat he had not ascended the latter, and that he described the sites\nfrom hearsay only. He distinguishes, however, St. Catherine from what\nhe calls \u201cMuntagi, the mountain of the apparition\u201d, upon which, as he\nwas informed, God appeared to Moses in a burning bush; where flows\nthe spring from the rock that Moses struck with his staff; the site\nwhere our Lord delivered to him the tables with the ten Commandments,\netc., etc. \u201cMuntagi\u201d may therefore have been intended for Musa dagh,\nthe Turkish, as Jabal Musa is the Arabic for Mountain of Moses, about\nwhich, in the words of Dean Stanley (_Sinai and Palestine_, 39) the\ntraditions of Israel have lingered, certainly since the 6th century,\nand perhaps from a still earlier date. Mount Sina\u00ef is called Tur Sina\nby Ibn Haukal, and Jabal Tur and Et Tur by Edrisi and Aboulfeda.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XXXIX.\n(1.) \u201cthe village of Mambertal.\u201d\u2014\u201cMambertal\u201d for Mamre, by which name\nHebron also was known (Gen. xii, 18; xxxv, 27), and was probably so\ncalled after Mamre the Amorite, the friend of Abraham (Gen. xiv,\n13). Sir John Mandevile\u2019s tradition of the Dry Tree (_Voyages and\nTravels_, etc.) as it was related to him, agrees almost word for word\nwith the tale in the text, except that Sir John saw an oak, whereas\nSchiltberger\u2019s tree was called by the Infidels \u201ccarpe\u201d (Sir John writes\nDirpe), and selvy is the Turkish for cypress. Commentators on the Holy\nScriptures have said that plains of Mamre (Gen. xiii, 18; xviii, 1) is\na mis-translation for oaks of Mamre, but the Turkish for oak is meyshe.\nThe great tree seen by Robinson in 1838 (_Biblical Researches_, etc.,\nii, 81) was an oak; it measured 22-1/2 feet in circumference in the\nlower part, the branches extending over a diameter of 89 feet. It stood\nsolitarily near a well in the midst of a field, and was sound and in a\nthriving state. A long and comprehensive note on the Arbre Sec or Arbre\nSol, will be found in Yule\u2019s Marco Polo, i, 132.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cit is well taken care of.\u201d\u2014The distance from Hebron to Jerusalem,\nas given in chapter 40, is correct (Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 201); so\nis the statement that Hebron was the chief city of the Philistines, for\nJosephus (_Wars_, etc., xii, 10) says that it was a royal city of the\nCanaanites.\n\u201cCarpe\u201d may have indicated the caroub or locust tree (_Die charube von\nKufin_; see Rosen, _Die Patriarchengruft zu Hebron_, in _Zeitschrift\nf. allg. Erdk._, neue Folge, xiv, 426), or the turpentine tree,\nwhich Josephus and others have stated grew in those parts, where\na small and sterile valley still bears the significant name of\nSallet-el-Boutmeh\u2014Place of the Turpentine tree. In course of time,\nthe turpentine tree of Josephus became confounded with Abraham\u2019s\noak, mentioned in the Bible, which the Russian pilgrim Daniel\n(Noroff, _P\u00e9ler. en T. S._, 77) says he found in leaf, and might\nhave been a huge tree of the sort noticed by Robinson. The tree\nseen by Schiltberger must have been of another kind, because it was\nwithered; he could not otherwise have transmitted to us the prophecy\nso encouraging to our own desires, and in accordance with the\npresentiments of the Infidels themselves, that the day will come when\nthey shall be expelled from the holy places.\nNo person is allowed to enter the mosque wherein the holy patriarchs\nlie (see page 60), as was the case in the 15th century, unless\nprovided with the sultan\u2019s firman. We are told by Novairi and other\nauthors (Makrizi by Quatrem\u00e8re, ii, 249), that when the sultan Bibars,\n1260-1264, visited Khalil (Hebron), and learnt that Christians and Jews\nwere permitted to enter upon payment of a fee, he at once put a stop\nto the practice. Hammer (_Gesch. der Ilchane_, etc., 129) states that\nMussulmans have held Hebron in great estimation since the reign of the\ncaliph Mostershid (stabbed to death by an assassin in 1120), when the\nremains of several bodies found in the caves, were passed off as being\nthose of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, although, according to Moses, they\nwere interred at Hebron, where their places of sepulture are pointed\nout by Christians.\nThe author of Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum (Parthey et Pinder, _Itiner.\nAnt. Aug._, etc., 283) thus writes with reference to the beautiful\nchurch constructed by Constantine the Great near the turpentine tree of\nAbraham: \u201cInde Terebinth Cebron mil. ii, ubi est memoria per quadrum\nex lapidibus mir\u00e6 pulchritudinis, in qua positi sunt Abraham, Isaac,\nJacob, Sarra, Rebecca et Lea.\u201d\nAbout the year 600, there was already a cathedral in the quadrum, and\ntwelve months later Bishop Arnulphus found the monolith cenotaphs\nof the three patriarchs, one being that of Adam; other smaller ones\nwere assigned to their wives. At that period Hebron belonged to the\nArabs, who gloried in their descent from Abraham, which accounts for\nthe erection by them of a mosque over the remains of their ancestor.\nIt was only after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders that the\nplace was made over to the Christians for religious purposes; this we\nlearn from S\u0153wulf (_Recueil de Voy. et de M\u00e9m._, etc., 817\u2013854) who\nwent to Palestine in 1102, and the Russian pilgrim Daniel (Noroff,\n_P\u00e9ler. en T. S._, 95), who in 1115 saw a superb edifice at Hebron,\nin the crypt of which was the sepulchre of the patriarch within a\nchapel of circular form. Rosen says that the presence of Jews within\nthis sanctuary was tolerated by the Crusaders, a privilege, however,\nfor which they had to pay, according to the evidence of Benjamin of\nTudela, and of his co-religionist Petachy of Ratisbon, who travelled\nin Palestine twelve years later. Hebron passed into the hands of\nthe Mussulmans long before the fall of Acre, after which event the\nChristians in their turn were taxed for the liberty of entering.\nAmong those of Schiltberger\u2019s predecessors who have left an account of\nwhat they saw and learnt during their sojourn in Palestine, are the\nGerman monk, Brocardus, towards the close of the 13th century\u2014Sir John\nMandevile, 1372\u2014and the German pilgrim, Ludolph von Suchem, whose work,\n_Libellus de Itinere ad T. S._, is considered the best itinerary for\nthe Holy Land in the 14th century.\nDe Lannoy was in Palestine at about the same time as the author, but\ndoes not report having been at Hebron; he however supplies a list of\nthe holy places, that was compiled, as he states, by Pope Sylvester\nat the request of the emperor Constantine and of \u201cSainte Helaine\u201d,\nhis mother. Three cities of \u201cEbron\u201d are included: \u201cLa neufve et la\nmoienne, de laquelle est l\u2019esglise o\u00f9 sont ensepvelis Adam, Abraham,\nIsaac et Jacob et leurs femmes\u201d.... \u201c_Item_, Ebron, la vielle, en\nlaquelle David regna sept ans et six mois.\u201d It is desirable that these\ntwo passages should be quoted, because in the works I have cited, such\nas Noroff\u2019s, Raumer\u2019s, Rosen\u2019s, and in others which dwell largely on\nHebron, one city only of the name is mentioned.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cbut now there is only a pillar.\u201d\u2014If tradition is to be relied\non, it was the mother of Constantine who built the Church of the\nAnnunciation, which had already ceased to exist in Schiltberger\u2019s\ntime. In 1620 a handsome church was erected on the same site (Raumer,\n_Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 136), and a column at the foot of seventeen steps\nindicated the spot where the angel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin; it\nwas possibly the pillar referred to in the text. The pilgrim Daniel\ndescribes the earliest church, situated in the centre of the city, as\nbeing large and handsome, and enclosing three altars. It was destroyed\nby the sultan Bibars in 1263 (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, iv, 46; Makrizi\nby Quatrem\u00e8re, I, i, 200).\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XL.\n(1.) \u201cI went twice to Jherusalem with a koldigen.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger\u2019s\ncommentators have not been able to identify the word \u201ckoldigen\u201d, to\nwhich Koehler (_Germania_, vii, 371\u2013380) puts a mark of interrogation,\nobserving that it is written in precisely the same manner in two early\neditions. Frescobaldi in 1384 (_Viaggi in Terra Santa_) speaks of\nthe monks at the monastery on Sina\u00ef as Calores, instead of \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f73\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9.\nIf Joseph, Schiltberger\u2019s companion, was a Christian, he might very\npossibly have been a Kalogeros, a title turned into \u201cKoldigen\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) Another suggestion! Khodja is a corruption of the Persian word\nKhaja, a term that in the East generally denotes a merchant (Garcin\nde Tassy, _Les Noms Propres et les Titres Musulm._, 68). Or an\ninterpretation of \u201cKoldigen\u201d is perhaps to be found in Koul, the\nTurkish for a detachment or small body of men, and jy, a termination\nsignificative of office, profession, or trade, as for instance,\narabajy, one who drives; kayikjy, a boatman; ghemijy, a sailor, and\nsimilarly, Kouljy, one who leads a body of men. In European Turkey,\nhowever, Kouljy means also a coast-guard-man, and in other parts of\nthat empire the term is applied to a keeper or custodian. In his\nRussian edition, Professor Bruun submits the word Koljy derived from\nKoll, the title of those of the second class of the Monastic Order of\nKalender, the founder of which Order, singularly enough, was one named\nJoseph. With the reader must remain the privilege of deciding upon\nJoseph\u2019s calling, whether monk, merchant, coast-guard-man, or\ncustodian!\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cThe Infidels call Jherusalem, Kurtzitalil.\u201d\u2014Jerusalem is called\nby the Turks, Kouds Shereef, with the first part of which name might\nbe associated the first syllable \u201cKurtz\u201d; but Shereef could scarcely\nhave been corrupted to \u201citalil\u201d, which reminds me of Halil, a term\npre-eminently applied to Abraham the friend of God, and given to the\ngate of the city that leads to Hebron, known as the Bab-el-Halil\n(Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 201).\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cthe pilgrims can kiss and touch it.\u201d\u2014The Russian pilgrim Daniel\nobserved three openings in the marble slab, through which the sacred\nstone could be seen and kissed; but the indiscreet zeal of pilgrims,\nsays Noroff, who contrived to chip off fragments, necessitated its\nprotection from further mutilation.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201ca brightness above the holy sepulchre, that is like fire.\u201d\u2014Some\npeople believed that this miracle was performed through the\nintervention of a dove, while others attributed it to lightning. The\nRussian pilgrim Daniel explains to his readers that it is only those\nwho have not attended during the celebration in church that could\nbe sceptic as to the appearance of this light from heaven, and he\ntrusts that the truly faithful and of good repute will believe in all\nthe miracles that take place within the sanctuary! He concludes his\nobservations by quoting Luke xvi, 10.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4A.) Of the lamp that burned in front of the Holy Sepulchre, Sir John\nMandevile has also recorded that \u201cit went out of itself, on Good\nFriday, and again lit itself at the hour that our Lord rose from the\ndead.\u201d This lamp Schiltberger may have seen, but it appears doubtful\nwhether he witnessed the performance of the miracle of the Holy Fire,\n\u201cthe brightness above the Holy Sepulchre, that is like fire\u201d, or he\nsurely would have described the supernatural occurrence.\nThis Easter miracle at the Holy Sepulchre has been the theme of most\ntravellers who have witnessed it ever since the days of Charlemagne.\nHenry Maundrell (_Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem_, etc., 96) was\npresent at the Easter festival (1697) during the ceremony kept up\nby the Greeks and Armenians, upon the persuasion that every Easter\na miraculous flame descends from heaven into the Holy Sepulchre. He\ndescribes the fearful tumult and clamour made by the people in their\nwild excitement in anticipation of the miraculous appearance of the\nHoly Fire at the sepulchre, produced, as he exposes, by the two\nmiracle-mongers, the Greek and Armenian bishops, who had entered the\nsepulchre alone for the purpose. When they issued with two blazing\ntorches in their hands, all the people rushed with candles that\nthey might obtain the purest fire sent down from heaven, which they\ninstantly applied to their beards, faces, and bosoms, pretending that\nit would not burn like an earthly flame; but Maundrell says he saw\nplainly that none could endure the experiment long enough to make good\nthat pretension.\nDean Stanley, who was at Jerusalem in 1853 (_Sina\u00ef and Palestine_,\n467), states that Maundrell\u2019s account is an almost exact transcript of\nwhat was still to be seen. Captain Warren also witnessed the strange\ndoings in 1867\u201370 (_Underground Jerusalem_, 429\u2013437); and in _The\nGraphic_, Sept. 21, 1878, was published an interesting illustration of\nthe interior of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre during the performance\nof the miracle, together with a short account of the proceedings.\n\u201cAfter a procession of bishops and priests thrice round the building,\nthe Patriarch enters the Sepulchre. Now the noise becomes greater and\ngreater ... making the place more like an Inferno than the Church of\nChrist.... The Holy Fire now issues from the holes in the walls, and\nhundreds of hands are stretched out as they frantically try to light\ntheir candles at the flame.... By this time one candle has ignited\nthe other, and the crowd below is one mass of moving flame.\u201d There is\nno abatement, in this the 19th century, in the huge sham, with its\nattendant blind superstition and noisy demonstrations.\u2014ED.\n(5.) \u201cthe priests from the country of Prester John.\u201d\u2014Upon descending\nthe steps on the east side of Calvary (Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_, etc.,\n301), another flight of twenty-four steps is reached, at the foot of\nwhich is the Chapel of St. Helena, whence another flight of eleven\nsteps conducts to the place where the cross of Christ and those of\nthe two thieves were found. Here is an altar of the Latin church. The\nchapel of the Jacobites must have been higher up, near the Chapel of\nSt. John which enclosed the tomb of the Baron of the Holy Sepulchre\nand of his brother, the first king of Jerusalem; interesting monuments\nthat have been destroyed, not by the Turks but by the Greeks (Richter,\n_Wallfahrten in Morgenlande_, 22).\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201cthe church of Saint Steffan, where he was stoned.\u201d\u2014It is asserted\non tradition (Noroff, _P\u00e9ler. en T. S._, 19) that St. Stephen was\nstoned in front of the sepulchre of the Holy Virgin, on the road that\nleads from the Gate of St. Stephen, called also the Gate of Gethsemane.\nBut there was another gate on the north side of the city, that was\nnamed by the Crusaders after the first Christian martyr, because it was\nbelieved that he was stoned in front of it; this gate is now the Gate\nof Damascus.\nNoroff states further, that in ancient times there was upon the same\nside a church of St. Stephen, which was demolished by the Christians\nin consequence of its proximity to the walls, and because it presented\nan obstacle to their defence. Daniel the Russian pilgrim, saw that\nchurch intact, and asserts that St. Stephen there met his death and was\nburied. Schiltberger, no doubt, found it in ruins. De Lannoy, without\nmentioning the church, was of opinion that the martyr suffered death\nclose to the gate which bore his name, the spot being near Kedron and\nthe sepulchre of the Holy Virgin. The old chronicler Adamnanus (Raumer,\n_Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 312, note 92), in describing the basilica of Zion\nwith its c\u0153naculum, says: \u201cHic petra monstratur supra quam Stephanus\nlapidatus extra civitatem obdormitavit.\u201d According to Daniel, Zion was\nnot within the city.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cAnother hospital that rests on fifty-four marble columns.\u201d\u2014The\nruins of this, the palace of the Hospitallers or Knights of the Order\nof St. John of Jerusalem, are still to be seen to the south of, and\nat no great distance from the Church of the Resurrection. A church\nand monastery dedicated to the Holy Virgin were erected on this spot\nin 1048; and shortly afterwards were constructed near these edifices,\nanother church, a monastery, and hospital, dedicated to St. John the\nBaptist. Gerard, almoner of this hospital, instituted in 1118 the\ncelebrated Order of Hospitallers.\u2014BRUUN.\n(7A.) Benjamin of Tudela knew of two hospitals at Jerusalem which\nsupported four hundred knights, and afforded shelter to the sick. The\nfour hundred knights were ever ready to wage war together with those\nwho came from the country of the Franks. One hospital was called that\nof Salmon, having been originally the palace built by Solomon.\u2014ED.\n(8.) \u201cInfidels do not allow either Christians or Jews to enter it.\u201d\u2014This\nmust be the place where Omar about the year 640 constructed the great\nmosque, afterwards converted into a Christian church that was named\n\u03a4\u1f70 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f09\u03b3\u1f77\u03c9\u03bd. The Crusaders called it Templum Domini, by which\ndesignation it was known to Schiltberger, although it was in the hands\nof the Mahomedans.\u2014BRUUN.\n(9.) \u201ccalled the throne of Salomon.\u201d\u2014This has reference to the site of\nthe mosque of Aksa, previously the Church of the Presentation of the\nVirgin, built by Justinian in 530. The Russian pilgrim, Daniel, saw\nit in the wrecked state to which it had been reduced at the conquest\nof Jerusalem by the Franks, who there met with the most determined\nresistance on the part of the Mussulmans.\u2014BRUUN.\n(10.) \u201cthere our Lord healed the bed-ridden man.\u201d\u2014It was generally\nsupposed that the pool and the palace of the templars occupied the\nsite of the temple of Solomon, close to the mosque of Aksa (Raumer,\n_Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 297). Daniel knew of the residence of Solomon only,\nbecause the palace was not constructed until the Order of Hospitallers\nwas established in 1119, that is to say, four or five years after his\nstay in the Holy Land. The church, and the dwellings of the templars,\nwere destroyed in 1187 by Saladin, so that there was nothing for\nSchiltberger to see but their remains.\u2014BRUUN.\n(11.) \u201cthe house of Herod.\u201d\u2014At no great distance from the pool, stood\na house said to have been that of Pilate; the modern edifice on the\nsouth side of the Sakhara or mosque constructed by Omar in 637, is the\nresidence of the pasha. It is supposed that the palace of Herod was\nfarther away to the east, and to the right of the Via Dolorosa.\u2014BRUUN.\n(12.) \u201cA church, called that of Saint Annen,\u201d is noticed by De Lannoy,\nwho adds that this was the birth-place of St. Anne, the mother of the\nVirgin Mary; but he makes no allusion to the head of St. Stephen, or\nthe arm of St. John Chrysostom, relics which, through some mistake\nof the author, or of a scribe, have usurped the place of those of\nSt. Joachim the spouse of St. Anne. Daniel asserts that a church\nconsecrated to the latter existed in his day; it stood over their\ndwelling and place of burial.\u2014BRUUN.\n(13.) \u201cMount Syon ... stands higher than the city.\u201d\u2014The wall constructed\nby Souleiman, the Magnificent, 1536\u20131539, traverses the ridge of the\nhills. Within it, near an Armenian chapel, is pointed out the house\nof Annas, and at a short distance is the principal church of the\nArmenians, dedicated to St. James the Elder who was there beheaded.\nWithin the wall stood the house of Caiphas the high priest, now the\nChurch of the Holy Saviour also belonging to the Armenians, and in\nwhich is preserved the slab that closed the Saviour\u2019s tomb. This is\nprobably the same church as described by Schiltberger; called that of\nthe Holy Saviour by De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 54), who says that\nit was in the occupation of Catholics, or perhaps of Armenians who\nrecognised the supremacy of the Pope, but not of the Gregorians. This\nchurch could not have existed in the time of Daniel, because he simply\nmentions the house of Caiphas.\nClose at hand was the c\u0153naculum, in which the Last Supper took\nplace\u2014where the Holy Ghost fell on the apostles\u2014where the Holy Virgin\nexpired, and where Jesus Christ washed the apostles\u2019 feet. The Church\nof Zion or of the Virgin Mary, that stood here and is described by\nDaniel and others, was afterwards occupied by the Franciscan friars,\nand eventually became a mosque. William of Tyre (Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_,\netc., 312), Schiltberger and his contemporaries, Zosimus (_Pout. Rouss.\nloud._, ii, 50) and De Lannoy, all agree that here was the tomb of St.\nStephen; De Lannoy, however, adds that it was the second place of his\ninterment.\u2014BRUUN.\n(14.) \u201cA beautiful castle which was built by the king-sultan.\u201d\u2014This\ncitadel on the western side of the mount was constructed during the\nCrusades by the Pisans, the tower of David which formed a part of\nit being of more ancient date. Daniel and others considered it a\nformidable fortification.\u2014BRUUN.\n(15.) \u201cKing Soldan.\u201d\u2014The tomb of Solomon, described by several pilgrims,\nadjoined that of David. De Lannoy calls it the burial place of twelve\nother kings.\u2014BRUUN.\n(16.) \u201cA brook in the valley of Josophat.\u201d\u2014On the banks of this stream,\nthe Kedron, and at no great distance from the garden of Gethsemane,\nis a large rectangular edifice that was constructed by the Empress\nHelena. Tobler (_Die Siloahquelle_, 149), who has taken the trouble\nto record the number of steps counted by thirty-eight travellers, his\npredecessors, without however including Schiltberger, places the tomb\nof the Virgin at the foot of forty-seven steps. Near the above edifice\nare four sepulchral monuments that have been differently described,\nas their origin is unknown. Their style is partly Greek and partly\nEgyptian, and they somewhat resemble the monuments at Petra. They are\nfully described by Robinson, _Biblical Researches_, etc., and Kraft,\n_Die Topographie Jerusalems_, Berlin, 1846.\u2014BRUUN.\n(17.) \u201cthe mount of Galilee.\u201d\u2014This is intended to designate the\nnorthern summit of the Mount of Olives, on which was the tower Viri\nGalilei, so called because two men in white stood there at the moment\nof the Ascension (Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 310). De Lannoy refers to\nthis spot when describing pilgrimages to the Mount of Olives: \u201c_Item_,\nle lieu de Galil\u00e9e, o\u00f9 Jh\u00e9su-Crist s\u2019apparut \u00e0 ses onze appostres\u201d;\nonly he has confounded the place where the two stood with that of the\neleven.\u2014BRUUN.\n(18.) \u201cDead Sea, which is one hundred and fifty stadia wide.\u201d\u2014Josephus\n(_Wars_, etc., iv, 8, 3) wrote that the Dead Sea was 580 stadia in\nlength, and 150 stadia wide. Seetzen (_Reiseberichte in Monatliche\nCorrespondenz_, Berlin, 1854, xviii, 440), gives the width at 13-1/2\nEnglish miles, which Robinson reduces to 11-1/4 miles, at the same\ntime observing that the water level rose from 10 feet to 15 feet; and\nthat when he happened to be there in the month of May, the water had\nsufficiently risen to inundate, over the space of one mile, a salt lake\non its southern shore. The indications of Josephus and of Schiltberger\nmay have reference to the same season of the year.\u2014BRUUN.\n(18A.) Captain Warren (_Underground Jerusalem_, 175) gives much new\nand valuable information on the Jordan and the valley of that river,\nand explains that the rise and fall in the level of the Dead Sea is\ncaused by the fluctuations in the rush of water, the time of greater\nevaporations not coinciding with that of the freshets. This rise\nand fall might possibly be greater, were there no other regulating\narrangement than evaporation; but at the southern end there is a vast\ntract of land, only submerged by a few feet (here is Robinson\u2019s salt\nlake), and when this is covered the evaporation is great; and should\nthe waters be unduly extracted, this becomes dry land. The Jordan\noverflows its banks at harvest time, which is simply owing to the\nharvest being early in that semi-tropical district, when the waters of\nthe river are swollen by the waters of Hermon. The disparity in the\ndimensions of the Dead Sea, as noted by different authors, is here\naccounted for and explained. See Duc de Luynes\u2019 _Voy. d\u2019Exploration \u00e0\nla Mer Morte_, etc., Paris, 1874.\u2014ED.\n(19.) \u201cChristians usually bathe in the Jordan.\u201d\u2014Pilgrims, even in the\ndays of Josephus and of Jerome, looked for salvation through baptism in\nthe Jordan, and still may thousands be seen on Easter Monday, wending\ntheir way from Jerusalem to Jericho, performing the distance in five\nhours; two other hours bring them to the Jordan, and they assemble at\nthe ruins of a church and monastery that were dedicated to St. John\nthe Baptist. The church was equally a ruin in Daniel\u2019s time, but the\nmonastery and vaulted chapel near Hermon were in existence. It is clear\nthat this mount could not have been either the great Hermon of the\nLebanon, or the lesser Hermon which is situated in the middle of the\nplain of Jezreel to the south of Mount Tabor.\nThe monastery of St. John the Baptist (De Lannoy) was perhaps identical\nwith that constructed, according to Adamnanus (Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_,\netc., 60), by St. Helena, at the place where Christ was baptised.\nPocock (_Desc. of the East_, etc., ii, 49) makes it distant one mile\nfrom the Jordan, and says that Greeks and Latins, who are at issue as\nto the exact locality, are mistaken in seeking it on the western bank\nof the river, John having baptised at Bethany beyond the Jordan. Noroff\n(_P\u00e9ler. en T. S._, 49) points out that Pocock himself is in error, and\nthat the Greeks and Latins were quite right in keeping to the western\nbank, in front of Bethabara and not of Bethany.\u2014BRUUN.\n(20.) \u201cfrom these it has its name.\u201d\u2014Many authors, from Josephus\nto Burkhardt, have derived the name of the river Jordan from the\ntwo springs, Jor and Dan, although the sources are in reality the\nBanias, Dan, and Hasbeny; so that every allowance should be made if\nSchiltberger has failed to give the correct etymology of the name,\nwhich signifies in Hebrew \u201cthat which flows downwards\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(21.) \u201cwhere the Infidels often have a fair during the year.\u201d\u2014This\nbeautiful plain was in all probability the valley of Jericho, watered\nby the Jordan after it leaves the lake of Tiberias or Gennesareth, and\ntraverses two calcareous hills, described by Justin in words similar to\nthose of Schiltberger,\u2014\u201cEst namque vallis qu\u00e6 continuis montibus velut\nmuro quodam clauditur.\u201d\nThe valley of Jericho, compared by Josephus to a paradise, \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f77\u03bf\u03bd, tractum divinum, is far from meriting such encomium, even\nthough we cannot but agree with Ritter that, considering the profusion\nand utility of the vegetation still growing wildly in this fertile\nvalley, and the scattered remains of old aqueducts, it must have been\none of the most beautiful gardens in Palestine whilst in a state of\ncultivation during the Crusades.\nThat the sepulchre of St. James was in this valley is a very puzzling\nstatement, because it is asserted on tradition that the Apostle of that\nname, surnamed the Elder, was beheaded on Mount Zion, on the spot where\nstands the church that bears his name; it is alluded to by Schiltberger\nand De Lannoy, and is actually in the custody of the Armenians, who\nstate that the head of the saint was carried off to Spain, Quaresimus\n(_Elucidatio Terr\u00e6 Sanct\u00e6_, ii, 77) asserting that the body, as well\nas the head, is at Campostella. According to Daniel and De Lannoy, the\ntomb of St. James the Less was in the valley of Josaphat, near that of\nthe prophet Zacharias, close to which, says Schiltberger, reposed the\nremains of the prophet Jacob, a name substituted for that of James, or\nrather James the Less, who, it is said, concealed himself in a tomb\nnear to that of Zacharias, upon the day that our Lord was betrayed.\u2014BRUUN.\n(22.) \u201ctwelve hundred and eighty years from Christ.\u201d\u2014The holy places had\nbeen frequently won and lost during the Crusades, but they were never\nagain recovered from the Egyptians, after the expulsion of the Mongols\nfrom Syria by the sultan Koutouz and his amir Be\u00efbars in 1260, the\nyear 658 of the Hegira. Schiltberger\u2019s error in computation, of twenty\nyears, probably arose from his having added the years of this date,\n658 instead of 638 to the 622 years that had elapsed from the birth of\nChrist to the commencement of the Mahomedan era. These dates amount\ntogether to 1280, which he must have thought corresponded to 658 of the\nHegira, the period indicated to him as that at which Mussulman rule was\nestablished in Syria and Palestine, and Christians lost their\ninfluence.\u2014BRUUN.\n(23.) \u201cand this they do that they may make more profit.\u201d\u2014Many travellers\nin Egypt, whether previous to, during, or since the Crusades, have\nnoticed that balsam was to be obtained only from the Matarea garden\nnear Cairo. To his translation of Abd-Allatif\u2019s description of Egypt,\nSilvester de Sacy adds several passages on the cultivation of balsam in\nthat country, being extracts from the reports of European and Eastern\nwriters; but he omits Arnold of Lubeck and De Lannoy. Whilst at Cairo,\nthe latter was presented by the patriarch of India with a \u201cfyole de fin\nbalme de la vigne, o\u00f9 il croist, dont il est en partie seigneur\u201d; and\nhe repeats the tradition related by Brocardus (_Terr\u00e6 Sanct\u00e6 Descr._,\n311), that the vine of the balsam had been brought to Babylon, meaning\nCairo, by Cleopatra.\nSchiltberger was in Syria and Egypt at about the same time as De\nLannoy, and may have heard this tradition, also the legend that was\nrelated to the Bishop of Lubeck, to the effect that the balsam tree did\nnot put forth in the garden of Matarea until the Virgin, in passing by\nwhen on her flight from the persecutions of Herod, had washed her son\u2019s\nclothes in the stream that irrigated the garden. Makrizi associates\nthis very fable with the well at Matarea, adding, that the balm-tree\nhad quite disappeared from the country about the Jordan where it was\nformerly exclusively obtained. Strabo (XVI, ii, 41) and Pliny (XII, v,\n4) both say that this plant was cultivated in the royal gardens at\nJericho, of which it was the chief ornament (Josephus, _Wars_, etc.,\niv, 8); but it is doubtful whether it disappeared entirely from Jud\u00e6a\nafter the days of Cleopatra and Augustus, because some was purchased at\nJerusalem in 705 by St. Guillebaud (cited by S. de Sacy, Abd-Allatif,\n91); and Burkhardt learnt that balm-oil was to be obtained at Tiberias,\nextracted from a fruit that greatly resembled the cucumber, and grew on\na stem very like the balsam tree at Mecca.\nNow-a-days, a sort of oil, produced from the myrobalsamum and prepared\nat Jerusalem, is sold to superstitious pilgrims for genuine balsam or\nextract of opobalsamum, although it does not possess its qualities.\nDeception was also practised in Schiltberger\u2019s time, but he has shewn\nhimself not to have been so great a simpleton as the many who are being\ncontinually duped.\nThat the sale of balsam was a great source of revenue to the sultan\n(the patriarch of Armenia paid a high price for it, see page 92), is\nconfirmed by others. Makrizi considered it a most useful commodity.\nChristian sovereigns vied with each other in securing a supply, and it\nwas greatly esteemed by Christians in general, because baptism was not\nconsidered efficacious unless oil of balsam was dropped into the water\nprepared for the purpose.\u2014BRUUN.\n(23A.) A plant called the balsam, from which oil was extracted, and\nnot to be found in any other part of the world, grew in the vicinity\nof Fostat the chief city of Egypt, situated on the river Nile to the\nnorth. So wrote Ibn Haukal in the 10th century. It was near Fostat that\nCairo was founded in 968. Jacques de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine in\nthe 13th century (afterwards bishop of Tusculum, the modern Frascati)\nalludes to the produce of balsam in Egypt, which previously was to be\nobtained in the Holy Land only (_Gesta Dei per Francos_, etc., Hanovi\u00e6,\nMDCXI, _Bongars edition_). According to De Lannoy, it grew by the shore\nnear the city of Cairo, and De Maillet, Consul for France at that city\nin the early part of the last century, specially describes the plant,\nwhich, however, he could not have seen, as it had disappeared two\nhundred years before his time.\nThe last of the plants that grew in the garden of Matarea, says this\nauthor, were not more than two or three cubits in height, the stem\nbeing about one inch in thickness; the leaves of a beautiful green, on\nslender branches, resembled those of the rue. The stem had a double\nbark, the outer of a reddish colour, the inner, the thinnest, being\nperfectly green. The smell of the two barks was not unlike that of\nthe turpentine tree, but when bruised between the fingers emitted\nan odour similar to that of cardamom. Like the vine, this plant was\nprimed annually, and De Maillet supposes that then was extracted the\nvaluable balsam so greatly esteemed by all Christians, especially those\nof the Coptic church, the efficacy of baptism without its application\nbeing generally doubted (_Descr. de l\u2019Egypte_, edited by the Abb\u00e9 Le\nMascrier, \u00e0 la Haye, 1740). De Maillet distinguishes the balsam of\nCairo from that of Mecca, which Ali Bey (_Travels_, etc.) informs us\nwas not made there, but, on the contrary, was very scarce, as it could\nonly be obtained when brought by the Bedouins. Ali Bey was told that\nit came from Medina. According to some authors, the last of the balsam\nplants growing in Egypt were destroyed in 1615 by an inundation of the\nNile.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XLI.\n(1.) \u201cOf these four rivers I have seen three.\u201d\u2014Well versed as\nSchiltberger was in the Holy Scriptures, he could not but have been\naware that the Euphrates and Tigris were included among the four rivers\nthat had their source in Paradise; but he substitutes the Nile and\nRison for the Gihon and Pison.\nIt is noticed elsewhere, that in the time of the Crusades the Nile and\nEuphrates were mistaken for each other, in consequence of the name\nby which a part of Cairo was known. When, after a time, the error\nwas discovered, the Indus was substituted for the Euphrates, partly,\nperhaps, because Koush\u2014Ethiopia\u2014was confounded with the country of the\nCoss\u00e6i, peopled, according to the classic authors, by Ethiopians; and\nalso because it had formerly been mistaken for \u039a\u1f7b\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c7\u1f7d\u03c1\u03b1 of the\nancients, known to the Hebrews as Eriz Koush, situated to the east\nof Babylon (F\u00fcrst, _Gesch. des Kar\u00e4erth._, 102). Thus was it that\nGiovanni de\u2019 Marignolli (_Reis. in das Morgenl._, 18) who passed\nthrough China and India soon after Marco Polo, mistook the Gihon of the\nBible for the Indus and the Nile. Even De Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._,\n88) does not venture to refute the opinion as to the continuity of\nthese two rivers. Being under the impression that the Nile was a\ncontinuation of the Indus, Schiltberger calls the two rivers, which\nhe believed were united, the Nile, imagining that they were identical\nwith the Gihon or Sihon, a name that greatly resembles the Hebrew\ndenomination of the Nile.\n\u201cRison\u201d could scarcely have been other than the Pison of the Bible,\nspelled Phison in the Nuremberg MS. (_Penzel edition_, 123); this\naccounts for the statement that gold and precious stones were found in\nit, produce for which the territory of Khivila, watered by the Phison,\nwas celebrated. Schiltberger adds, that the \u201cRison\u201d traversed India,\nwhilst he identifies the Indus with the Nile; his fourth river must\ntherefore have been the Ganges, the Phison of Moses of Chorene, who\nstates that the river was at the limits of the two peninsulas of India,\nalthough Haythoun, his countryman, believed the Phison to be the Oxus\nbecause it divided Persia into two parts: one containing Samarkand and\nBokhara; the other, the southern cities of Nishapur, Ispahan, etc. Not\nsatisfied with having reconciled the contradictory opinions of his\npredecessors, in identifying the Phison with the Ganges, Giovanni de\u2019\nMarignolli unites to these two rivers the Hoang-Ho and even the Volga\n(Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., Appendix, vii), and he represents that,\nafter irrigating Evilach in India, the Phison passes, not only into\nChina, where it is called the Karamora (Kara-mouran\u2014Black River\u2014was\nthe name given by the Mongols to the Yellow River of the Chinese), but\nafter disappearing in the sands behind Caffa, again shews itself and\nforms the Sea of Bakou\u2014Caspian\u2014behind Chana\u2014Tana, now Azoff. We are\nbound to admit that Schiltberger is nearer the truth in saying that he\nhad never seen the \u201cRison\u201d at all, than was the bishop of Bisignano who\nrecognised it in too many rivers at one and the same time.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XLII.\n(1.) \u201cthe city of Lambe, in a forest called Lambor.\u201d\u2014Pepper was\ncultivated in Malabar, the country indicated by these two names, long\nbefore Schiltberger\u2019s time. Kazvini, who died in 1283, Aboulfeda and\nIbn Batouta, all mention its produce, and Giovanni de\u2019 Marignolli,\nwho visited Malabar in 1348, describes the cultivation of pepper in\npretty much the same terms as does our author, equally refuting the\nstory that the black colour was owing to smoke employed to drive away\nserpents. We are informed by this author of the existence of many\nChristians of St. Thomas in the country, and that there was a Latin\nchurch dedicated to St. George in the town of Columbus, doubtlessly the\nKollam of the Arabs (Peschel, _Gesch. d. Erdkunde_, 162, note 3), the\nKuilon of the Chinese, called Coilum by Marco Polo, Chulam by Benjamin\nof Tudela, Kaalan by Haythoun, Palombo, Alembo, Polumbrum by Oderic\nand Mandevile, and Koulem by the natives. These names have nothing in\ncommon with Koulouri, where the Russian merchant Nikitin spent five\nmonths, but they somewhat assimilate that of Colanum taken in 1503\nby the Portuguese, who stated that this town on the coast of Malabar\nwas reputed to be the most ancient and the richest in India (Maffei,\n_Hist. Ind._, i, 52, xii, 289). Colanum may have been one of the places\nmentioned by Schiltberger, the other being Calicut, touched at by Vasco\nde Gama in 1498.\nThe colonisation of the Christian communities seen by the Portuguese\nat the south-west extremity of the Deccan, dates from the earliest\ncenturies of our era. Neander says (_Allg. Gesch. d. christlichen\nRelig. und Kirche_, I, i, 114) that the Syriac-Persian community on the\ncoast of Malabar owes its origin to St. Thomas, although its existence,\naccording to Cosmas \u201cIndicopleustes\u201d, cannot be traced earlier than the\n6th century. Gregory of Nazianzus asserts (_Orat._, 25) that the Gospel\nwas preached in India by the apostle St. Thomas, who was murdered at\na place near Madras called Mailapur, on the Coromandel Coast, the\nMaabar of Marco Polo, and identical with Mirapolis, where Giovanni de\u2019\nMarignolli tells us the apostle was buried. We are scarcely encouraged\nto look for the forest of \u201cLambor\u201d in the province of Maabar, because\nthere happened to be indications of Christian churches, rather than on\nthe coast of Melibar or Malabar, where the produce of pepper in ancient\ntimes is fully established.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) Friar Jordanus, 1333 (_Hakluyt Soc. Publ._, 27), indignantly\ndenies that fire was placed under the pepper trees, and is satisfied\nthat the fruit turns black simply upon coming to maturity. Oderic\n(Hakluyt _Voyages_, ii, 160), also a predecessor of Schiltberger,\nrepeats the statement that in the kingdom of Minibar where pepper\ngrows, fires are made with the object of burning up the serpents, that\nthe people might gather at the harvest without injury to themselves.\nOderic estimated the circuit of the forest at an eighteen days\u2019\njourney, and the two cities in it, not named by our author, he calls\nFlandrina and Cyncilim. At the south end of the forest stood a city\ncalled Polumbrum, noticed in the foregoing note, and at a distance of\nten days\u2019 journey was the kingdom of Mobar, where lay interred the body\nof St. Thomas.\n\u201cIt is seventeen hundred and forty years ago\u201d, said the papa or\npriest at Cacador to Buchanan in 1800, \u201csince a certain saint named\nThomas introduced the Nazareens; he landed at Meliapura, and took\nup his residence on a hill near Madras, now called after his name\u201d\n(_Journey from Madras_, London, 1807). There he performed a miracle\nannually, says another authority, until English heretics came into\nthe neighbourhood. St. Thomas afterwards made a voyage to Cochin, and\nnear that place established a church which became the metropolitan; he\nreturned to Meliapura and there died, or, according to others, was put\nto death. It appears that a bishop of India was present at the Council\nof Nice, A.D. 325, and in the following century the Christians on the\ncoast of Malabar received the accession of a bishop of Antioch, who was\naccompanied by a small party of Syrians. That Christians in Malabar\nwere numerous at the time Schiltberger obtained his information is most\nprobable, because Portuguese historians relate that in the year 1503\nthey possessed upwards of one hundred churches, those in the interior\nrefusing to conform to Rome (Assemanus, _Bibliot. Orient._, iv, 391\n_et seq._; M. Geddes, _The Hist. of the Church of Malabar_, 1694;\nGardner, _Faiths of the World_, etc., ii, 900; see also G. B. Howard,\n_Christians of St. Thomas and their Liturgies_, 1864; Yule\u2019s _Marco\nPolo_, ii, 341 _et seq._).\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cthe juice of an apple which they call liuon.\u201d\u2014There can scarcely\nbe a doubt that this was the lemon, called nimbouka in Sanscrit;\nneemon, leemon in Hindostani, and lemonn by the Arabs, a fruit with\nwhich Schiltberger could scarcely have been familiar in his own\ncountry, or in those parts of Asia Minor, Central Asia, and even\nEgypt, through which he travelled. The lemon, brought from India by\nthe Arabs about A.D. 912, was first planted at Oman; then at Basra in\nIrak; afterwards in Syria, where the plant became common, whence it\nwas introduced into Palestine and Egypt. Jacques de Vitry includes\nthe lemon tree with others he saw for the first time when in the Holy\nLand in the 13th century: \u201csunt ibi speciales arbores tam fructifer\u00e6\nquam steriles\u201d (_Gesta Dei per Francos_, etc., lxxxvi); from which it\nmight almost be inferred that the Crusaders, who are supposed to have\nintroduced this plant into Europe, did not do so until after Jacques de\nVitry wrote. The genus, however, could not have been entirely unknown\nin the West, it being recorded in _Chronica Montis Cassiniensis, Pertz\nScr._, 7, 652, that when the prince of Salerno in the year 1000 (1016?)\nwas besieged by the Arabs, forty Norman knights who passed that way on\ntheir homeward journey from the Holy Land, delivered him. Upon taking\ntheir leave, the knights were accompanied by ambassadors from the\nprince, who were bearers of presents of the \u201cpoma cedrina (citrina?),\namigdalas quoque et deauratas nuces\u201d, and a message to the Norman\npeople, inviting them to come to so beautiful a country and help him\nto defend it (Abd-Allatif, S. de Sacy edition, 115\u2013117; Makrizi in\nQuatrem\u00e8re; _Journ. Horticultural Society_, ix, 1855; Risso et Poiteau,\n_Hist. et Culture des Orangers_, Paris, 1872; Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen und\nHausthiere in ihrem Uebergang aus Asien nach Griechenl. und Ital._,\nBerlin, 1877).\nLemon-juice was employed at Ceylon as protection against the numberless\nland-leeches that seized upon the bare legs of the natives in the\nlowlands (Ibn Batouta, _Lee edition_, 188; Knox, _Hist. of Ceylon_,\netc., I, iv, 49), precisely the sort of country where the vine\npepper\u2014Piper nigrum\u2014grows to best advantage, viz., on level ground\nalong the banks of rivers and rivulets (Simmonds, _Tropl. Agriculture_,\n476). In his notice on \u201cSylan\u201d, Friar Oderic says that the people who\ndive into a lake infested with horse-leeches, for the purpose of\nrecovering precious stones, \u201ctake lemons, which they peel, anointing\nthemselves thoroughly with the juice thereof, that so they may dive\nnaked under the water, the horse-leeches not being able to hurt them\u201d\n(Hakluyt _Voyages_, ii, 160). Sir Emerson Tennent quotes Oderic, and\ndistinguishes the land- from the cattle-leech. The former, so inimical\nto man, never visits ponds or streams, but is found in the lower ranges\nof hill country kept damp by frequent showers; it attains a length of\ntwo inches (_Natural History of Ceylon_, Chap. xiii). There is strange\nconfusion, in associating the use to which the lemon is put, in Ceylon,\nwith the pepper-growing country of Malabar by no means famous for\nleeches.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XLIII.\n(1.) \u201cthose from Venice likewise.\u201d\u2014In his admirable treatise on the\nestablishment of Italian commercial dep\u00f4ts in Egypt, Heyd (_d.\nItal. Handelscolon._, etc., in the _Zeitschrift f. d. gesammte\nStaatswissenschaft_, xx, 54\u2013138) confirms the statement that of the\nseveral Italian Powers, the Venetians and Genoese were at that time\nthe most interested in trade with Alexandria. Their predecessors the\nPisans, who had taken an active part in the eastern trade, were forced\nat the commencement of the 15th century to abandon their interests in\nfavour of the Florentines, and in great measure also of the Anconitans,\nNeapolitans, and citizens of Gaeta; but the Catalans, equally with the\nItalians, kept up extensive commercial relations with Egypt.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cthe king of Zipern.\u201d\u2014Allusion is made to the taking of Alexandria,\nOct. 10th, 1365, by Peter of Lusignan, king of Cyprus, and his allies\nthe Genoese, Venetians, and knights of Rhodes. De Lannoy (_Voy. et\nAmbass._, 70) records that the allied forces landed near the old port,\nthe entrance to which was ever afterwards closed against all vessels\nof Christian nationalities. Upon the approach of the Egyptians on the\nabove occasion, the Franks re-embarked after having pillaged the city\nand carried off five thousand captives (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, iv,\n512). This expedition, in which twenty-four Venetian, two Genoese,\nten Rhodian, five French, and several Cyprian vessels took part, was\ncompleted in the space of a week, so that allowing the requisite time\nfor landing and re-embarking, the occupation of the city would most\nprobably have lasted three days, the period indicated by\nSchiltberger.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201ctook Alexandria, and remained in it three days.\u201d\u2014This tower\nmust have been either the pharos of Alexandria, or some tower on the\nislet that had become united to the mainland by the sands of the\nNile; otherwise, De Lannoy, to whom we are indebted for a detailed\ndescription of the port of Alexandria under a strategic point of view,\nwould not have failed to notice it. He simply mentions a long spit,\none mile wide, between the old and new ports which both reached to the\nwalls of the city. This islet is now occupied by one of its finest\nquarters.\nMakrizi describes the pharos at Alexandria (S. de Sacy, _Chrestom.\nArabe_, ii, 189) as having at the top a large mirror, around which\ncriers were seated. Upon perceiving the approach of an enemy through\nthe agency of this reflector, they gave warning to those in the\nimmediate neighbourhood by loud cries, and flags were displayed to\napprise others at a distance, so that people in all parts of the city\nwere immediately on the alert.\nDe Sacy (Abd-Allatif, 239) is of opinion that the large circles\nemployed in astronomical observations and which were placed on the\nhighest part of such lofty buildings as the pharos, may have led\nArabian writers, who usually delighted in the relation of all that was\nmarvellous, to represent that the mirror at the top of the Alexandria\nlighthouse was placed there for better observing the departure of Greek\nvessels from their ports. The tower described in the text was no doubt\ndesigned for this purpose, because Ijas an Arabian author (Weil.\n_l. c._, v, 358) relates, that in 1472 the sultan Ka\u00eftba\u00ef caused a new\nlighthouse to be constructed near the old one; it communicated with the\ncity by means of a dyke, and was provided with a chapel, a mill, and a\nbakehouse; also a platform from which strange vessels could be seen at\nthe distance of a day\u2019s sail, so that time was afforded for preparing\nthe guns with which the tower was supplied, to resist their approach.\nSchiltberger was right in saying that there was a temple in the tower,\nbecause Abd-Allatif speaks of a mosque as being at the top of the\npharos at Alexandria.\nApart from the possibility of there having been a traitor amongst them\nwho ministered in that temple, the Egyptians may have invented the\ntale narrated in this chapter, in extenuation of their negligence in\nsuffering themselves to be taken by surprise by the Crusaders.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XLIV.\n(1.) \u201chad I not seen it, I would not have spoken or written about\nit.\u201d\u2014I do not think I can be far out in attributing this gigantic bone\nto Alexander of Macedon, not only because \u201cAllenklaisser\u201d is so like\nthe Arabic name Al Iskender, but also because the remembrance of the\nrapidity with which the founder of Alexandria had carried his conquests\nin the East, could not have been obliterated in the city which was\nindebted to him, for having become the central depot of the commerce of\nthe world during upwards of one thousand years. There can be no manner\nof doubt that, in the course of ages, other ancient traditions became\nmixed up with legends of Alexander, especially as regards the Jews, who\nwere treated by the great conqueror with the urbanity that some rulers\nof the earth, of our own times, would do well to imitate.\nWe read in Abd-el-Hakam\u2019s history of the conquest of Egypt (Makrizi\nby Quatrem\u00e8re, I, i, 218), that the body of a giant killed by Moses\nfell across the Nile and served as a bridge. With this legend may be\nassociated Schiltberger\u2019s tale, and his credulity need not be wondered\nat when we consider, that in the 13th century the story was thought\nworthy of being related; and some there were even bold enough to tell\nit to the powerful ruler of the Golden Horde, Bereke Khan, who enquired\nof the ambassadors sent to him in 1263 by the sultan Bibars, whether\nit was true that the bone of a giant, laid across the Nile, was being\nused as a bridge! The ambassadors, who had been probably selected from\namong the most enlightened of the sultan\u2019s ministers, replied that they\nhad never seen it, an answer that may have been elicited by the nature\nof the question, because the strange bridge seen by Schiltberger must\nhave been in Arabia and not in Egypt. It united two rocks separated by\na profound ravine in the depths of which coursed a torrent, and as it\nafforded the only practicable means for crossing the ravine on the high\nroad, travellers were obliged to pass over it.\nI cannot believe that these topographic details were invented by\nSchiltberger, and am therefore inclined to think that he alludes to\nthe neighbourhood of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek, places that\nacquired considerable importance during the Crusades in consequence of\ntheir admirable situations. They are easily identified with \u201cCrach\u201d and\n\u201cSebach\u201d mentioned by De Lannoy, after he refers to the \u201cmontaignes\nd\u2019Arrabicq\u201d for the purpose of observing, that in the former was \u201cla\npierre du desert\u201d, and in the latter the sepulchre of Aaron, and that\nthe road thence conducted through a desert to St. Catherine and to\nMecca. Quatrem\u00e8re says (Makrizi, II, i, 249) that Karac was the key to\nthe road across the desert. Caravans to and from Damascus and Mecca,\nmerchants, and troops despatched from the capital of Syria to that\nof Egypt, were obliged to pass close under its walls or at no great\ndistance from them.\nShaubek, the \u201cMons regalis\u201d of the Crusaders, thirty-six miles from\nKerak, was also a strong place. Burckhardt tells us that a ravine,\nthree hundred feet in depth, encircles the citadel, which is in a\nbetter state of preservation than the one at Kerak or Krak, called also\nPetra deserti from its proximity to the ancient city of that name, and\nto which a part of Arabia owes the name of Arabia Petrea; its situation\nis characteristically described by Pliny: \u201coppidum circumdatum\nmontibus inaccessis, amne interfluente\u201d. The valley in which this\nancient city was situated, the \u201cvallis Moysi\u201d of the Crusaders, now\nWady Mousa (Raumer, _Pal\u00e6stina_, etc., 271\u2013277), five hundred feet in\ndepth, is watered by a stream and surrounded by steep rocks (Laborde,\n_Voy. dans l\u2019Arabie p\u00e9tr\u00e9e_, 55).\nAccording to an Arabian author quoted by Quatrem\u00e8re (_l. c._ II, i,\n245), the road near these two cities was so peculiar that it could have\nbeen held by one man against a hundred horsemen. Another reason for the\nsupposition that the bridge seen by Schiltberger was in one of these\npassages, lies in the fact that the same writer includes the tomb of\nIskender among the holy places of pilgrimage in this ancient country;\nbut he does not determine the individuality of that Iskender.\nOn the hypothesis that \u201cAllenklaisser\u2019s\u201d limb was near the tomb of\nIskender, I should be inclined to look in the same locality for the\nbridge that was constructed, according to the inscription it bore, two\nhundred years before Schiltberger saw it. Judging from other passages\nin his work, the author was in Egypt probably about the year 1423, the\ndate of the construction of the bridge being therefore 1223; this,\nhowever, can scarcely have been the case, because the feuds between\nSaladin\u2019s successors, which commenced soon after his death in 1193, had\nnot ceased, and the Ayoubites were continually in conflict with the\nCrusaders. It should be borne in mind that although Schiltberger knew\nthat the year 825 of the Hegira corresponded to A.D. 1423, he may not\nhave been aware that the Mahomedan is shorter than the Christian year,\nwhereby 200 Mahomedan years are equal to 193 solar years only; and thus\nhe calculated that the construction of the bridge took place in 1223\ninstead of 1230. This was the time when Al-Kamyl the nephew of Saladin,\nhaving become reconciled with the emperor Frederick II., was recognised\nby the princes of his house as their suzerain lord, and he thereafter,\nuntil his death in 1238, held Syria and Egypt, with the exception of\nthe fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek which he had to cede in 1229 to\nhis nephew Daud or David. This circumstance, no doubt, induced the\n\u201cking-sultan\u201d to order the construction of a bridge for keeping up\ncommunication between two parts of his kingdom, the new bridge being\nnear the old one that was kept smeared with oil, a condition that had\nthe effect of persuading the guileless Bavarian that it was indeed a\ngigantic bone.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XLV.\n(1.) \u201cOthers believe in one who was called Molwa.\u201d\u2014If, as Neumann\nsupposes, a Molla or Mussulman priest is here implied, I would venture\nto suggest that allusion is made to Hassan, founder of the sect of\nAssassins or Mulahidah. The partisans of \u201cthe Old Man of the Mountain\u201d\nhad not been entirely exterminated by the Mongols, for not only were\nthey in Asia after Marco Polo, but they reappeared in India at a later\nperiod, where the Bohras, another Ismailis sect, existed, and with whom\nthey have been frequently confounded. \u201cThe nature of their doctrine\nindeed\u201d, says Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 154), \u201cseems to be very much\nalike, and the Bohras like the Ismailis attach a divine character to\ntheir _Mullah_ or chief pontiff, and make a pilgrimage to his presence\nonce in life\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER XLVI.\n(1.) \u201cthy descendants will also acquire great power.\u201d\u2014It is stated in\nchapter 56 that Mahomet was born in the year of our Lord 609, so that\nhis journey into Egypt took place in 622, the year of the prophet\u2019s\nflight from Mecca to Medina. Schiltberger evidently confuses that\nmemorable event with a journey undertaken by Mahomet when in his\nthirteenth year, if not into Egypt, at least into Chald\u00e6a, where\nhis great destiny was foretold to him by a Nestorian priest. It is\nmost probable, however, that the author was not quite familiar with\nMahomedan traditions, which assert that it was in the year 609, that\nis to say, thirteen years before the date of the Hegira, that Mahomet\nwas informed of his lofty calling by an angel, and that the archangel\nGabriel quickly taught him to read; it is therefore the existence of\nthe prophet, not the birth of the man, that dates from this year.\nThe error is very pardonable, because several miracles attributed to\nthe prophet by Mussulmans, were supposed to have been performed in\nhis youth. They believe, for instance, that from his infancy he was\nenclosed within an aureola, and could therefore stand in the light of\nthe sun without casting a shadow, which would also have been the case\nhad a black cloud floated over his head as related by Schiltberger,\nwho remained too firmly attached to Christianity not to attribute the\nphenomenon to the wiles of the Prince of Darkness, rather than to the\neffect of celestial light.\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) What appears to be the more generally accepted story of Mahomet\u2019s\nfirst journey from home, is related by Syer Ameer Ali, in _A Critical\nexamination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed_; London, 1873. When\nAbu Taleb (the prophet\u2019s uncle, for he was an orphan) determined upon\nmaking a journey to Syria, leaving Mohammed with his own children,\nand was on the point of mounting his camel, the boy clasped his knees\nand cried: Oh! my uncle, take me with thee! The heart of Abu Taleb\nmelted within him, and the little orphan nephew joined the commercial\nexpedition of his uncle. They travelled together into Syria. During one\nof the halts they met an Arab monk, who, struck by the signs of future\ngreatness, and intellectual and moral qualities of the highest type in\nthe countenance of the orphan child of Abdullah, recognised in him the\nliberator and saviour of his country and people.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cThe first temple is also called Mesgit, the other Medrassa, the\nthird, Amarat.\u201d\u2014The designations of these several edifices and their\nuses are correct. The jamy, called \u201cSam\u201d, is the largest of mosques;\n\u201cMesgit\u201d, or rather mesjyd, being an ordinary and smaller mosque.\n\u201cMedrassa\u201d, for medress\u00e8, is a college usually attached to a mosque,\nand to be distinguished from the mehteb or boy\u2019s school; and \u201cAmarat\u201d,\nfor which we should read imaret, is an imperial place of burial, and a\nname applied also to a hospital, almshouse, etc.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER XLVII.\n(1.) \u201cOf the Infidel\u2019s Easter-day.\u201d\u2014This is the first of the two\nBa\u00eframs, the only religious festivals of the Mahomedans. The first,\ncalled Id Fitr\u2014feast of the termination of the fast\u2014falls on the\nfirst day of the month of Chewal, immediately after the feast of\nRamadan. The second, called Id Addha, or Kourban Ba\u00efram\u2014feast of\nsacrifice\u2014is celebrated seventy days later, on the tenth day of the\nmonth of Zilhidshek. Id indicates the anniversary of these periodical\nfeasts, which take place in their turn every season during the space\nof thirty-three years, according to the lunar months of the Mahomedan\ncalendar. The first festival is of one day\u2019s duration only, but it is\nusually observed for three days. The second, instituted in remembrance\nof Abraham\u2019s sacrifice, is continued for four days. Mussulmans\ncelebrate it by proceeding on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where is the Kaaba\nor sanctuary, constructed, it is said, by Abraham and his son Ishmael,\nin the form of the tent or tabernacle that was placed there by angels\nthe day the world was created.\nThe ancient custom of covering the Kaaba, at this festival, with a\nblack cloth, is still observed, the old cloth being cut up and sold to\npilgrims, who preserve the pieces as the most precious of relics.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER LI.\n(1.) \u201cThose who are in this fellowship are called They.\u201d\u2014To those\nwho are unfamiliar with the name, says Neumann, the title of Ghasi\nwould scarcely be recognised in that of They. Neumann misunderstands\nSchiltberger, who does not at all allude to the Ghasi, but to those of\nthe Malahidah sect called Day (Missionaries), and whom he designates\nThey, just as his own countrymen at times employ the word Teutsche for\nDeutsche. There certainly were Malahidahs in Asia Minor, or Turkey, as\nthe author called that territory.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER LII.\n(1.) \u201cMachmet is his true messenger.\u201d\u2014This invocation in Arabic, in\ngeneral use among Mussulmans, reads thus: La Illaha illa Allah!\u2014No\nGods, but God!\u2014Illaha being the plural of Allah\u2014God\u2014and La, the simple\nnegative, No, in opposition to Yes.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cMachmet his chief messenger.\u201d\u2014The correct rendering of this\npassage would be: T\u2019hary byr dour, Messyh kyoull dour, Meryam kara bash\ndour, M\u2019hammed ressouly dour\u2014God is one, the Messiah is his slave,\nMary is a blackhead, Mahomet is his apostle. Mary is here termed a\nblackhead to signify a slave, because coloured females were employed as\nslaves, white women being reserved for other purposes. This formula,\nthough no longer obligatory, would still be employed in the Mahomedan\nprovinces of the Caucasus and in Persia, were a Christian to embrace\nMahomedanism. The words imply a renunciation of Christianity, as also a\nrecognition that God is One and Mahomet is his apostle.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER LVI.\n(1.) \u201cthe Winden tongue, which they call Arnaw.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger was not\nwrong in saying that the Venede tongue was known to the Turks as the\nArnaut; at least it appears in Pianzola (_Grammatica_, _Dizionario_,\netc.) that the country called by the Italians, Illirice, was identical\nwith the Slavonia of the Greeks and the Arnaut of the Turks. This is no\nplace for solving the question, why the Turks should have designated\ntwo people of different origin by the same name; but the circumstance\nserves to support the opinion of several authors (K\u00f6ppen, _Krymsky\nSbornyk_, 1837, 226) that the Turks were not in the habit of calling\npeople of any distinct nationality by the name of Arnaut, but rather\nall those who, being the subjects or brothers-in-arms of the Arianite\nfamily, had distinguished themselves in their struggles with them;\nsuch, for instance, as the Slaves and Albanians or Skipetars, among\nwhom was George Castriota of Slave descent (Jirecek, _Gesch. d.\nBulgaren_, 268). His biographer (Barletius, _Vita Scanderbegi_, etc.,\napud Zinkeisen, _Gesch. d. O. R._, i, 776) thus expresses himself in\nallusion to Topia, the compatriot of the Scanderbeg of the Turks. \u201cHic\nest ille Arianites qui apud Macedones (Slaves) et Epirotas (Albanians)\ncognomento Magnus et dictus et habitus est\u201d, ... etc.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cthe Yassen tongue, which the Infidels call Afs.\u201d\u2014The As,\nYasses\u2014the Alains, Alans of antiquity, are the Ossets of to-day, a\npeople inhabiting a strip of territory in the middle of the great\nmountain range of the Caucasus, and who are believed to be the only\nconnecting link between the Indo-Persian branch and the European branch\nof the great Indo-Germanic race. The population in 1873 was estimated\nat 65,000, of which number, it was supposed, 50,000 were Christians;\nthe remainder being Mahomedans and Pagans, or a mingling of the three\n(_The Crimea and Transc._, i, 296, ii, 2).\nAn unpretending sketch of this interesting people, twice alluded to by\nthe author (in chapter 61 he speaks of them as the Jassen and Affs), is\nhere submitted.\nThe earliest mention of the Alans is made by Josephus (_Wars_, VII,\nvii, 4), and again by Procopius (_De Bell. Goth._, iv, 3, 4), from\nwhom we learn that they dwelt on the shores of the Lake M\u00e6otis and\nto the North of the Caucasus, whence they overran the country of\nthe Medes and of Armenia, until defeated by Artaces who forced them\nto withdraw beyond the Cyrus; similar predatory incursions into\nTauric-Scythia and the West, being arrested by the Goths, who in\ntheir turn were overpowered by the Huns. The invasion of Asia Minor\nby the Alans gave cause of uneasiness to the Roman Empire, but it was\nsuccessfully resisted by Arrian, prefect of Cappadocia (Forbiger,\n_Handbuch der Alt. Geogr._, i, 424), and they were also defeated by\nVakhtang \u201cGourgasal\u201d\u2014Wolf Lion\u2014the sovereign of Georgia, 466\u2013499,\nupon their venturing to invade that kingdom (Brosset, _Hist. de la\nG\u00e9orgie_, I, 153). In 966, the Yasses were subdued by the Russians\nunder Sviatoslaff, after his conquest of Tmoutorakan (Taman); and\nin 1276 they lost Dediakoff, their capital, to the Mongols, whose\nprogress, having the Kiptchaks for their allies, they attempted to\noppose (Karamsin, _Hist. de Russie_, i, 214; ii, 191). After this we\nfind the Yasses in the West, for when Tchaga, the son of Noga\u00ef, led an\nexpedition sent by the Khan Toula Boga, 1287\u20131291, to the Danube, he\nhalted for a while in the country of the Ass, now Moldavia, the capital\nof which bears their name to this day\u2014Yassy (D\u2019Ohsson, _Hist. des\nMongols_, iv, note p. 750). After the death of Noga\u00ef, 1299, at Kaganlik\n(now Kou\u00efalnyk near Odessa), some 16,000 Ass or Alains, more than one\nhalf of which number were fighting men, crossed the river, 1301, and\noffered their services to the Byzantine Emperor by whom they were\naccepted (Pachymeres, _Migne edition_, tom. 144, p. 337).\nAlains were met in Khozary (Crimea) by the ambassadors of Bibars I.,\nsultan of Egypt, 1260\u20131270 (Makrizi by Quatrem\u00e8re, I, i, 213, 218); a\nstatement confirmed by Aboulfeda who says they occupied Kyrkyer, now\nTchyfout Kaleh\u2014Jew\u2019s Fortress (see note 8, p. 176, for this name),\nclose to which is Baghtchasara\u00ef the modern Tatar capital in the\npeninsula; also by Marino Sanudo the Venetian traveller, who wrote,\n1333, that there still were in the country \u201cGothi et aliqui Alani\u201d\n(Kunstmann, _Stud. \u00fcber M. S._, 105).\nThe Alains should be included amongst those populations in the East\nthat were converted to Christianity through the exertions of Justinian;\nbut they relapsed to paganism until a priesthood was settled in their\ncountry by Thamar, the great queen of Georgia, 1174\u20131201, who caused\nnumerous churches to be constructed for their use; and that they\nbelonged to the Greek Church, as stated by Schiltberger, is shewn by\nRubruquis the Gray Friar, for he met at Scacatay some Alans or Aas, \u201cas\nthey were called by the Tartars\u201d, who professed the Greek faith, and\nwith whom he offered up prayers for the dead (_Recueil de Voy. et de\n(3.) \u201cit is the Schurian and not the Greek tongue\u201d.\u2014This Jacob, surnamed\nBarad\u00e6us, or Zanzalus, died as bishop of Edessa in 588, leaving his\nsect in the most flourishing condition; it forms the Syrian church in\nSyria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Nubia, Abyssinia, and other parts.\nHis followers, known as Jacobites, believe that in the Saviour of the\nWorld, both natures are united in one, and herein lies the principal\ndifference from the Greek Church. Although their vernacular is the\nArabic, the Syrian Christians employ the Syrian language in public\nworship (Mosheim, _Ecclesiastical History_, etc., i, 154; Gardner, _The\nFaiths of the World_, etc., ii, 194).\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER LVII.\n(1.) \u201cPera, which the Greeks call Kalathan, and the Infidels call it\nthe same.\u201d\u2014The Genoese were already established at Constantinople when\nManuel I. ascended the throne (1143). Besides the emporium of Copario\nin the city of Constantinople, they possessed Orcu in the suburb\nof Galata (Heyd, _Le Colonie Commer._, etc., i, 330; Desimone, _I\nGenovesi_, etc., 217 _et seq._), which they occupied during the reign\nof the Angelos dynasty, remaining there so long as the Latin Empire\nlasted, but without ever successfully rivalling the Venetians. After\nthe restoration of the Greek Empire at Constantinople by Michel VIII.\nin 1261, their fortunes changed in consequence of the great privileges\nthat were accorded to them by the emperor, which included the cession\nof the suburb of Galata, soon to become the central dep\u00f4t of all their\nsettlements in Greece, on the shores of the Black Sea and of the Sea of\nAzoff, a transfer which probably accounts for the appearance of \u201cM\u00e6otis\npalus, nunc Galatia\u201d, in the list of new names supplied by Codinus\n(_Hieroclis Synecdemus_, etc., 313).\nNotwithstanding the rivalry of the Venetians, who in 1296 even seized\nupon Galata, or Pera as the colony was usually called by the Latins,\nand their frequent quarrels with the Greeks, the commercial prosperity\nof the Genoese settlement went on increasing until about the middle of\nthe 14th century, when the Customs dues amounted to 200,000 hyperperes,\nthose at Constantinople scarcely reaching the sum of 30,000 hyperperes\n(_Niceph. Greg._, ii, 842). This \u201cState within a State\u201d, no doubt\nexcited the cupidity of the Turks after their assumption of power in\nEurope, and the removal of the sultan\u2019s residence to Adrianople; but\nthe Genoese succeeded for a time in averting the threatening danger\nby making numerous concessions, as appears by the treaty of commerce\nconcluded by them in 1387 with Murad I., whose successor, Bajazet, lay\nsiege to Constantinople. This monarch, however, was constrained to turn\nhis arms against Timour, and the capital was spared the horrors of a\nlonger siege. The battle of Angora, so fatal to the Ottoman power,\ndelayed for a few decades only the fall of the Greek Empire and the\ndisappearance of the Genoese.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201ccaused two seas to flow into each other.\u201d\u2014\u201cLa formation et\nl\u2019origine du Bosphore de Thrace,\u201d says Vivien de Saint-Martin (_Desc.\nde l\u2019A. M._, ii, 469), \u201cont donn\u00e9 lieu, chez les anciens comme chez\nles modernes, aux hypoth\u00e8ses les plus aventureuses, jeux hardis de\nl\u2019imagination bas\u00e9s sur de vieilles traditions de convulsions et de\ncataclysmes; les observations de la g\u00e9ologie moderne sont venues\nan\u00e9antir ces syst\u00e8mes d\u2019\u00e9poques moins rigoureuses, en d\u00e9montrant que\nles terrains de nature diff\u00e9rente qui constituent les deux c\u00f4t\u00e9s du\nd\u00e9troit, n\u2019ont jamais pu \u00eatre produit par un d\u00e9chirement, et qu\u2019il\nexiste de toute n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 depuis l\u2019origine m\u00eame des choses.\u201d Other\nauthors, including some philologists (Menn, in _Jahresbericht \u00fcber d.\nGymn. u. d. Realschule zu Neuss_, 1854, 18), think otherwise, so that\nwe need not be surprised if the sages at Constantinople also differed\nin opinion, or that the people there should have included the cutting\nof the strait among the exploits of Alexander.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cTroya, on a fine plain, and one can still see where the city\nstood.\u201d\u2014The ruins of the city of Priam did not exist in Schiltberger\u2019s\ntime any more than they do now; but in the absence of the material\nvestiges that Lechevalier and other travellers, his successors,\nbelieved they found beneath the surface of the earth, there is Homer\u2019s\nadmirable description, precise as that of the most accurate geographer,\nand which restores to us the primitive map of the Trojan plain. I am\nhere under the necessity of quoting at some length, a passage from\nVivien de Saint-Martin\u2019s _Description de l\u2019Asie Mineur_, 489:\u2014\u201cD\u00e8s que\nl\u2019on accepte le plateau de Bounar-Bachi\u201d (a name, says this author,\nderived from two sources of the Scamander) \u201ccomme l\u2019emplacement de la\nTroie hom\u00e9rique, les indications circonstanci\u00e9es et si nombreuses que\nfournit le Po\u00e8te sur les localit\u00e9s environnantes, viennent s\u2019adapter\nd\u2019elles-m\u00eames an terrain actuel.\u201d\n\u201cUne ville de fondation \u00e9olienne qui usurpe le nom d\u2019Ilion, et qui par\nla suite des temps et d\u2019obscurit\u00e9 des traditions, pr\u00e9tendit occuper\nl\u2019emplacement m\u00eame de la cit\u00e9 de Priam, s\u2019\u00e9tait \u00e9lev\u00e9e sur une autre\n\u00e9minence \u00e9loign\u00e9e d\u2019une lieue vers le Nord, et situ\u00e9e non plus sur la\ngauche, mais sur la rive droite du Simo\u00efs. Cette ville est l\u2019Ilium\ndes si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs, l\u2019Ilium Recens; et lorsque les po\u00e8tes ou les\nhistoriens de l\u2019\u00e9poque romaine parlent du berceau de leur race, c\u2019est\ntoujours \u00e0 cette Ilium \u00e9olienne qu\u2019il faut rapporter leurs allusions\net leurs descriptions, car le site r\u00e9el de l\u2019Ilium primitive \u00e9tait\nd\u00e8s lors oubli\u00e9. La nouvelle Ilium est maintenant ruin\u00e9e, comme\nl\u2019Ilium hom\u00e9rique; pr\u00e8s de l\u2019\u00e9minence isol\u00e9e qu\u2019elle occupa, on trouve\naujourd\u2019hui le village Turc de Tchiblak.\u201d\nThe ruins near the sea and at no great distance from Constantinople,\nbelieved by Schiltberger to have been those of the royal city, must\nhave been the remains of Alexandria Troas opposite the island of\nTenedos. It was there that the Russian pilgrim Daniel, and the author\u2019s\ncontemporaries, the archdeacon Zosimus and Clavijo, thought they saw\nthe ruins of Troy, as was the case one hundred years later, 1547, with\nthe French traveller Belon, who landed that he might examine them\nwith the greater facility. At the base of a small hillock, but within\nthe circuit of the walls of the city, were some ancient arches and\nthe remains of two palaces in marble (_Obs. de plusieurs singularit\u00e9s\ntrouv\u00e9es en Gr\u00e8ce, en Asie_, etc.; in Saint-Martin, ii, 8). Belon\npasses lightly over the difficulty he experienced in not finding near\nthis, the supposed site of the Homeric city, the two rivers Simo\u00efs and\nXanthus.\nThe honorary president of the Geographical Society at Paris has\nlately sought to prove, that the city of Priam should be looked for\nwhere Lechevalier conceived it to be, that is to say, at Bunarbash\u00ed,\nwhence Dr. Schliemann believes he is justified in removing it to the\nneighbourhood of Ilium Recens or Hissarlik, as the result of the\nsuccessful explorations conducted by himself with the assistance of his\nwife. Although some English and most German authorities applaud the\nzeal with which his work was performed, and the great importance of his\ndiscoveries to students of arch\u00e6ology, all are not so readily persuaded\nthat the question of the position of Ilium is solved, seeing that the\ntopographical details, as we receive them from Homer, are drawn from\nthe imagination of the poet, rather than after the reality.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cfor all [kinds of] pastime that might be desired in front of\nthe palace.\u201d\u2014The games, chiefly of Eastern origin, that were held in\nthe open space in front of the imperial residence, are mentioned by\nvarious authors. It will here suffice to quote from the writings of a\npredecessor of Schiltberger, and of one who followed after him.\nWhen Edrisi visited Constantinople, circa 1161, sports were held in the\nhippodrome, which he considered the most marvellous in the universe.\nIt had to be passed before reaching the palace, an edifice unequalled\nin its proportions and in the beauty of its construction (_Jaubert\nedition_, 297). Bertrandon de la Brocqui\u00e8re, 1432 (_Early Travels in\nPalestine_, Bohn edition, 1848), thus describes one of the sports he\nwitnessed in the large and handsome square in front of St. Sophia:\n\u201cI saw the brother of the emperor, the despot of the Morea, exercise\nhimself with a score of other horsemen. Each had a bow, and they\ngallopped along the enclosure throwing their hats before them, which,\nwhen they had passed, they shot at; and he who with his arrow pierced\nthe hat or was nearest to it, was esteemed the most expert.\u201d\u2014ED.\n(5.) \u201che has no longer that power, so the apple has\ndisappeared.\u201d\u2014Stephen of Novgorod (_Pout. Rouss. loud._, ii, 14), a\npilgrim passing through Constantinople about the year 1350, certifies\nthat the emperor held in his hand a kind of golden apple surmounted by\na cross. Clavijo says the \u201cpella redonda dorada\u201d was in its place, and\nso, we may conclude, was the cross; because in 1420, Zosimus (_Pout.\nRouss. loud._, ii, 38) saw the cross on the apple that was in the\nemperor\u2019s hand; it is probable, therefore, that these insignias were\nremoved between the years 1420\u20131427, at which latter date Schiltberger\nspent some months at Constantinople after his escape from bondage.\nA short time before the author\u2019s arrival in the city of the C\u00e6sars,\nthe aged Manuel died (1425), and John, his son and successor, was\nforced to sign a treaty of peace with the Turks, the conditions being\nof the most onerous nature; for he was deprived of all his possessions\nwith the exception of the capital, the appanages in the Morea of\nthe Greek princes, and a few fortresses on the shores of the Black\nSea (Zinkeisen, _Gesch. d. O. R._, i, 533); he also covenanted to\npay the sultan an annual tribute of 300,000 aspres, and to make him\nnumerous presents of great value as a mark of personal regard. In\nsuch circumstances the unfortunate monarch must have been under the\nnecessity of laying hands upon all the gold he could come across, and\nSchiltberger\u2019s _bon mot_ on the disappearance of the apple together\nwith the emperor\u2019s power, might be taken literally.\nZosimus relates that the statue which held the apple was distant an\narrow\u2019s flight from the hippodrome, doubtlessly the \u201cfine square for\ntilting\u201d, now known as the Me\u00efdan. The magnificent palace wherein\nreceptions were held, and that excited the admiration of Schiltberger,\nmust have been the Boukoleon and Daphna which adjoined the hippodrome\n(Dethier, _Der Bosphor und Constantinopel_, Wien, 1873, 22). This\nedifice was greatly neglected during the reigns of the last of the\nPal\u00e6ologi, and after his conquest of Constantinople, Mahomet II.\nordered its complete destruction.\nThe other palace noticed was the Blackernes, in which Clavijo (_Hakluyt\nSoc. Publ._ 29) was received by the emperor Manuel. Near it, Bertrandon\nde la Brocqui\u00e8re found a \u201cfausse braie d\u2019un bon et haut mur en avant du\nfoss\u00e9, qui \u00e9tait en glacis except\u00e9 dans un espace de deux cents pas \u00e0\nl\u2019une de ses extr\u00e9mit\u00e9s pr\u00e8s du palais\u201d. This must have been the place\nwhere Schiltberger saw a \u201cget\u00fcll.\u201d[1]\u2014BRUUN.\n(5A.) The statement that the statue was placed on a pillar is\ncorroborated by Cedrenus in his Chronicles, and in the Annals of\nZonaras, in which works we find it stated that the great pillar\nAugusteon was erected in the fifteenth year of the reign of Justinian,\nthe statue being placed on it two years later. When Bertrandon de la\nBrocqui\u00e8re saw the equestrian statue, which he inadvertently calls that\nof Constantine, it grasped a sceptre in the left hand. Pierre Gilles,\nthe naturalist and author, sent to the Levant by Francis I. of France,\nfound portions of this statue in the melting house where ordnance were\ncast, it having been overturned and destroyed in 1523 (_Antiquities of\nConstantinople_, London, 1729); or in 1525, according to the anonymous\nauthor of the Constantiniade. The proportions were colossal, for the\nleg exceeded the height of a man, and the nose was nine inches in\nlength, as were also the hoofs of the horse. Gilles represents that the\nstatue, which was made of brass, faced the East, as if the emperor was\nmarching against the Persians; the right arm was stretched out, and in\nthe left hand was a globe to signify universal power over the whole\nworld, all success in war being attributed to the cross fixed on the\ntop. He was dressed like Achilles, in a coat of mail and shining helmet.\nIt is certain that the globe and cross disappeared fully one hundred\nyears before the arrival at Constantinople of Gilles, whose detailed\ndescription of the statue must have reference to its original\ncondition.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER LVIII.\n(1.) \u201cLemprie; in it is a mountain that is so high, it reaches to the\nclouds.\u201d\u2014French and Italian names commencing with a vowel, commonly\nbecame transformed by the addition of the article which preceded them,\nand in this way, Imbro was altered during the Latin empire to Lembro,\nthe name ordinarily given to the island, whence \u201cLemprie\u201d, and Nembro\nof Clavijo. During a part of the 15th century, Imbros belonged to the\nGattilusio, a Genoese family, and in 1430 became subject to the Greek\nemperor. The island is overspread with the ruins of many castles, the\nwalls of which are covered with inscriptions and armorial bearings\n(Heyd, _Le Colonie Commer._, i, 416).\u2014BRUUN.\n(1A.) The author\u2019s statement may be taken as being the reverse of the\nfact, and that the clouds had descended to the mountain, for the\nhighest point of land on the island of Imbros is only 1959 feet, an\naltitude altogether insignificant when compared to the mountains he\nmust have seen in his journeys; they include the great range of the\nCaucasus, shewing summits at upwards of 18,000 feet, and the noble\nArarat, rising nearly 15,000 feet above the plains of the Araxes. Had\nhis course lay further to the west, Samothraky, at 5248 feet above the\nsea, would have excited his imagination still more.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cwide, large, and thick as a mill-stone.\u201d\u2014The \u201cgolden discs\u201d may\nhave been simply of golden glass or mosion, with which the interior of\nthe dome of St. Sophia was covered, as we are informed by Theophanes\nand Cedrenus, whose description refers to the present dome constructed\nsoon after 559, the thirty-second year of the reign of Justinian.\u2014ED.\n(3.) \u201cI myself was at that same time with the king in Turkey.\u201d After\nthe battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet renewed the siege of Constantinople,\nthe city being succoured by a force of 1200 men sent by Charles VI. of\nFrance, and bodies of troops from Genoa, Venice, Rhodes, and Lesbos.\nMarshal Boucicault withstood the siege with his little army, and on\nquitting the capital in 1399, the command devolved upon Chateaumorant,\nthe emperor Manuel being absent in France, whither he had gone to\nask for assistance. It was fortunate for the Greeks that Bajazet was\nobliged to muster the whole of his forces to enable him to encounter\nTimour\u2019s legions.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER LIX.\n(1.) \u201cChristus is risen.\u201d\u2014The ordinances of the Greek Church have\nundergone but little change since Schiltberger wrote.\nWarm water, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1f73\u03bf\u03bd (\u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 being understood), is always mixed with wine.\nLeavened bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, is now ordinarily\nmade and sold by bakers. It is called \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70, \u201cprossura\u201d in the text,\nand is administered to the people in turn by the priest, who stands at\nthe altar. It is also administered to young children after baptism.\nWednesday and Friday continue to be the ordinary fast days.\nWomen are required to stand apart from the men, so that all churches\nare built with a \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f73\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, or place for women; but this rule is not\nenforced.\nThe so-called \u201ccoleba\u201d, more correctly \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u1f71\u03b2\u03b1, are still given to the\npriests at the \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u1f79\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or service for the dead. This custom is very\nstrictly observed.\nFasts are kept at all the periods indicated, except on the day of the\nAssumption, when there is no fast. The fast for the Apostles commences\non the fifty-ninth day after Easter Day.\n\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f73\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u2014Christ is risen\u2014is sung daily from Easter Day\nto the Day of the Assumption.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER LX.\n(1.) \u201cbecause in the same place there is a breakwater.\u201d\u2014\u201cWann es an\nder selben stat ein get\u00fcll hat.\u201d The identical word \u201cget\u00fcll\u201d appears\nin the editions of 1475 (?) and 1549, but is altogether omitted by\nPenzel, and remains unexplained by Neumann. Professor Bruun (Russian\nedition) interprets it as palisade; I prefer, however, to translate it\nas breakwater, believing that I recognise in the locality described\nby Schiltberger that part of the city on the Sea of Marmora, between\nthe Eptapyrgyon\u2014Seven Towers\u2014and the Acropolis, abreast of which huge\nstones were placed to resist the force of the waves (Cantacuzene,\n_Hist. de l\u2019Empire d\u2019Orient_). An earlier author (Glycas, _Annales_)\nstates that they were conveyed thither for the construction of the\nfortifications. At any rate it is a fact, that the Admiralty chart\nshows what appears to be a submerged reef close inshore in one fathom\nand a half of water, about one half mile to the westward of Seraglio\npoint, and not quite two miles from the Seven Towers.\u2014ED.\n(2.) \u201cMany priests wear white garments at Mass.\u201d\u2014Every member of the\nGreek clergy is buried in complete ecclesiastical attire, but the\nancient custom of interring in a sitting posture, was and is still\nobserved in the case of a bishop only.\nIn a recent account of the obsequies at Constantinople of a bishop of\nthe Greek Church (_The Times_, August 29, 1878), the Correspondent\nwrites: \u201cI was ushered into a small densely crowded church, and on\nwalking forward a few steps, found myself confronted by an aged and\nvenerable prelate, seated on a throne in full canonicals, richly\ndecorated with gold and jewels. He sat perfectly motionless, with his\neyes closed, and holding in his right hand a jewelled rod resembling\na sceptre. Two or three people advanced and devoutly kissed his hand,\nbut he did not return the customary benediction, and gave no sign of\nconsciousness. \u2018Is he asleep?\u2019 I whispered inquiringly to my friend.\n\u2018No, he is dead; that is the late patriarch\u2019.\u201d\n\u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f79\u03c2 is called the \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f71\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, as being emblematic of the Holy\nTrinity. It is not sung in the Greek Church. \u039a\u1f7b\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u1f73\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd is the\nresponse of the people to a prayer repeated by the priest during the\nservice; and it is quite true that \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bb\u1f73\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd is never said in\nGreek churches.\nIt is still the custom to kiss the priest\u2019s right hand, at the same\ntime saying, \u0395\u1f50\u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u0394\u1f73\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1!\u2014Thy blessing, Your reverence.\nThe priest places his left hand on the person\u2019s head and replies,\n\u0395\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1f77\u03b1!\u2014A blessing on thee.\nA man must certainly be married before he enters the priesthood,\nand even before he can obtain the degree of deacon; but it is quite\nimmaterial whether he be a father previous to or after ordination.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER LXI.\n(1.) \u201cafter which, he can take another wife, and she another\nhusband.\u201d\u2014The obscene and demoralising customs attributed to the\nJassen or Yasses are fully and minutely described by the Abb\u00e9 Chappe\nd\u2019Auteroche, who witnessed precisely like ceremonies at Tobolsk, where\nmarriages amongst the natives were thus celebrated (_Voyage en Sib\u00e9rie\nen 1761_, etc., Paris, 1768, i, 163, _et seq._). Olearius notices\nsomewhat similar, but certainly milder, doings at Moscow in his time\n(_Voyages_, etc., 243); and Pitt (_A True and Faithful Account of the\nReligion and Manners of the Mahommetans_, etc., Exon., 1704) recounts\nsomething of the sort as occurring among the Algerines.\nIt would appear, from a report recently made by the Ethnological\nSection of the Imperial Geographical Society of St. Petersburg, that\nsimilar practices, but in a greatly modified form, are in vogue amongst\nthe peasantry in some parts of Little Russia.\u2014ED.\nCHAPTER LXII.\n(1.) \u201cKarawag.\u201d\u2014This must have been the plain of Karabagh, between the\nrivers Kour and Araxes, where Shah Rokh spent the winter of 1420,\nbeing accompanied by his vassals; Khalyl Oullah, the shah of Shirwan,\nand Minutcher, his own valorous brother, being among his guests\n(Dorn, _Versuch einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch._, vi, 4, 549). Like\nSchiltberger, Barbaro and Contarini have called the Kour, Tigris, and\nthe Tigris, Shat or Set.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cthey call the Germans, Nymitsch.\u201d\u2014This term is borrowed from the\nSlaves, who have applied it to the Germans from the earliest times,\neither because the latter spoke an incomprehensible, a dumb language,\nor, as Schafarik explains (_Slawische Alterth\u00fcmer_, i, 442), because\nthey followed the example of the Celts, who called certain German\ntribes settled in Gaul, Nemetes.[1]\u2014BRUUN.\n  [1] Nyemo\u00ef is the Russian adjective for dumb. ED.\n(3.) \u201cthen did the sultan of Alkenier conquer it.\u201d\u2014Sis became finally\nsubject to the Egyptians in 1374\u201375, having fallen into their hands\nupon several previous occasions, to wit, in 1266, 1275, and 1298 (Weil,\n_Gesch. der Chal._, iv, 55, 78, 213, 233). They had frequently appeared\nin force in its neighbourhood, notably in 1278 (Makrizi by Quatrem\u00e8re,\nI, i, 166), a date which nearly corresponds with the year in which the\ncity was taken; a statement that would have been communicated to the\nauthor by his friends the Armenians, the most interested in the fate of\ntheir capital. It need not in this case be supposed that Schiltberger\nconfounded the Mahomedan with the Christian year, and that he conceived\n655 of the Hegira to correspond to 1277. In 655 or A.D. 1257, Egypt was\nin too disturbed a state for the sultan to trouble himself about the\nconquest of Sis.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER LXIII.\n(1.) \u201cwhen Saint Silvester was Pope at Rome.\u201d\u2014The Armenian Church\nteaches that St. Thaddeus, one of the seventy-two disciples of our\nLord, and St. Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, were the first\nto preach the gospel in Armenia; but the actual conversion of the\nArmenians to Christianity was not effected until the reign of Tiridates\nin the 4th century, by St. Gregory, thenceforth named Lousarovitch\u2014the\nEnlightener. He was the son of a prince of Parthia, the assassin of\nChosroes, king of Armenia, who, though not a kinsman of Gregory,\nbelonged to the race of the Arsacid\u00e6 of Parthian origin; St. Gregory\u2019s\nown ancestors, the Surenians, being also a branch of the same royal\nrace. St. Gregory was, therefore, indeed a kinsman of Tiridates, who\nwas the son of Chosroes.\n[2] \u201cthis same king who built the large church at Bethleen, as has been\nalready stated.\u201d\u2014It is singular that Bethlehem is not mentioned at all\nin the chapter devoted to a description of the holy places, so that it\nis just possible the Nuremberg MS. is a copy of the MS. at Heidelberg,\nin which that city is not named. Opinions are greatly divided upon\nthis statement of Schiltberger. In a communication from Bishop\nA\u00efvazoffsky, I am assured that no church whatever was constructed prior\nto the king\u2019s conversion; but it is stated in an apocryphal writing,\nthat Tiridates caused a church to be built at Jerusalem after his\nconversion. On the other hand, Vaillant de Florival (_Dictionnaire\nHistorique_, sub vocem, Dertad) inserts that, after his conversion, the\nking ordered the construction of many churches, one being at Bethlehem,\nand dedicated to the nativity of Christ.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cThe king again became a man, and was, with all his people, again\na Christian.\u201d\u2014This tradition in regard to Tiridates and St. Gregory\nis told with considerable accuracy. Armenian chroniclers relate that\nGregory, having refused to worship the idol set up by the king, was by\nhis orders taken to the fortress in the town of Ardashat, and there\nthrown into a stinking pit, to be consumed, as we read in the text,\nby serpents and other reptiles, but where he nevertheless remained\nmiraculously preserved from all harm during the space of fourteen, or,\naccording to others, fifteen years. The place situated in the valley of\nthe Araxes, is now called Khorvyrab\u2014Dry well\u2014the site of a monastery in\nwhich is shown the saint\u2019s dungeon.\nRhipsime, not Susanna, was the name of the beautiful maiden the\nking sought to corrupt. She was a devout woman who had fled the\nimportunities of Diocletian, and with Guiane and many other saintly\npersons of her sex, was put to a cruel death by Tiridates. The story\ngoes on to say that, for these persecutions of Christians, Tiridates\nwas smitten by the Lord, thereby losing his reason and becoming like\na wild beast; but his favourite sister, Khosroivitouhdt, having had a\nvision, caused Gregory to be summoned out of the pit. That holy man\nrestored reason to the king, who thereupon, with all his subjects,\nbecame converted to Christianity (_The Crimea and Transc._, i, 236,\n(4.) \u201cthe King Derthat and the man Gregory.\u201d\u2014Tiridates was never\nat Babylon, nor was any Infidel people ever converted by him to\nChristianity (Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky); but it should be borne in mind that\nalthough the Chald\u00e6ans and Nestorians of Kourdistan have nothing in\ncommon with the Armenians, they hold St. Gregory in great veneration,\nas he was sent by Tiridates to C\u00e6sarea in Cappadocia to receive\nconsecration at the hands of St. Leontius, the metropolitan of that\ncountry. Schiltberger would have done better to express himself to this\neffect, instead of saying that St. Gregory was placed at the head of\nthe church by the king.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER LXIV.\n(1.) \u201cSaint Silvester.\u201d\u2014Agathange, secretary to Tiridates, and Zenobius,\na disciple of Gregory, speak of a journey to Rome that was undertaken\nby those two personages circa 318\u201319, for the purpose of seeing the\nEmperor Constantine and Pope Silvester, and concluding with them a\ntreaty of peace and friendship. They remained at Rome one month,\nand returned to Armenia charged with honours. Moses of Chorene, the\ncatholicos John, Stephen Assolic, and other Armenian historians prior\nto the 11th century, are united in support of this record of Agathange\nand Zenobius. Later, during the First and Second Crusades, exaggerated\nand absurd details, such as those related by Schiltberger, were\nfabricated; and a monstrous document purporting to be the treaty of\npeace between Constantine and Tiridates\u2014Sylvester and Gregory, called\nTought-tashantz\u2014The Convention\u2014was invented and published after the\nmanner of the false Decretales.\nIt is in consequence of this controverted document that\nArmeno-Catholics and other Armenians have enunciated principles and\ndetails, such as we read in part in the text (Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky).\nWhilst admitting the fairness of the bishop\u2019s observation, I would\npoint out that Schiltberger was simply a ready listener to what the\nnatives, who did not even belong to the Church of Rome, believed to\nbe true; and to what were maintained as incontrovertible facts by the\nArmeno-Catholics, who in his time were by far the more numerous.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201ca king they call Takchauer.\u201d\u2014Cantemir believes that Tekiour is a\ncorruption of \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u1f77\u03bf\u03c5, and he adds that previous to the\nconquest of Constantinople, the emperors were called by the Turks,\nStamboul Tekioury or Takfoury\u2014Masters of the City. Takavor is the\nArmenian for king.\u2014BRUUN.\nCHAPTER LXV.\n(1.) \u201cGregory taught the Christian faith ... as is above stated.\u201d\u2014The\nArmenians believe, and are prepared to prove, that none of the dogmas\nof their faith, as they were received from St. Gregory, have undergone\nany change, and this is why they distinguish themselves as being\nGregorians in opposition to Armeno-Catholics.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cthen he must say it himself, right through.\u201d\u2014The priest prepares\nseveral small loaves, but consecrates one only, and alone recites the\nprayers and psalms during the preparation. He celebrates the Mass\nunassisted, other priests performing the functions of deacons in\ntheir absence. The practice of Low Mass among the Armenians serves to\nprove, that the greater number of that people met by Schiltberger were\nArmeno-Catholics.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cThey place much confidence in our religion.\u201d\u2014This passage in\nNeumann\u2019s edition stands thus: \u201cSie machent vil geuartiezi unsers\ngeloubes.\u201d The word \u201cgeuartiezi\u201d does not appear in the editions\nof 1475 (?), 1549 and 1814; Neumann does not explain it; Koehler\n(_Germania_, etc., _herausgegeben von_ F. Pfeifer; Wien, vii, 1862),\nwho undertook to correct the errors of Neumann, asks \u201cWas ist\ngeuartiezi?\u201d and Professor Bruun (Russian edition) believes it to be\nuntranslatable, although he thinks the author meant to imply that the\nArmenian had borrowed largely from the Roman Catholic Church, or at all\nevents that the one assimilated the other in its types and ceremonies.\nThe word \u201cgeu\u00e4rd\u201d occurs in chapter 20, and is possibly intended for\ngew\u00e4hr; I have rendered it as \u201cright\u201d, or justification from a sense of\nconfidence. Timour\u2019s youngest wife (see page 29) was anxious to satisfy\nher lord, that the letter and ring had been sent to her by one of his\nvassals without any assurance, any confidence on her part, to warrant\nhim in so doing. It appears to me, considering the careless manner in\nwhich the transcriber has performed his work in other places, that a\nsimilar interpretation is to be applied to \u201cgeuartiezi\u201d as to \u201cgeu\u00e4rd\u201d;\nthe words that immediately follow implying prepossession on the part of\nthe Armenians in favour of the Church of Rome\u2014\u201cthey also willingly go\nto Mass in our churches, which the Greeks do not\u201d; apparently because\n\u201cThey place much confidence (have much faith) in our religion\u201d.\u2014ED.\n(4.) \u201ca saint named Aurencius.\u201d\u2014St. Auxentius, priest-martyr, is f\u00eated\nin the Armeno-Catholic Church on December 25th, and in the Greek Church\non December 13th, N. S.\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201cSaint James the Great.\u201d\u2014St. James the Apostle is confounded with\nSt. James bishop of Nisibis, a near relative and contemporary of St.\nGregory \u201cthe Enlightener\u201d.\u2014BRUUN.\n(6.) \u201chis name is Zerlichis.\u201d\u2014Sarghis, St. Sergius, was a martyr.\nThe Armenians celebrate his festival fifteen days before Lent. The\nArmeno-Catholics keep the day on February 24th, and the Greek Church on\nJanuary 2nd (Bishop A\u00efvazoffsky).\u2014BRUUN.\n(7.) \u201cour Lady\u2019s day in Lent, which they do not hold as we do.\u201d\u2014The\nArmenians do not fast in the name of the Twelve Apostles, and the Ave\nMaria occurs only in the services of the Armeno-Catholics. On the day\nof the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, a hymn is chanted, in which are\nintroduced the words that were spoken to Mary by the Angel.\u2014BRUUN.\n(8.) \u201cthen they bury him altogether.\u201d\u2014It is quite true that prayers are\ndaily repeated over a grave for the space of a week, and each person\nattending throws a handful of earth on it as prescribed by the rubric;\nbut the gradual interment is an invention.\u2014BRUUN.\n(9.) \u201cGod forgive thee thy sins.\u201d\u2014Asstwadz toghoukhyo\u00f9n ta mekhytt, is\nhere intended for the words of absolution pronounced by the priest; but\nit would be more correct to say\u2014Asstwadz toghoukhuyo\u00f9n schnorhestz\u00e8\u2014May\nGod grant you absolution. For \u201cOgoruicka\u201d we should read Ogormya or\nOgormyha, the modern phrase being: Ter voghormy\u00e0 yndz\u2014Lord have mercy\nupon us; but Megh\u00e0 Asdoutz\u00f2\u2014I have sinned before God\u2014is more commonly\nsaid by the people.\u2014ED.\n(10.) \u201ccounts, and knights, who are subject to him.\u201d\u2014The\nArmeno-Catholics adopted Low Mass at the commencement of the 14th\ncentury. In ancient times prayers were offered for the sovereign and\nall Christian kings and princes; but never specially for the Roman\nemperor.\u2014BRUUN.\n(11.) \u201cif a priest teaches the Word of God, but does not understand\nand attend to it, he commits a sin.\u201d\u2014There is more to confirm than to\nreject in the information contained in this chapter.\nThe patriarch must be elected by the unanimous voice of the dignitaries\nof the Church, who assemble at the patriarchal seat from all parts for\nthe purpose. This has ever been the custom; but since the annexation of\nEtchmiadzin to Russia, the choice is subject to the emperor\u2019s approval.\nThe preparation of the wafer by women is quite out of the question,\nand it is also forbidden to laymen by the 22nd Canon of the pontiff\nLeon; this duty is performed by deacons as well as priests, who first\ncommunicate and then administer to the people. In reading the Gospel,\nthe priest faces the congregation, thereby turning his back to the\naltar, so that the people necessarily look towards the East.\nThat a priest should separate himself from his wife for three days\nbefore and one day after he celebrates the Mass, is strictly in\naccordance with the Canons of St. Thaddeus; but the observance has\nbecome even more stringent in modern times, the priest being required\nto leave his home and retire to his church during the space of eight\ndays before officiating.\nA Canon addressed by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, to the pontiff\nVertanes, circa 340, requires that the altar shall be furnished with\na curtain; a curtain shall likewise fall in front of the sanctuary,\nwithin which only the minister celebrating the Mass may enter, other\nministers present taking their seats outside according to precedence.\nThis rule has become relaxed in modern times, for deacons as well as\npriests may now stand at the altar.\nAs in the Greek Church, no female qu\u00e6 sit menstrua, may enter a sacred\nedifice.\nIt is always the godfather who carries an infant into church for\nbaptism. If the child to be baptised is out of its infancy, it is\nconducted by a servant of the Church.\nDivorce is not to be obtained in the Armenian Church, except in cases\nof adultery, impotence, and a permanently foul breath.\nThere is no ykonostass or altar screen as in the Russo-Greek church;\nbut an image, that is to say a painting on canvas or panel, graven\nimages not being tolerated, is always over the altar in the middle of\nthe pem, a raised course in the centre aisle, that is kept covered with\ncarpets, silk, cloth of silver or gold, on which are laid candlesticks,\nthe censer, and a Bible resting on a piece of silk, for the priest does\nnot touch the book with his hands.\nThe clergy do not pretend to having the power of absolving the\npenitent; absolution is pronounced in the name of the Almighty.\n\u201cVery gorgeous and majestic\u201d, says Dr. Issaverdens, \u201care the garments\nwhich the Armenians make use of in their religious ceremonies.\u201d\nWhatever the restriction in Schiltberger\u2019s time, it is certain that all\nare now free to read the Gospel. That the contrary was ever the case is\ndenied.\nThe \u201cvarthabiet\u201d\u2014Vartabied\u2014is a doctor of divinity possessing knowledge\nof all holy science, and of all that concerns the study of the Holy\nScriptures, of the Fathers, the Councils, and of dogmatical, moral,\nand disputed theology. The Vartabieds are the first to be consulted\nin all controversies on religion, its rites, and all ecclesiastical\ndiscipline (Issaverdens, _Armenia and the Armenians_, ii, 413, 486;\nBishop Meyerditch Kherimian, _communicated_; _The Crimea and Transc._,\nCHAPTER LXVI.\n(1.) \u201cthat it might be said that thirty Greeks were given for an\nonion.\u201d\u2014This battle between the Armenians and Greeks has reference\nin all probability to the triumph of Thoros II., or Theodore of the\nRoupenian dynasty, over Andronicus, who entered Cilicia at the head\nof an invading army, with instructions from the emperor to seize the\nking and bind him in chains. Finlay (_Hist. of the Byzantine and Greek\nEmpires_, ii, 242) characterises the two reverses met with by that\ngeneral in Cilicia, as shameful defeats. Armenian historiographers\n(Chamich, _Hist. of Armenia_, ii, 195; Issaverdens, _Armenia and the\nArmenians_, i, 300) enter more largely into details, and describe the\ngreat slaughter of Greeks and the multitude of prisoners made, among\nwhom were many chiefs, Andronicus himself effecting his escape with the\ngreatest difficulty.\nThe emperor being greatly concerned upon learning that a large number\nof his men remained in the victor\u2019s hands, sent ambassadors to treat\nfor their ransom. \u201cIf these people were of any use to me,\u201d said Thoros,\n\u201cI would not part with them, but as they are not, take them for what\nyou choose.\u201d The reply to this taunt was the dispatch of a large sum\nof money to the king, for the emperor wished to shew that his men were\nindeed of great value; but upon seeing the treasure, the king exclaimed\nwith affected astonishment: \u201cWhat! are my captives truly worth so\nmuch?\u201d and ordered that the whole of the money should be distributed\namong his troops. The ambassadors stood amazed at this munificence, and\nThoros merely observed to them: \u201cI reward my soldiers that they may\nagain take your chiefs;\u201d which they did do upon the second invasion\nby Andronicus, again receiving large sums of money in exchange for the\nprisoners they made. Chamich sets these events as occurring in the year\n1146, and Issaverdens in 1144; but, according to Dr. Leo Alishan of the\nMechitaristic Society at Venice, author of _Nerses the Graceful, and\nhis Times_, and other historical works, Thoros II. fought and won about\nthe year 1152. This appears to be the only episode in the history of\nthe Byzantine Empire and of the kingdom of Armenia, that in any degree\nassimilates the absurdly exaggerated tale of victory invented by those\nArmenian friends to whom Schiltberger, upon more occasions than this,\nwas too ready to listen.\nA curious incident at the close of the late Russo-Turkish war is\nworth relating, with reference to Schiltberger\u2019s version of the value\nset upon the Greek prisoners. The Porte having entertained the idea\nof raising the taxation, the Armenians determined upon opposing the\nmeasure with vigour, and they accordingly destroyed the house of the\nTurkish Mudjir; after which, the Armenian women planted onions and\ngarlic over the ruins\u2014an act that is looked upon as a sign of the\ngreatest contempt.\u2014(_The Times_, September 26th, 1878.)\nCHAPTER LXVII.\n(1.) \u201cSant Masicia.\u201d\u2014This is the ancient Amastris, now called Amasserah.\nThe architecture of its walls of defence bears witness to Genoese\noccupation, the earliest date of which is not known. In 1346, Amastris\nwas included in the empire of the Pal\u00e6ologi, after having belonged to\nNic\u00e6a, but it is certain that the Genoese were in possession previous\nto 1398 (Heyd, _d. Ital. Handelscolon_, etc., in the _Zeitschrift f.\nd. gesammte Staatswissenschaft_, xviii, 712), at which date they had a\nconsul there. Clavijo calls Amastris, visited by him a few years later,\na Genoese town, where he saw many remains of ancient splendour.\nAfter being for a long time a dependency of the Central Administration\nat Caffa, Samastris, by a decree of 1449, became subject to that\nof Pera to which it had previously belonged, but had been detached\n\u201cpropter inopiam et imbecilitatem loci ipsius Pere\u201d (_Zap. Odess.\nObstschest._, v, 810). Under these circumstances it is very probable\nthat the Genoese were at Samastris at a still earlier period than that\nindicated by Heyd. According to Hammer (_Hist. de l\u2019E. O._, iii, 69),\nthis city fell into the hands of the Turks in the campaign of 1461,\ntogether with Sinope and Trebizond.\u2014BRUUN.\n(2.) \u201cone hundred are quite of brass.\u201d\u2014Schiltberger is scarcely to be\ncharged with exaggeration, if we consider what Manuel Chrysoloras has\nsaid of these walls. \u201cI cannot conceive the walls of Constantinople, in\nregard to their extent and circuit, to have been inferior to those of\nBabylon. The towers are without number; the proportions and height of\nany one tower sufficed to astonish the beholder, and their construction\nand the large flights of steps excited universal admiration.\u201d\nIn stating that there were one thousand churches, the author intended\nto convey the idea that they were very numerous; indeed Clavijo\nestimated the number at three thousand. Schiltberger appears to have\nbeen too much dazzled by the magnificence of the church of St. Sophia,\nto think of entering more largely upon a description of it as others\nhave done.\u2014BRUUN.\n(3.) \u201cA city called Asparseri.\u201d\u2014This is Ak-kerman, a name which is the\nequivalent for Byelgorod, the Slave for White-Town, a place mentioned\nin the Russian and Polish chronicles of the middle ages\u2014called Tchetate\nAlba by the Moldavians, and by the Maghyars, Feierwar, not Feriena as\nit appears through a printer\u2019s error in Dlugocz (_Hist. Poloni\u00e6_ etc.,\nThe Greeks of the Lower Empire changed the name from White-Town to\nMavrocastron, turned by the Italians into Mocastro and Moncastro, as we\nfind it in De Lannoy, Barbaro, and others.\nThere are good grounds for the supposition that the name White was\ngiven originally by the Greeks, because the Aspron mentioned by\nConstantine Porphyrogenitus (_De Adm. Imp._, 167) should be looked for\nin this locality, notwithstanding that the emperor situates it on the\nDnieper, a scribe\u2019s error for Dniester. I know of no author who speaks\nof a White-Town on the Lower Dnieper, and the emperor himself describes\nthe place to which he alludes, as being situated on the bank of the\nriver nearest to Bulgaria.\nIt would appear that the ancient name was not forgotten by the Greeks\nafter they had changed it to Mavrocastron, because some authors of\nthe latter part of the middle ages have alluded to the place as\nLeucopolichnion or Asprocastron; in all probability identical with\n\u201cAsparseri\u201d, and certainly to be distinguished from White-Town, but a\ndistinction that is to be attributed to a mistake on the part of the\ntranscriber. How otherwise are we to account for the appearance in the\nHeidelberg MS., of the native name Asparsara\u00ef\u2014White-Town\u2014and for the\nstatement in the Nuremberg MS. (Penzel\u2019s edition) that Schiltberger\ntook his departure, not from Asparsara\u00ef but from White-Town, direct\nfor Soutchava[1] at that time the chief city of Little Walachia or\nMavrovlachia as Moldavia was then called.\nGrecian colonists were attracted to the neighbourhood of modern\nAk-kerman in very remote times. The Tyrites of Herodotus lived there,\nprobably at Ophiussa, a city known to Strabo. There, also, flourished\nTyras, to be identified perhaps with Turis, ceded by the emperor\nJustinian, A.D. 547, to the Antes, a Slave tribe which may have been\nthe first to give the name of Byelgorod to the place which Edrisi\ncertainly had in his mind, when he wrote about the Coman city distant\none day\u2019s journey from the mouth of the Danube, called Akliba; a name\ncomposed of two Turkish words, Ak and liva\u2014White District\u2014and therefore\npossibly the Coman designation for the \u201cWhite City\u201d of Schiltberger,\nthe Ak-kerman of Aboulfeda.\n  [1] ... ich zu einer Wallachischen Stadt kam, die unter\n  dem Nahmen der weissen Stadt bekannt ist. Von da kam ich\n  nach Sedhof; welches die Hauptstadt der kleinen Wallachey\n  ist.\u2014Page 205.\u2014BRUUN.\n(4.) \u201cLinburgch, the chief city in White Reissen the Lesser.\u201d\u2014This White\nRussia was the eastern part of Galicia, alluded to by Marino Sanudo\nin his letter to the king of France. \u201cRussia minor qu\u00e6 confinat ab\noccidente cum Polonia....\u201d (Kunstmann, _Stud. \u00fcber_ M. S., 105).\nIn distinguishing White Russia from the kingdom of Russia (see page\n50), Schiltberger refers to the grand-duchy of Lithuania, and not only\nto the White Russia of our own times, which then formed part of the\ngrand-duchy.\u2014BRUUN.\n(5.) \u201cgemandan.\u201d\u2014I am indebted to Mr. Mnatzakan Hakhoumoff of Shousha,\nfor the Lord\u2019s Prayer in modern Armenia, and in the tongue spoken by\nthe Tatars west of the Caspian Sea.\u2014ED.\n_The Lord\u2019s Prayer in Modern Armenian._\nHa\u00efr mer vor hersince es sourp egwitzy anoun kho egwesou\u00e8\narkha\u00efouthyoum kho egwitzy kamkh kho vorpess hergwince ev hergry zhatz\nmer hanapazort tour mez a\u00efsor, evthogmez zpardys mer vorpess, ev mekh\nthogoumkh meroz pardabanatz, ev my tanyr zmez y tchar\u00e8, zy kho \u00e8\narkha\u00efouthyoum zorouthyoun ev pharkh havidians. Ammen.\n_The Lord\u2019s Prayer in the Tatar tongue._\nByzum athamuz ky ghyogdasan pyr olsun sanun adun ghyalsun sanun\npadshalygun olsun sanun stadygun nedja ky geogda e\u00efla da d\u00efunyada ver\nbyza gyounluk georagymuz va bagushla byzum tahsurlarumuz nedja ky byz\nbaghishl\u00fcruh byzum tahsurlulara go\u00efma byzy gedah she\u00eftan \u00efoluna amma\npakh ela byzy pyslugden tchounky sanunkidr padshalus ihtiar va hiurmat\nta diunianun ahruna.\nTITLES OF WORKS NOT FULLY CITED IN THE FOREGOING NOTES.\n  Abbott, K. E.\u2014_Southern Cities of Persia_, and _Persian Azerbaijan_;\n    in MS.\n  Abd-Allatif\u2014_Relation de l\u2019Egypte_; trad. et enrichi de Notes par\n    M. Silvestre de Sacy. Paris, 1810.\n  Abd el Hakam. See Makrizi.\n  Aboulfeda\u2014_G\u00e9ographie d\u2019_; trad. par Reinaud et De Slane. 3 tom.\n  Aivazoffsky, Bishop, of Theodosia. MS. Communications.\n  Ali Bey\u2014_Travels of_, 2 vols. London, 1816.\n  Arabshah\u2014_L\u2019Histoire du Grand Tamerlan_; trad. par Vattier.\n  Arnold von L\u00fcbeck\u2014in _Die Geschichtschreiber der Deutschen Vorzeit,\n    herausgegeben_ von Pertz, Grimm, etc. Berlin, 1847\u201367.\n  Aschbach, J.\u2014_Geschichte Kaiser Sigmund\u2019s_, iv. Hamburg, 1833\u201345.\n  Assemanus\u2014_Bibliotheca Orientalis Clemento-Vaticana_, etc., iii.\n  Baier\u2014_De numo Amideo_, in his _Opuscula_. Hal\u00e6, 1770.\n  Benjamin of Tudela\u2014_The Itinerary of_; Asher edition. 2 vols.\n  Berezin\u2014in Prince Obolensky\u2019s _Y\u00e1rlyk Tokt\u00e1mysha k\u2019 Yagailou_.\n  Berezin\u2014_Nashestvye Mongolov_ in the _Journal du Minist\u00e8re de\n    l\u2019Instruction publique_.\n  Blau, O.\u2014_Ueber Volksthum und Sprache der Kumanen_ in the _Zeitschrift\n    der Deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_. Leipzig, Band xxix.\n  Bonfinii, Antonii\u2014_Rerum Ungaricarum Decades quatuor, cum\n    dimidia._ Basile\u00e6, 1568.\n  Bruun, Prof. P.\u2014_Geographische Bemerkungen zu Schiltberger\u2019s\n    Reisen_, in the _Sitzungsberichte der K\u00f6nig. Bayer. Akademie_.\n  B\u00fcsching\u2014_Grosse Erdbeschreibung_, xii. Troppau, 1784.\n  Chardin, Le Chev. J.\u2014_Voyages en Perse et autres lieux de l\u2019Orient_,\n    etc. Langl\u00e8s edition. Paris, 1811.\n  Clavijo\u2014_Narrative of the Embassy_, trans. by C. R. Markham.\n    Hakluyt Society\u2019s publication, 1859.\n  Codinus. See Parthey.\n  Cosmography.\n  De Guignes, J.\u2014_Histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols_,\n  De La Croze, M. V.\u2014_Histoire du Christianisme des Indes._\n  De Lannoy, Le Chev. G.\u2014_Voyages et Ambassades_, 1399\u20131450.\n  Dlugosz, J.\u2014_Histori\u00e6 Poloni\u00e6_ etc., etc. 2 vol. Lipsi\u00e6, 1711\u201312.\n  D\u2019Ohsson, Mouradja\u2014_Tableau g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l\u2019Empire Othoman_, etc.\n  D\u2019Ohsson, C. Mouradja\u2014_Des Peuples du Caucase_, etc. Paris, 1828.\n  D\u2019Ohsson, C. Mouradga\u2014_Histoire des Mongols_, etc. 4 tom.\n    La Haye et Amsterdam, 1834\u20131835.\n  Dorn, B.\u2014_Versuch einer Geschichte der Schirwanshache_, in the\n    _M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie de St. P\u00e9tersbourg_.\n  Dorn, B.\u2014_Geographica Caucasia_, in the _M\u00e9moires de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie de\n    St. P\u00e9tersbourg_, VI ser., vii, 527.\n  Edrisi\u2014Trad. par Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Jaubert, in _Recueil des Voyages et des\n    M\u00e9moires_, tom. v, vi. Paris, 1836\u201340.\n  Engel, J. Chr. von\u2014_Geschichte des Ungrischen Reichs_, v. Wien, 1805.\n  Erdmann, Dr. F. von\u2014_Temudschin der Unersch\u00fctterliche_, etc.\n  Evliya Effendi\u2014_Travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa, in the 17th\n    Century_; trans. from the Turkish, by J. v. Hammer. 2 vols.\n  Fallmerayer, J. P.\u2014_Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt._\n  Forbiger, A.\u2014_Handbuch der alten Geographie_, etc., ii. Leipzig, 1842.\n  Fraehn, C. M.\u2014_Ibn Foszlan, und anderer Araber Berichte._\n    St. Petersburg, 1823.\n  Froissart,\u2014_Les Chroniques de Sire Jean_\u2014in the Panth\u00e9on Litt\u00e9raire.\n  F\u00fcrst\u2014_Geschichte des Kar\u00e4erthums_, ii. Leipzig, 1862.\n  Garcin de Tassy\u2014_M\u00e9moire sur les Noms propres et des Titres Mussulmans._\n  Gardner, Rev. J.\u2014_The Faiths of the World, a Dictionary of all\n    Religions and Religious Sects_, etc., 2 vols. London and Edinburgh.\n  Genebrardi, Gilberti\u2014_Libri Hebr\u00e6orum Chronologici eodem Genebrarde\n    interpreta._ Lugdini, 1609.\n  Gihan Numa. See Mustafa.\n  Gilles, Pierre\u2014_Antiquities of Constantinople._ London, 1729.\n  Gr\u00e9goire de Nazianze\u2014_\u0152uvres_, etc., 2 tom. Paris, 1609\u201311.\n  Gregor\u00e6, Nicephori\u2014_Byzantin\u00e6 Histori\u00e6_, lib. xxiv. 3 vol.\n    Schopen edition, 1855.\n  G\u00fcldenst\u00e4dt, J. A.\u2014_Reisen durch Russland_, ii. St. Petersburg,\n  Hadjy Khalpha. See Mustafa.\n  Hammer, J. von\u2014_Berichtigung der orientalischen Namen Schiltberger\u2019s_\n    in _Denkschriften der K\u00f6niglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften\n    zu M\u00fcnchen, f\u00fcr die Jahre 1823 und 1824_. Band ix.\n  Hammer-Purgstall\u2014_Histoire de l\u2019Empire Ottoman_, etc., trad. de\n    l\u2019Allemand par Hellert, 3 tom.\n  Hammer-Purgstall\u2014_Geschichte der Goldenen Horde in Kiptschak,\n    das ist, der Mongolen in Russland._ Pesth, 1840.\n  Hammer-Purgstall\u2014_Geschichte der Ilchane, das ist, der Mongolen\n    in Persien_, ii. Darmstadt, 1842\u201343.\n  Heyd, Prof. W.\u2014_Die Colonien der R\u00f6mischen Kirche in den von\n    den Tartaren beherrschten L\u00e4ndern Asiens und Europas_, ii.\n    T\u00fcbingen, 1858.\n  Heyd, Prof. W.\u2014_Die Italienischen Handelscolonien_, etc., in the\n    _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die gesammte Staatswissenschaft_, xviii, xix.\n  Heyd, Prof. W.\u2014_Le Colonie Commerciali degli Italiani in Oriente,\n    nel Medio Evo_; Dissertazioni rifatte dall\u2019 Autore e recate in\n    Italiano dal Professore G. M\u00fcller, 2 vols. Venezia e Torino, 1866.\n  Hurmuzaky, E. von\u2014_Fragmente zur Geschichte der Rum\u00e4nen._\n    Bukarest, 1878.\n  Ibn Batouta\u2014_Voyages_, par Defr\u00e9mery et Sanguinetti.\n  Ibn Batuta\u2014_The Travels of_, trans. by Samuel Lee, D.D.\n  Ibn Haukal\u2014_The Oriental Geography of_, trans. by Sir W. Ouseley.\n  Issaverdens, Dr.\u2014_Armenia and the Armenians._ Venice, 1875.\n  Jean du Plan de Carpin\u2014_Relation de_, in _Recueil des Voyages et des\n    M\u00e9moires_, etc.\n  Jirecek, K. J.\u2014_Geschichte der Bulgaren._ Prag, 1876.\n  Jordanus Catalani\u2014_Wonders of the East_, trans. by Col. H. Yule.\n    Hakluyt Society\u2019s Publication, 1863.\n  Kanitz, F.\u2014_Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan_, etc. Leipzig, 1875\u201377.\n  Kazvini\u2014_Kosmographie_, etc.; trans. by H. Eth\u00e8. Leipzig, 1868.\n  Khanikoff\u2014_M\u00e9moire sur Khacani_, in the _Journal Asiatique_, VI,\n    s\u00e9rie, v.\n  Khanikoff\u2014_O nyekot\u00f3ryh\u2019 Ar\u00e1bskyh\u2019 nadp\u00fdseh_, in the _Zap\u00fdssky\n    Imper\u00e1torskavo Geograph\u00fdtcheskavo Obstschestv\u00e0_.\n  Klaproth, H. J.\u2014_Voyage au Caucase et en G\u00e9orgie._ Paris, 1823.\n  K\u00f6ppen, J.\u2014_Kr\u00fdmsky Sb\u00f3rnyk, O dr\u00e9vnostyah yo\u00fajnavo b\u00e9rega\n    Kr\u00fdma y gor Tavrytcheskyh\u2019._ St. Petersbourg, 1837.\n  Kraft\u2014_Die Topographie Jerusalems._ Berlin, 1846.\n  Kunstmann\u2014_Studien \u00fcber Marino Sanudo._ M\u00fcnchen, 1855.\n  Lamansky\u2014_O Slavy\u00e1nah v\u2019 M\u00e1loy Asii._ St. Petersburg, 1859.\n  Leontief\u2014_O Myestopoloj\u00e9ny\u2019ye Orny_, in the _Propilei_, iv.\n  Makrizi\u2014_Histoire des Sultans Mamlouks de l\u2019Egypte_, trad. par\n    Quatrem\u00e8re. Paris, 1837.\n  Mandevile, Sir John\u2014_Voyages and Travels_, etc. London, 1670.\n  Marigny. See Taibout de Marigny.\n  Maundrell, H.\u2014_A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, at Easter,\n  Marignolli, Giov. de\u2019\u2014_Reise in das Morgenland, von Jahr 1339\u20131353_,\n    Meinert edition. Prag, 1820.\n  Mosheimii, J. L.\u2014_Historia Tartarorum Ecclesiastica_, etc.\n    Helmstadii, 1741.\n  Mustafa ibn Abd Allah, called Hadjy Khalpha\u2014_Jihan Numa\n    Geographia Orientalis_, etc. Londini Gothorum, 1818.\n  Neander, J. A. W.\u2014_Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion\n    und Kirche._ Hamburg, 1825\u201352.\n  Neshry\u2014_Geschichte des Osmanischen Hauses_, trans. by Noeldecke\n    in the _Morgenl\u00e4ndische Zeitschrift_, xv.\n  Noroff, A. S.\u2014_P\u00e9lerinage en Terre Sainte de l\u2019Igoum\u00e8ne Russe\n    Daniel_, etc. St. P\u00e9tersbourg, 1864.\n  Nikitin. See Sreznevsky.\n  _Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Biblioth\u00e8que du Roy._\n    Paris.\n  Olearius\u2014_Voyages faits en Moscovie, Tartarie et Perse_, 2 tom.\n    Amsterdam, 1727.\n  Ouseley, Sir Wm.\u2014_Travels in Various Countries of the East, more\n    particularly Persia_, 2 vols. London, 1821.\n  Parthey, G. F. C.\u2014_Hieroclis Synecdemus et notiti\u00e6 Gr\u00e6c\u00e6 episcopatuum_,\n    etc. Berolini, 1866.\n  Peschel, O.\u2014_Geschichte der Erdkunde._ M\u00fcnchen, 1865.\n  Petis de la Croix, F.\u2014_Histoire de Timur Bec._ Paris, 1722.\n  Petitot, C. B.\u2014_Collection compl\u00e8te des M\u00e9moires relatifs \u00e0 l\u2019Histoire\n    de France_, 56 tom. Paris, 1819\u201324.\n  _P\u00f3lnoye Sobr\u00e1ny\u2019ye Ro\u00fasskyh\u2019 Ly\u00e9topyssey._ Complete Collection of\n    Russian MSS.\n  Polo, Marco\u2014_The Book of Ser_, newly translated and edited, with\n    Notes, Maps, and other Illustrations, by Col. Henry Yule,\n    C.B., 2 vols., 2nd Ed. London, 1875.\n  Potocki, Comte J.\u2014_Voyages dans les Steps d\u2019Astrakhan et du\n    Caucase_, etc., 2 tom. Paris, 1829.\n  _Poutesh\u00e9stvy\u2019ye Ro\u00fasskyh\u2019 loudy\u00e9y._ _Travels of Russians._\n    St. Petersburg, 1837.\n  Rashid-eddin\u2014_Histoire des Mongols de la Perse_, trad. etc., par\n    M. Quatrem\u00e8re. Paris, 1836.\n  Raumer, K. G. von\u2014_Pal\u00e4stina_, 4th Ed. Leipzig, 1864.\n  _Recueil de Voyages et de M\u00e9moires_, etc., publi\u00e9 par la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de\n    G\u00e9ographie. Paris, 1839.\n  Rehm, F.\u2014_Handbuch der Geschichte des Mittelalters seit den Kreuzz\u00fcgen_,\n  Rehm, F.\u2014_Tableau G\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Timouriades_, in vol. iii of Rehm\u2019s\n    _Handbuch der Geschichte des Mittelalters_.\n  Richter, E.\u2014_Wallfahrten im Morgenlande._ Berlin, 1823.\n  Ritter, K.\u2014_Die Erdkunde im Verh\u00e4ltniss zur Natur und zur\n    Geschichte des Menschen; oder, allgemeine vergleichende Geographie_,\n    etc. Berlin, 1822.\n  Robinson, Dr. E.\u2014_Biblical Researches in Palestine and adjacent\n    Regions_, etc., 3 vols. London, 1866.\n  Saad-eddin. Saidino\u2014_Chronica dell\u2019 Origine, e Progressi della Casa\n    Ottomana_, by V. Bratutti, 1649.\n  Saint Martin, M. J.\u2014_M\u00e9moires Historiques et G\u00e9ographiques sur\n    l\u2019Arm\u00e9nie_, etc., 2 tom. Paris, 1818\u201319.\n  Saint-Martin, Vivien de\u2014_Description de l\u2019Asie Mineure_, 2 tom.\n  Sanutus, Marinus\u2014_Liber secretorum fidelium crucis super Terr\u00e6\n    Sanct\u00e6 recuperatione et conservatione_, etc.; _Gesta Dei per\n    Francos_. Hanovi\u00e6, 1611.\n  Savelieff\u2014_Monety Joudjydov_, etc. St. Petersburg, 1857.\n  Schafarik, P. J.\u2014_Slawische Alterth\u00fcmer._ Deutsch von Moriz\n    Aehrenfeld; Wuttke edition, ii. Leipzig, 1843\u20131844.\n  Schwandtnerus, J. G.\u2014_Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum veteres_,\n    etc., 3 vol. Vindoboni, 1746\u201348.\n  Seetzen\u2014_Reiseberichte in monatlicher Correspondenz._\n  Silvestre de Sacy, A. J.\u2014_Chrestomathie Arabe_, 3 tom.\n  Spratt, Capt. T. A. B., R.N.\u2014_Travels and Researches in Crete_, 2\n    vols., 2nd Ed. London, 1865.\n  Sprengel, M. C.\u2014_Geschichte der wichtichsten geographiesch\n    Entdeckungen_, 2nd Ed. Halle, 1792.\n  Sreznevsky\u2014_Hojd\u00e9nye za try M\u00f3ry\u2019ya Afan\u00e1sia Nikitina_, in Notes\n    of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, ii, 3.\n  Stephen of Novgorod. See _Poutesh\u00e9stvy\u2019ye Ro\u00fasskyh\u2019 loudy\u00e9y_.\n  Taitbout de Marigny\u2014_Voyage dans le pays des Tcherkesses._ See\n    Potocki.\n  Taitbout de Marigny\u2014_Hydrographie de la Mer Noire._ Trieste, 1856.\n  Telfer, Comm^r. J. Buchan, R.N.\u2014_The Crimea and Transcaucasia_,\n    2 vols., 2nd Ed. London, 1877.\n  Theiner\u2014_Vetera Monumenta Historiam Hungari\u00e6 Sacram Illustrantia._\n  Thunmann. See Schwandtnerus.\n  Tobler, T.\u2014_Die Siloahquelle und der Oelberg_, etc.\n  Wahl, S. F. G.\u2014_Allgemeine Beschreibung des persischen Reiches_, ii.\n    Leipzig.\n  Webb.\u2014_A Survey of Egypt and Syria, undertaken in the Year\n    1422 by Sir Gilbert de Lannoy_; in _Arch\u00e6ologia_, vol. 21, 1827,\n  Weil, Dr. G.\u2014_Geschichte der Chalifen, nach handschriftlichen,\n    gr\u00f6sstentheils noch unben\u00fctzten Quellen bearbeitet_, iv.\n  Weil, Dr. G.\u2014_Geschichte der islamitischen V\u00f6lker._ Stuttgart, 1866.\n  Yakout\u2014(Modjem el-Bouldan) in _Dictionnaire G\u00e9ographique, Historique\n    et Litt\u00e9raire de la Perse_; par C. Barbier de Meynard. Paris, 1861.\n  _Ysvestye Imper\u00e1torskavo Geograph\u00fdtcheskavo Obstschestva_, or, Reports\n    of the Imperial Geographical Society; St. Petersburg.\n  Yule, Col. H., C.B.\u2014_Cathay and the Way Thither_, 2 vols.\n    Hakluyt Society\u2019s Publication, 1866.\n  _Zapyssky Odesskavo Obsshtschestv\u00e0 Yst\u00f3rii Dr\u00e9vnostey._\n  Zinkeisen, J. W.\u2014_Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa_,\n  Zosimus, see _Poutesh\u00e9stvy\u2019ye Rousskyk loudy\u00e9y_.\n_The Names in parenthesis are those employed by Schiltberger._\n  Abel\u2019s offering, 65\n  Abhase (Abkas), an unhealthy country, 43, 178\n  Abhases, the, are of the Greek Church, 78;\n      dress and customs, 43, 178\n  Aboubekr (Abubach), the caliph, 67\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 (Aububachir), son of Miran Shah, 33, 134, 135\n  Adam\u2019s grave, 60, 65;\n      created in God\u2019s image, 71\n  Adana (Adalia) taken by Bajazet, 19, 123\n  Adrianople (Adranopoli), a city in Greece, 6, 39\n  Ahmed (Mirachamat), the amir, 10\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 ben Oweis (king of Babylon), 7, 113;\n  Aidin (Edein), 40\n  Aintab (Anthap), 22;\n      pillaged by Timour, 127\u2013128\n  Akhlat, 126\n  Ak-kerman (Asparseri), 101, 244\u2013245\n  Aksheher, 21, 118\n  Aktam (Achtum), 32, 134\n  Aleppo (Hallapp), taken by Timour, 22, 127, 128\n  Alexander the Great, legends of, 79, 226, 216\n  Alexandria, described, 62;\n      Italians at, 62;\n      taken by king of Cyprus and his allies, 62, 64, 214\n  (Allenklaisser), a great giant, 64, 216\n   Ali (Aly), the caliph, a persecutor of Christians, 44;\n      and giant, 65;\n      chief over all Mahomedans, 67\n  Ali Koutchava\u2019s revolt at Ispahan, 27, 133\n  Amasserah, Amastris (Sant Masicia), 100, 243\n  Anconitans, in Egypt, 214\n  Angora (Angarus, Augury), besieged by White Tatars, 18;\n      a city of Turkey, 40\n  Ani, the ancient capital of Armenia, 126\n  Anjak (Origens), 34, 136\u2013138\n  Ann\u2019s, St., well, 58\n  Annas the high priest, house of, 59, 203\n  (Antioch) Nisibis, 44, 160\n  Arjish (Agrich), 38\n  Armenia (Ermenia), 26, 86\n  Armenians, at Angora, 40;\n      are favoured by Mahomedans, 73;\n      friendly to Germans, 86, 234;\n      their conversion to Christianity, 87, 235;\n      in Cyprus, 88;\n      enemies of the Greeks, 96;\n      are brave and clever, 98;\n      in Cilicia and Syria, 117\n  Arnauts (Arnaw), are of the Greek church, 78, 222\n  Astara (Strana), 34, 136\n  Astrabad (Strawba), 44, 160\n  Astrahan, Hadjy-tarkhan (Haitzicherchen), 49, 172, 136, 139, 141, 142,\n  Babel, tower of (Marburtirudt), 46, 167\n  Badakshan (Walaschoen), 46, 166\u2013167\n      _see_ Babylon\n  Ba\u00efram, the, 70, 221\n  Bajazet (Weyasat, Weyasit), at Nicopolis, 2, 3, 108, 109;\n      slaughter and distribution of prisoners, 4, 7, 112, 113, 115, 116;\n      invades duchy of Pettau, 6;\n      besieges Konieh, 8;\n      occupies Karaman, 10;\n      takes Samsoun, 12, 14;\n      occupies Sebaste, 18;\n      takes Malatia, 18;\n      succours Faradj, 19, 124;\n      conquers Lesser Armenia, 20, 125;\n      capture at Angora, and death, 21, 126;\n      besieges Constantinople, 80, 231\n  Baptism in Greek Church, 82, 83;\n      in Armenian Church, 92;\n      in river Jordan, 205;\n      place of the Saviour\u2019s, 205\n  Barkok (Warchloch, Marochloch), 19, 124, 51, 182, 113\n  Barley planted over Babylon, 24\n  Batoum, 153\n  Battle, of Nicopolis, 2, 4, 107\u2013112;\n  Bavaria (Payren), 1, 38\n  Beard, never cut by Walachians, 38;\n      forbidden to Mahomedans to cut the, 71;\n      not shaven by Greek priests, 83;\n      not shaven by Armenian priests, 92\n  Beasts, wild, in Siberia, 35;\n      Badakshan, 46;\n  Beshtamak (Bestan), 49, 138\u2013139\n  Bethlehem (Bethlaem, Bethlahen), 35, 51, 185, 87, 236\n  Bishop\u2019s see, at Joulad, 34, 139;\n      Sary Kerman or Cherson, 177\n  Bistan (Bestan, capital of Kourdistan), 43, 152\n  Blood of horses, as food, 48\n  Bolgara (Walher), a country, 36\n  Borrak (Waroch), 37, 142\n  Bosphorus, the, 79, 226\n  Boucicault, Marshal (Hanns Putzokardo), 4, 107, 111, 112, 231\n  Bourhan uddin (Wurthanadin) defeated by a son of Bajazet, 10;\n      is executed by Kara Yelek, 16, 121, 114, 120\n  Boursbai (Malleckchafcharff, Balmander), 51, 182\u2013191;\n      his letter to Shah Rokh, 184, 187\n  Bread, not eaten in Siberia, 36;\n      made of millet, 41;\n      not eaten in Jagata\u00ef, 47;\n      nor in Great Tatary, 48\n  Breslau (Bressla), 102\n  Broussa (Wursa, Wurssa), 6, 10, 34, 40\n  Buddhism, 140\n  Bulgaria (Pulgrey), 2, 39, 78, 89\n  Bulgarians, are of the Greek Church, 78\n  Burgundy (Burguny), Duke of; _see_ Comte de Nevers.\n  Burial or disposal of the dead, in Siberia, 36;\n      Circassia, 50;\n      by Mahomedans, 69;\n      Greek priests, 84, 233;\n      Armenian priests, 94, 240\n  Burzelland (Zw\u00fcrtzenland), 38, 144\n  Caiphas, house of, 203\n  Caliph (Calypha), the, 98\n  Calvary, Mount (Calvarie), 57\n  Camels, at Adana, 19, 123;\n      milk and flesh as food, 48\n  Capernaum, 185\n  (Carthago) Kairvan?, 51, 184\n  Caspian Sea (White Sea), 45;\n      sea of Ghel, 160\n  Castle of the Sparrow-hawk, 41\u201343, 149\n  Catalans, in Egypt, 214\n  Caucasus, forest of the, 52, 186\n  Chald\u00e6a (Kalda), 46, 167\n  Chateaumorant (Centumaranto), a prisoner at Nicopolis, 4, 111;\n      defends Constantinople, 231\n  (Chebakh) Kepek?, a vassal of Timour, 26\n  China (Chetey, Cetey), 28, 133\n  Christians, at Samsoun, 13;\n      on the Jordan, 60;\n      conversion of, to Mahomedanism, 74, 222;\n  \u201cChristians of the girdle\u201d, 190\n  Christmas in the Armenian Church, 93\n  Church, of the Holy Sepulchre, 57, 198, 60;\n  Churches at Jerusalem, 58\u201360, 196, 197\u2013203\n  Churches in Armenia, building of, 94\n  Circassia (Starchas, Zerckchas), 50, 99\n  Circassians (Ischerkas), slave dealers, 50, 178, 179;\n      are of the Greek Church, 78;\n      Tcherkess and Zikhes, 177\n  Citadel on Mount Sion, 59, 203\n  Coins, of the Golden Horde, 139, 141, 142;\n      of Jagata\u00ef, 170;\n      of the khan Uzbek, 173;\n      of the Bolgars, 174\n  Constantine, the emperor, 80, 83, 84, 89\n  Constantine, ancient city of, 151\n  Constantinople (Stampol, Istimboli), 4, 39, 52, 79, 80, 83, 84, 96,\n  Conversion of Christians to Mahomedanism, 74, 222\n  Corn in Kiptchak (Ephepstzach), 49\n  Cotton grown in Ghilan, 44\n  Couriers in Egypt, 52\u201353;\n      in Russia, 192\n  Court ceremonials in Egypt, 52, 54, 192\n  Cracow (Krackow), 101\n  Croatia (Windischy land), 6, 113\n  Cross, shining, at Angora, 40\n  Cyprus I. (Zypern, Zyperen), 19, 62, 64, 88;\n      John, king of, captured by the Egyptians, 187\n  Damascus (Damaschk, Tamaschen), siege of, 22;\n      destruction of the great mosque, 23, 128\u2013129\n  Daniel the prophet, where buried, 59\n  Dardanelles (Hellespant and Poges for Boghaz), 79\n  Darial pass, the, 89\n  D\u2019Artois, Philippe, Comte d\u2019Eu, 109\n  Date-plum, the, 47, 168\n  David, King, where buried, 59\n  Dead, prayers for the, in Armenian Church, 94\n  Death, by cutting in two parts, 19;\n      trampling under the hoofs of horses, 28, 133;\n      strangulation, 33;\n      sawing in two parts, 51, 183;\n      impalement, 51;\n      poisoning, 154;\n      breaking on the wheel, 183\n  Delhi (Dily), besieged by Timour, 26, 131;\n      capital of Lesser India, 47\n  Denisly (Donguslu), 40, 148\n  De Noillac, Philibert, grand-master of Rhodes, 109, 110\n  Desert, at the end of the earth, 35;\n  Despot of Servia, 3, 111\n  \u2014\u2014 of the Morea, 228\n  Devlett byrdy (Doblabardi), 37, 142\n  Divorce in Armenia, 94, 241\n  Dobroudja, the, 110\n  Dogs, in Siberia, 35;\n      where they are eaten, 35\n  Dokouz Khatoum, protectress of Christians, 157\n  Don R. (Tena), 49\n  Dragons, in the desert of Arabia, 46;\n  Dyarbekr (Hamunt, capital of Black Turkey), 43, 152\n  (Edigi); _see_ Ydegou\n  Elephants, at battle of Angora, 21;\n      in India, routed by camels, 25, 132;\n      in Lesser India, 47\n  Elias, his burial-place, 52;\n      chapel on Horeb, 55;\n      a prophet of the Mahomedans, 188\n  Emperor, the Greek, 101\n  Enoch, his burial-place, 52;\n      a prophet of the Mahomedans, 188\n  Ephesus (Asia), 40, 146\n  Epiphany, the, in the Armenian Church, 93\n  Erivan (Erban), 33, 136\n  Ersingan (Ersinggan), taken by Bajazet, 21;\n      capital of Lesser Armenia, 43;\n      a kingdom of Armenia, 86\n  Esaias, the prophet, 59\n  Ethiopia, 209\n  Eucharist, the, in Syrian Church, 78;\n      in Greek Church, 81, 232;\n  Eve, the grave of, 60\n  Faradj (Joseph, Jusuphda), 19, 124, 51, 122\n  Fasting, among Mahomedans, 70;\n      in the Greek Church, 82, 83, 232;\n      in the Armenian Church, 93, 239\n  Felt, raising to the White, 48, 172\n  Female, warriors in Great Tatary, 37;\n      debauchery in Egypt, 52, 191\n  Fictions, battle of serpents and vipers, 12;\n      Timour lies uneasy in his grave, 30;\n      castle of the sparrow-hawk, 41\u201342;\n      (Phiradamschyech), a tercentenarian, 45, 162;\n      destruction of mirror at Alexandria, 63, 215;\n      the giant\u2019s shin-bone, 64, 216;\n      the Bosphorus, a cutting by Alexander the Great, 79, 226;\n      the emperor Constantine, 83;\n      Tiridates is turned into a pig, 88, 236;\n      Tiridates, the dragon and unicorn, 90;\n      the forty Armenian knights, 96\u201398\n  Fire worship, 65\n  Fish, exported from Tana, 49, 175;\n      in the R. Jordan, 60\n  Florentines, in Egypt, 214\n  Fortress, of Alindsha, 24, 44;\n      Gallipoli, 39;\n      Kilia, 101. See these names\n  Frioul (Frigaul), 89\n  Frisingen, 102\n  Furs, articles of commerce, at Bolgar, 174;\n      Astrahan, 174\n  Gabriel the archangel, 57\n  Gaetans, in Egypt, 214\n  Galata (Kalathan), 79, 225\n  (Galgarien); _see_ Khozary\n  Galleys, in Danube, 4, 38;\n      sea of Azoff, 49;\n      of Cyprus, 63\n  Gallipoli (Karipoli, Chalipoli), 6, 112, 39\n  Ganges, R. (Rison), 61, 210\n  Genoese, at Samsoun, 13, 119;\n      relations with Persia, 154;\n      secure the silk of Ghilan, 160;\n      at defence of Constantinople, 231\n  Georgia (Gursey, Kursi), a kingdom, 34, 43\n  Georgians (Gorchillas, Kurtzi), are Christians and warlike, 43;\n      are of the Greek Church, 78\n  Gharny (Kirna), 44, 158\n  Giant, story of a, 64, 216\u2013219\n  Ginger, in Malabar, 62\n  Giraffe (surnasa), in Lesser India, 47, 169\n  Gold, of India, 26;\n      in river Ganges, 61, 210\n  Golden Horde; _see_ Great Tatary\n  Gospel, the (Evangely), 77;\n      not read in Armenia, 96, 241\n  Gothia (Sudi), 50\n  Goths (Kuthia) are of the Greek Church, 78\n  Grass poisoned, 23\n  Greeks, in Lazistan, 43;\n  (Greiff, Hannsen), executed after Nicopolis, 5\n  Hair, never cut by Walachians, 38;\n      not cut by Armenian priests, 92\n  (Hamunt) Kara Amid; _see_ Dyarbekr\n  (Hanns, burgrave of Nuremberg), 3\n  Herat (Herren, Hore), 30, 45, 161\n  Herman (of Cily), 3\n  Hermanstadt (Hermenstat), 38\n  Hermon (Germoni), 52, 185\n  Herod, house of, 58, 202\n  Hillah, 187\n  Hippodrome at Constantinople, 79, 228\n  (Hoder of Hungary), 7\n      when possessed by the Mahomedans, 60, 207\n  Holy Sepulchre, the, 57\u201360, 198\u2013200\n  Holy Trinity, the, rejected by the Greeks, 81;\n      accepted by the Armenians, 87\n  Horeb (Oreb), 55\n  Hormuz I (Hognus) 45, 164\n  Hormuzd, worship of, 150\n  Horse flesh, the food of Tatars, 48\n  Horses, in Siberia, 35\n  Hospitals, at Broussa, 40;\n      at Jerusalem, 58, 201\n  Houlakou\u2019s tomb at Meragha, 157\n  Houses, in Adrianople, 39;\n  Hungarians, the, 3\n  Hungary (Ungern, Ungeren), 1\u20132, 6, 38, 39, 89\n  Ibraila (Ubereil), 38\n  Imbros I (Lempric), 80, 230\n  Impalement in Egypt, 51\n  Incense, employed in Armenia, 96;\n      of Arabia and India, 96\n  India, Greater, 45, 46\n  (Indian Sea), 47\n  Iron cage, the, 126\n  Iron gate (Temurtapit), on the Danube, 2, 39;\n      Darial pass, 89;\n  Ispahan (Hisspahan), occupied by Timour, and Ali Koutchava\u2019s revolt,\n  Italians, at Samsoun, 13;\n      Alexandria, 62\n  Jacob, grave of, 60, 195\n  Jacobites, in Syria, 78, 190;\n      their chapel at Jerusalem, 200, 225\n  Jagata\u00ef (Zakatay), 47, 170\n  Jakam (Zechem), 51, 183\n  Jalal uddin (Segelalladin), 37, 141, 158\n  Janyk (Genyck, Tcyenick, Zegnikch), province of, 12, 41\n  Jambolouk (Inbu) Tatars, the, 50, 180\n  Jehangir (Zychanger), 32, 134\n  Jengiz Khan, 113, 166\n  Jericho, valley of, 60, 206\n  Jerusalem (Kurtzitalil), 51, 56, 57\u201360, 198, 93\n  Jews, at Caffa, 49, 176;\n      Jerusalem, 60\n  Jihoun, R., 186\n  Josophat, valley of, 52\n  Joulad (Setzulet, Zulat), 34, 138, 49\n  Justinian, statue of, at Constantinople, 80, 228\u2013230\n  Kaffa; _see_ Caffa\n  Kais or Keis I (Kaff), 46, 165\n  Kaisarieh (Gaissaria), 16, 41\n  Ka\u00eftak (Kayat) Tatars, the, 50, 179\n  Kaliakra (Kallacercka), 39, 145\n  Karabagh (Scharabach, Karawag), 31, 134, 86, 234\n  Karaman, at war with Bajazet, 7;\n      his capture and execution, 8, 118\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 conquest of, by Bajazet, 7\u201310;\n       a country in Great Turkey, 40\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 (Laranda), the capital of Karaman, 7, 118, 40\n  Karamora, Black River, 210\n  Kashan (Kaffer), 34\n  (Kaylamer) Kalamila?, 52, 188\n  Keghart monastery, 159\n  Kemakh (Kamach), 43, 150\n  (Kennan) Kermian?, 40\n  Kepek (Tchebackh), a ruler of the Golden Horde, 37, 141\n  Kerak, in Arabia, 217\n  Kerasous (Kureson), 41, 148, 43\n  Kerym byrdy (Kerumberdin), 37, 142\n  Khan, the, of White Tatary, 16;\n      of Chetey, 28\n  Kharput (Kayburt), 43, 150\n  Khelat (Gelat), 44, 158\n  Khorasan (Horossen), a kingdom of Persia, 30, 45, 161\n  Khozary (Galgarien), 52, 189\n  Khwarezm (Horosaman), 49, 172\n  Kiankary (Wegureisari), 40, 148\n  Kilia (Gily), 101\n  (King-sultan); _see_ Mamelouk sultan\n  (Kings of Great Tartaria), 36\u201337, 140\u2013143\n  Kiptchak (Distihipschach, Ephepstzach), 37, 49, 189\n  Kirman (Kerman), 45, 163\n  Kishm I (Keschon), 45, 164\n  Knitted shoes, worn in Ghilan, 44\n  (Kocken), in Danube, 38, 144;\n      Black Sea, 100\n  Kohrasar (Karasser), 43, 151\n  Konieh (Konia), 7\u20139, 40\n  Koran (Alkoray, Alkoran), the, 67, 76\n  Kour, R. (Chur, Tygris), 86, 234\n  Kourdistan (Churten, Churt), 31, 43, 152\n  Koutahieh (Kachey), 40\n  Kronstadt or Cronstadt; Brassova (Bassaw), 38, 144\n  (Kuchler, Ulrich), killed at Nicopolis, 4\n  Kyrkyer (Karckeri), 49, 176, 224\n  (Lambe), Quilon?, 61, 212\n  Landshut (Landzhut), 102\n  Lapis lazuli, in the church of St. Sophia, 80\n  Lazistan (Lasia), 43, 150\n  League, a, defined by the author, 46, 167\n  Leah (Lia), the grave of, 60\n  Lemburg (Limburgch), 101\n  Lemon (liuon), the, employed in Malabar against serpents, 62;\n      history of, 213;\n      employed in Ceylon against leeches, 213\u2013214\n  Lezghistan (Lochinschan), 34, 136\n  Lightning, death by, courted in Circassia, 50, 178\n  Lions, in Babylon, 47;\n      Lesser India, 47\n  Lombardy (Lamparten), 89\n  Lord\u2019s prayer, in Armenian, 102;\n  Lucca (Lickcha), 34\n  Magnesia (Maganasa), 40, 147\n  (M\u00e4g), Mahhy? destructor of gods, a title of Boursba\u00ef, 52, 187\n  Mahomedans, their sects, 65, 73\u201374, 221;\n      neglect of prayer, how punished, 69;\n      places for worship, 69, 220;\n      burial of the dead, 69;\n      call to prayer, 70;\n      grief for the dead, 72;\n      wine forbidden and the reason why, 72;\n      good custom in trade, 73;\n      estimate of the Saviour, 75\u201376;\n      of Christianity, 76\u201378\n  Mahomet, 44;\n      birth and appearance of, 65, 219\u2013220, 78;\n      becomes Caliph, 67;\n      doctrine and laws, 67\u201375;\n      held the Caucasus in veneration, 186\n  Malabar (Lambor), where pepper grows, 61, 211\n  Malahidah sect, the; _see_ the Day\n  Malatia (Malathea), 18, 122\u2013123\n  Mamelouk sultans, captives sent to, by Bajazet, 7, 113;\n      their succession, 51, 182;\n      court ceremonials, 52, 54, 192;\n      pigeon service, 53, 192\n  Mamre (Mambertal), 56, 194\n  (Manstzusch), 99, 143\n  (Mansur), a brother of Aboubekr, 33, 135\n  Mardin (Merdin), 43, 154\n  Mare\u2019s milk drank fasting, 48\n  Marriage customs, of the Yasses and Georgians, 85, 234;\n      Armenians, 95\n  Mary Magdalen, 58\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 Cleophas, 58\n  Massanderan, 26, 29, 44\n  Meat, raw, eaten by Tatars, 48\n  Medina (Madina), 71\n  Mehdy, the, or celestial judge, Shyite belief of him, 186;\n      Sunnite belief, 187\n  Meisen (Neichsen), 102\n  Menagerie at Babylon, 47, 168\n  Meragha (Maragara), 44, 157\n  Mile, an Italian, defined by the author, 46, 167\n  Milk of mares and camels for food, 48\n  Millet, in Siberia, 36;\n      Great Tatary, 48\n  Mingrelia (Magrill, Megrellen), 43, 153, 99\n  Mingrelians, are of the Greek Church, 43, 78\n  Mintash or Mantash (Mathas), 51, 183\n  Miracle, at Samsoun, 12;\n      by St. Demetrius, 39, 146;\n      at Angora, 40;\n      the Withered tree, 56;\n      Holy Sepulchre, 57, 199;\n      walls of Constantinople, 84;\n      St. Silvester, 88;\n      St. John the Evangelist, 147\n  Miran Shah (Mirenschach), 30, 32, 133, 134, 114\n  Mirror at Alexandria, 62\u201363, 215\n  Mirtcha, John (Werterwaywod), voyevoda of Wallachia, 2, 110, 145\n  Miszr Khodja (Miseri), 32, 134\n  Mitrovitz (Mittrotz), 6\n  Mocenigo, Giovanni, 110\n  Mohammed, the descendant of Ali, 186\n  (Molwa), an infidel priest, 65, 219\n  Mosque at Damascus, described, 22, 128;\n  Mouhammed, son of Bajazet, defeats Bourhan uddin, 10;\n      is ruler of Sebaste, 18, 121\n  Mouravieff, M. Andr\u00e9y, 147\n  Nahitchevan (Nachson), 44, 156\n  Neapolitans, in Egypt, 214\n  Nevers, Comte de (Duke of Burguny), at Nicopolis, 3, 111;\n      intercedes for several nobles, 5, 112;\n      at Gallipoli and Broussa, 6\u20137, 112\n  Nicopolis, siege and battle of, 2\u20134, 107\u2013112, 100\n  Nisibis (Antioch), 44, 160\n  Noah, 44\n  \u201cNone\u201d, Nono, ruler in Badakshan, 166\n  Olives, Mt. of, 59\n  Olja\u00eftou, tomb of, 132\n  Omar, the caliph, 67\n  (Origens); _see_ Anjak\n  Orsova, 107\n  Ossets, Alans (Yassen, Aff), are of the Greek Church, 78;\n      marriage customs, 85, 234;\n  Ostriches, in Lesser India, 47\n  Othman, the caliph, 67\n  Oulou Mohammed (Machmet), 37, 142\n  Ormi, the Ur of Jordanus Catalani, 157\u2013158\n  Ourroum Kaleh (Hrumkula), 22, 127\u2013128\n  Palaces at Constantinople, 79, 228\n  Parrots, in Lesser India, 47\n  Pearls, at Kishm I, 45\n  Pelicans, in Arabia, 54, 193\n  (Pentznawer, Wernher), killed at Nicopolis, 4\n  Pergri, 126\n  Pepper, cultivation of, at Malabar, 61, 62\n  Pettau (Petaw), Duchy of, 6\n  (Phiradamschyech), a tercentenarian, 45, 161\u2013162\n  Pigeons, carrier, in Egypt, and their training, 53, 192\n  Pilate, house of, 58, 202\n  Pirates in Black Sea, 100\n  Pisans, in Egypt, 214\n  Poland (Polan), 102\n  Poti (Kathon, Bothan), 43, 153, 99\n  Poulad (Polet), 37, 141\n  Prayers for the dead, in the Armenian Church, 94\n  Preachers, Order of, 44, 159\n  Precious stones, at Hormuz, 46;\n  Quilon? (Lambe), 61, 212\n  Raw meat as food, 48\n  Rebecca\u2019s grave, 60\n  Regensburg, 102\n  Relics, of St. Catherine, 55;\n      St. John Chrysostom, 58, 202;\n      St. Nicholas, 147;\n      St. Joachim, 202\n  Rhinosceros? in Badakshan, 167\n  Rhodes, knights of, Smyrna their possession, 147;\n      at taking of Alexandria, 214;\n      at defence of Constantinople, 231\n  Rice, grown in Ghilan, 44\n  Richartinger, Leonard (Lienhart), the author\u2019s master, 1;\n      unhorsed at Nicopolis, 3;\n      killed in that battle, 4\n  Rivers that flow out of Paradise, 61, 209\u2013210\n  Robbers, in Circassia, 50, 178\n  Roman Catholics, at Makou, 44;\n  (Rom) Asia Minor, 51, 52\n  (Rumany) Abyssinia?, 52, 190\n  Russia (Rewschen), 50, 89\n  Russia (Reissen), White, the Lesser, 101, 245\n  Russians (Rivssen), are of the Greek Church, 78, 137\n  (Sadurmelickh), 37, 144\n  St. Auxentius (Aurencius), 93, 239\n  St. Bartholomew (Bartlome), 87, 235\n  St. Clement, 50, 177\n  St. Constantine, 83\n  St. Demetrius (Sanctiniter), 39, 146\n  St. George (J\u00f6rig), patron saint of Georgia, 34\n  St. Gregory, the \u201cIlluminator\u201d, 87\u201393, 235\u2013238\n  St. Helena, 197\n  St. James the Less, 59, 206\n  St. Joachim, 202\n  St. John the Baptist, 58, 201, 205\n  St. John the Evangelist, 40, 147, 58\n  St. John Chrysostom, 58, 202\n  St. Nicholas, 40, 147\n  St. Rhipsime (Susanna), 87, 236\n  St. Sergius (Zerlichis), 93, 239\n  St. Silvester, 87\u201390, 237\n  St. Thaddeus (Thaten), 87, 235, 160\n  Salonica (Salonikch), 39, 145\n  Samarkand (Semerchant), 28, 33, 47, 154\n  Saracens, 51, 137\n  Sarah, the grave of, 60\n  Sara\u00ef, New, 173\n  Sara\u00ef-Banou, 137\n  Saros (Seres), 39\n  Saroukhan (Serochon), 40\n  Sary Kerman (Serucherman), 50, 176\u2013177\n  Savages, in Siberia, 35, 139\n  Save, R. (Saw), 6\n  Saxony, 102\n  (Schenisis) Shems uddin?, 40\n  Schiltberger, Johann, addresses the reader, 1;\n      at battle of Nicopolis, is made a prisoner and bound with a cord,\n      his life is spared, 5;\n      suffers from wounds, 7;\n      his duty as runner to Bajazet, 7;\n      attempts to escape, 10\u201312;\n      sent to the relief of Sebaste, 17;\n      sent to Egypt, 19;\n      becomes Timour\u2019s prisoner, 21;\n      is subject to Shah Rokh and Miran Shah, 30\u201331;\n      passes into the hands of Aboubekr, 33;\n      sent into Great Tatary, 33;\n      enumerates the countries he visited, 38\u201350;\n      is three months at Gallipoli, 39;\n      at the siege of Constantinople, 80;\n      spends three months at Constantinople, 81;\n      is in the service of \u201cManstzusch\u201d, 99;\n      effects his escape, 99;\n      voyage to Constantinople, 100;\n      enters that city, and is taken before the Emperor, 101;\n      returns to his home, 101\u2013102\n  Schliemann, Dr., 228\n  (Schyackin), 51, 183\n  Scorpions, in Badakshan, 167\n  Scutari (Skuter), 79\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 (the Great) or Black, 79\n  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 (the White), or Caspian, 45, 161\n  Sea monsters, in the Tigris, 47\n  Sects, Mahomedan, 65, 73\u201374\n  Serpents, at Samsoun, 12;\n      Badakshan, 46;\n      Desert of Arabia, 46;\n      near the Tigris, 47;\n      in Malabar, 62\n  Servia (Iriseh), Stephen, prince of, 3, 111, 109\n  Shabran, (Samabram), 34, 135\n  Shabran-tcha\u00ef, 135\n  Shahinshah (Schachister), 27\n  Shaubek, in Arabia, 217\n  Sheeraz (Schiras), 45, 162\u2013163\n  Shekis, the, 161\n  Sheky (Scheckhy), 44, 161\n  Shemah\u00e0 (Schomachy), 45\n  Schirwan (Schuruan), 34, 45\n  Shishman (Schuffmanes), 13, 120, 107\n  Shoeless, Order of the, 34, 139\n  Shurky (Scherch), 23, 129\n  Shvishtov (Schiltaw), 2, 108\u2013110\n  Shyites (Raphak), at Rey, 44, 156;\n      destructors of mosque at Damascus, 129;\n      their place of pilgrimage, 187\n  Siberia (Ibissibur), a country, described, 34\u201336, 139\n  Sibir or Isker (Ibissibur), a city, 49, 174;\n      residence of the Sha\u00efbani Khans, 174\n  Siege, of Nicopolis, 2, 107\u2013109;\n      Sebaste, by Kara Yelek, 15;\n      Sebaste by Timour, 20, 125;\n      Damascus, 22;\n      Constantinople, 80, 231, 226\n  Sigismund, King of Hungary; appeals to Christendom, and invades\n    Bulgaria, 1\u20132;\n      occupies Widdin, 2;\n      besieges Nicopolis, 2;\n      at battle of Nicopolis, 2\u20134, 107, 109;\n      passes the Dardanelles, 6\n  Silesia (Slesy), 102\n  Silk, at Astara, 34;\n      Lezghistan, 34;\n  Silvester, Pope, 87\u201391\n  Simontornya (Syn\u00fcher), Stephen, 5, 112\n  Sindjar, 154\n  Sinope (Zepun, Synopp), 41, 100, 120\n  Sis (Syos, Siss), a kingdom of Armenia, 86;\n  Sivas, or Siwas (Sebast, Tamastk, Damastchk), 10, 118, 15\u201318, 20,\n  Sledges, in Siberia, 35\n  Smyrna (Ismira), 40, 147\n  Snakes, in Siberia, 35\n  Solkhat (Vulchat), capital of Kiptchak, 49, 175\n  Solomon, temple of, 58, 59\n  Soukhoum Kaleh (Zuchtun), 43, 152\u2013153\n  Souleiman, son of Bajazet; spares the author\u2019s life, 5;\n      intercedes for re-captured prisoners, 12;\n      goes to the relief of Sebaste, 17, 121;\n      defeats the (White Tartars), 19\n  Souleiman Shah (Suleymanschach), a counsellor of Timour, 25\n  Soultany\u00e0 (Soltania), 26, 132, 44\n  Soutchava (Sedschoff), 101\n  Spices, at Damascus, 24;\n      Malabar, 62\n  Sracimir, John (Hannsen of Bodem), 5, 112, 107\n  (Stainer, little), killed at Nicopolis, 4\n  Storks, near the Tigris, 47\n  Strength, feats of, by Aboubekr, 33;\n      (Sadurmelickh), 37\n  (Sygun), or Zikhes; _see_ Circassians\n  Syhoun, R., 186\n  Syrians, at Caffa, 49;\n      are Jacobites, 78, 224\n  Tabreez (Thaures), a kingdom of Persia, 30, 32;\n      chief city of all Persia, 44, 154\n  Taharten (Tarathan), 21, 125, 126\n  Takavor (Takchauer), the Armenian for king, 90, 238\n  Takfour, title of Greek emperor, 188, 238\n  Tamerlane; _see_ Timour\n  Tana (Alathena), now Azoff, 49, 175, 79, 138\n  Tartars or Tatars?, 171\u2013172\n  Tatars, White, besiege Angora, 18;\n      vanquished by Souleiman, 19;\n      desert Bajazet at Angora, 21, 117\n      steppes of, 50\n  Tatary, White, 7, 114\u2013116\n  Tchadibek khan (Sedichbechan), 36, 140\n  Tell el-faras (Talapharum), 52, 185\n  (That) Mourtadd? Crimean Goths so called, 50, 176\n  Tiflis (Tiffliss), a kingdom of Armenia, 86, 126\n  Timour, at Sebaste, 20, 125;\n      at Angora, 21;\n      besieges Damascus, 23, 128\u2013129;\n      destroys \u201cBabylon\u201d, 24;\n      invades Lesser India, 24\u201326, 130\u2013131;\n      expedition to Masanderan, 27;\n      besieges Ispahan, and his treachery there, 27, 133;\n      expedition to China, 28, 133;\n      illness and death, 29, 133;\n      lies uneasy in his grave, 30;\n      his capital, 33;\n      cruelties, at Sebaste, 20, 125;\n  Timour Tash, 118, 123\n  Tirgovisht (T\u00fcrckisch), 38\n  Tiridates (Derthatt), king of Armenia, 87\u201391, 236\u2013237, 159\n  Towers of human heads, at Damascus, 23;\n      Ispahan, 27\n  Transylvania (Sybenb\u00fcrgen), 38\n  Trebizond (Trabessanda), a kingdom, 41, 79, 150\n  Troy (Troya), its ruins, 79, 226\u2013228\n  Turkey, Black, 43\n  Turkey, Great, 40\n  Turkomans of the White Sheep, 152\n  Turks, Ottoman, 114\n  Tuscany (Duschkan), 89\n  Tzaref, 173\n  Unicorns, in Badakshan, 46, 166\u2013167;\n  Velvet, made at Venice, 34;\n  Venetians, in Egypt, 62, 214;\n      at Gallipoli, 112;\n      at Salonica, 146;\n      relations with Persia, 154;\n      secure the silk of Ghilan, 160;\n      defence of Constantinople, 231\n  Vineyards, at Trebizond, 41;\n      Lazistan, 43;\n      Crimea (Gothia), 50\n  Vipers, at Samsoun, 12;\n      from the Black Sea, 13\n  Virgin, in the Castle of the Sparrow-hawk, 41\u201343;\n      9000 carried away captives by Timour, 20\n  Virgin\u2019s castles or towers, 149\n  Walachia (Walachy, Walchi), 2, 38, 89, 101\n  Walachians, are Christians, 38;\n      never cut their hair or beard, 38;\n      are of the Greek Church, 78\n  Walls of Constantinople, 84, 232, 101, 244\n  Warlike people, in (Black Turkey), 43;\n      Great Tatary, 48\n  Water poisoned, 23\n  Widdin or Widin (Bodem), 2, 107, 39\n  Wine, not drunk in Great Tatary, 48;\n      why forbidden to Mahomedans, 72\n  Withered Tree, Lord of the, 52, 189;\n  Zacharias, 59, 206\n  (Zuspillen) Sicily?, 51, 184\nT. RICHARDS, PRINTER, 37, GREAT QUEEN STREET.\n[Illustration: MAP\n  Illustrative of the Travels of\n  JOHANN SCHILTBERGER\n  by\n  Commander J. Buchan Telfer. R N.\n_Names between hooks are not employed by Schiltberger._]\nThe Hakluyt Society.\nREPORT FOR 1879.\nThe Council of the Hakluyt Society have pleasure in being able to\nreport to the Members that their numbers are increasing, and that the\nfunds are in a satisfactory state. The number of effective Members of\nthe Society is now 240.\nThe attention of the Council has been given to an arrangement which\nwill facilitate the completion of sets of volumes by old Members, and\nthe acquisition of back volumes which they may desire to possess by new\nMembers who may not wish to purchase complete sets. The whole series\ncan now be purchased at the rate of 8s. 6d. a volume; namely, for \u00a324\n4s. 6d., the price increasing at the rate of 8s. 6d. as each new volume\nis added. The same rule applies when a Member requires any portion of\nthe series equal to, or exceeding, a quarter of the whole number of\nvolumes. When a Member requires a single back volume, or any number\nless than a quarter of the whole series, he may, with the consent of\nthe Council, be supplied at the rate of 10s. each volume.\nSince the last Report the following volume has been issued to Members:\u2014\nTHE HAWKINS\u2019 VOYAGES, DURING THE REIGNS OF HENRY VIII, QUEEN ELIZABETH,\nAND JAMES I. Edited, with an Introduction, by Clements R. Markham,\nC.B., F.R.S.\nAnd the following volume is nearly ready for issue:\u2014\nTHE BONDAGE AND TRAVELS OF JOHANN SCHILTBERGER, FROM HIS CAPTURE AT\nTHE BATTLE OF NICOPOLIS IN 1396, TO HIS ESCAPE AND RETURN TO EUROPE IN\n1427. Translated and edited by Commander Buchan Telfer, R.N.\nThree volumes are in the hands of the printer, namely:\u2014\nTHE THIRD VOLUME OF THE COMMENTARIES OF AFONSO DALBOQUERQUE. Translated\nand edited by Walter de Gray Birch, Esq.\nTHE VOYAGES OF JOHN DAVIS, AND HIS WORKS ON NAVIGATION. Edited by\nCaptain A. H. Markham, R.N.\nTHE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE WESTERN INDIES, BY FATHER JOACHIM ACOSTA.\nEdited by Clements R. Markham, C.B., F.R.S.\nBesides the above volumes, which will meet the just demands of the\nFellows up to the end of the present year, several other works have\nbeen undertaken by editors.\nThese are:\u2014\nROSMITAL\u2019S EMBASSY TO ENGLAND, SPAIN, ETC., IN 1466. Edited by R. E.\nGraves, Esq.\nTHE JOURNAL OF THE PILOT GALLEGO, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE\nVOYAGES OF MENDA\u00d1A. Translated and edited by W. A. Tyssen Amherst, Esq.\nNARRATIVE OF THE PORTUGUESE EMBASSY TO ABYSSINIA IN 1520, BY FATHER\nFRANCISCO ALVAREZ. Translated and edited by Lord Stanley of Alderley.\nA MANUSCRIPT HISTORY OF BERMUDA IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM (Sloane, 750).\nEdited by Lieutenant-General Sir J. Henry Lefroy, K.C.M.G., C.B.\nVOYAGES OF JAN HUIGEN VAN LINSCHOTEN TO THE EAST INDIES. Edited by\nArthur Burnell, Esq., Phil.D.\nTHE JOURNAL OF THE JESUIT DESIDERI, DURING HIS MISSION TO TIBET; from\nthe original Manuscript. To be translated and edited by C. E. D. Black,\nEsq.\nThe following six Members retire from the Council:\u2014\n  E. A. BOND, ESQ.\n  ADMIRAL SIR RICHARD COLLINSON, K.C.B.\n  AUGUSTUS W. FRANKS, ESQ.\n  W. E. FRERE, ESQ., C.M.G.\n  J. WINTER JONES, ESQ.\n  SIR CHARLES NICHOLSON, BART.\nOf these the three first are recommended for re-election, and the names\nof the following are proposed for election:\u2014\n  THE EARL OF DUCIE, F.R.S.\n  E. H. BUNBURY, ESQ.\n  MAJOR-GENERAL SIR H. THUILLIER, C.S.I., F.R.S.\n_Statement of the Accounts of the Society from May 1877, to June 1879._\n  Balance left at the               \u2502 Mr. Richards for printing     337 10  6\n  Received by Bankers, May          \u2502 Mr. Quaritch for a copy of\nEnd of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Bondage and Travels of Johann\nSchiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, by Johann Schiltberger\n*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRAVELS OF JOHANN SCHILTBERGER ***\n***** This file should be named 52569-0.txt or 52569-0.zip *****\nThis and all associated files of various formats will be found in:\nProduced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive)\nUpdated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will\nbe renamed.\nCreating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright\nlaw means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,\nso the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United\nStates without permission and without paying copyright\nroyalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part\nof this license, apply to copying and distributing Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm\nconcept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,\nand may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive\nspecific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this\neBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook\nfor nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,\nperformances and research. They may be modified and printed and given\naway--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks\nnot protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the\ntrademark license, especially commercial redistribution.\nSTART: FULL LICENSE\nTHE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE\nPLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK\nTo protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free\ndistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work\n(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase \"Project\nGutenberg\"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full\nProject Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at\nwww.gutenberg.org/license.\nSection 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works\n1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to\nand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property\n(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all\nthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or\ndestroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your\npossession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a\nProject Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound\nby the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the\nperson or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph\n1.B. \"Project Gutenberg\" is a registered trademark. It may only be\nused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who\nagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few\nthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works\neven without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See\nparagraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this\nagreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.\n1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (\"the\nFoundation\" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection\nof Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual\nworks in the collection are in the public domain in the United\nStates. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the\nUnited States and you are located in the United States, we do not\nclaim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,\ndisplaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as\nall references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope\nthat you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting\nfree access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm\nworks in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the\nProject Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily\ncomply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the\nsame format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when\nyou share it without charge with others.\n1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern\nwhat you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are\nin a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,\ncheck the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this\nagreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,\ndistributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any\nother Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no\nrepresentations concerning the copyright status of any work in any\ncountry outside the United States.\n1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:\n1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other\nimmediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear\nprominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work\non which the phrase \"Project Gutenberg\" appears, or with which the\nphrase \"Project Gutenberg\" is associated) is accessed, displayed,\nperformed, viewed, copied or distributed:\n  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and\n  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no\n  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it\n  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this\n  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the\n  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you\n  are located before using this ebook.\n1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is\nderived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not\ncontain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the\ncopyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in\nthe United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are\nredistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase \"Project\nGutenberg\" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply\neither with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or\nobtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm\ntrademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.\n1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted\nwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution\nmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any\nadditional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms\nwill be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works\nposted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the\nbeginning of this work.\n1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm\nLicense terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this\nwork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.\n1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this\nelectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without\nprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with\nactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project\nGutenberg-tm License.\n1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,\ncompressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including\nany word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access\nto or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format\nother than \"Plain Vanilla ASCII\" or other format used in the official\nversion posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site\n(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense\nto the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means\nof obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original \"Plain\nVanilla ASCII\" or other form. Any alternate format must include the\nfull Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.\n1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,\nperforming, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works\nunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.\n1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing\naccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works\nprovided that\n* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from\n  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method\n  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed\n  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has\n  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project\n  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid\n  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are\n  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty\n  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project\n  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in\n  Section 4, \"Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg\n  Literary Archive Foundation.\"\n* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies\n  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he\n  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm\n  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all\n  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue\n  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm\n  works.\n* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of\n  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the\n  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of\n  receipt of the work.\n* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free\n  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.\n1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than\nare set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing\nfrom both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The\nProject Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm\ntrademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.\n1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable\neffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread\nworks not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project\nGutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may\ncontain \"Defects,\" such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate\nor corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other\nintellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or\nother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or\ncannot be read by your equipment.\n1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the \"Right\nof Replacement or Refund\" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project\nGutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project\nGutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all\nliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal\nfees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT\nLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE\nPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE\nTRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE\nLIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR\nINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH\nDAMAGE.\n1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a\ndefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can\nreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a\nwritten explanation to the person you received the work from. If you\nreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium\nwith your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you\nwith the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in\nlieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person\nor entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second\nopportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If\nthe second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing\nwithout further opportunities to fix the problem.\n1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth\nin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO\nOTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT\nLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.\n1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied\nwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of\ndamages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement\nviolates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the\nagreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or\nlimitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or\nunenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the\nremaining provisions.\n1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the\ntrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone\nproviding copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in\naccordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the\nproduction, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm\nelectronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,\nincluding legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of\nthe following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this\nor any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or\nadditions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any\nDefect you cause.\nSection 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm\nProject Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of\nelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of\ncomputers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It\nexists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations\nfrom people in all walks of life.\nVolunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the\nassistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's\ngoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will\nremain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project\nGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure\nand permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future\ngenerations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary\nArchive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see\nSections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at\nwww.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg\nLiterary Archive Foundation\nThe Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit\n501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the\nstate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal\nRevenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification\nnumber is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary\nArchive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by\nU.S. federal laws and your state's laws.\nThe Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the\nmailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its\nvolunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous\nlocations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt\nLake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to\ndate contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and\nofficial page at www.gutenberg.org/contact\nFor additional contact information:\n    Dr. Gregory B. Newby\n    Chief Executive and Director\n    gbnewby@pglaf.org\nSection 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg\nLiterary Archive Foundation\nProject Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide\nspread public support and donations to carry out its mission of\nincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be\nfreely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest\narray of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations\n($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt\nstatus with the IRS.\nThe Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating\ncharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United\nStates. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a\nconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up\nwith these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations\nwhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND\nDONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular\nstate visit www.gutenberg.org/donate\nWhile we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we\nhave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition\nagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who\napproach us with offers to donate.\nInternational donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make\nany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from\noutside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.\nPlease check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation\nmethods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other\nways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To\ndonate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate\nSection 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.\nProfessor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project\nGutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be\nfreely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and\ndistributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of\nvolunteer support.\nProject Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed\neditions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in\nthe U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not\nnecessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper\nedition.\nMost people start at our Web site which has the main PG search\nfacility: www.gutenberg.org\nThis Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,\nincluding how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary\nArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to\nsubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.", "source_dataset": "gutenberg", "source_dataset_detailed": "gutenberg -  The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427\n"}
+]
\ No newline at end of file