The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger_ a Native of Bavaria_ in Europe_ Asia_ and Africa_ 1396-1427 Johannes Schiltberger 1925 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bondage and Travels of
Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and
Africa, 1396-1427
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of
Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427

Author: Johannes Schiltberger

Editor: Karl Friedrich Neumann

Translator: J. Buchan Telfer

Release date: July 12, 2016 [eBook #52569]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52569

Credits: Produced by Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BONDAGE
AND TRAVELS OF JOHANN SCHILTBERGER, A NATIVE OF
BAVARIA, IN EUROPE, ASIA, AND AFRICA, 1396-1427 ***
Transcriber’s note:

Notes and their anchors are shown by numbers surrounded by parantheses while
footnotes and their anchors are shown as numbers as printed in the original book.

WORKS ISSUED BY

THE BONDAGE AND TRAVELS OF
JOHANN SCHILTBERGER.

No. LVIII.

THE

BONDAGE AND TRAVELS
OF

JOHANN SCHILTBERGER,
A NATIVE OF BAVARIA,
IN EUROPE, ASIA, AND AFRICA,
1396–1427.
TRANSLATED FROM THE

HEIDELBERG MS. EDITED IN 1859 BY PROFESSOR KARL
FRIEDRICH NEUMANN,
BY
Commander J. BUCHAN TELFER, R.N.,
F.S.A., F.R.G.S.

With Notes by
PROFESSOR P. BRUUN,
OF THE IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH RUSSIA, AT ODESSA;

AND A PREFACE, INTRODUCTION, AND NOTES BY THE
TRANSLATOR AND EDITOR.

Ne respice ad eum qui dixit, sed respice ad id quod dixit.—Scaliger,
Proverb. Arab.

WITH A MAP.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY.
MDCCCLXXIX.

t. richards, printer, 37, great queen street, w.c.

FRIDERICO GVLIELMO

HEREDITARIO GERMANIAE PRINCIPI

HAEC NARRATIO ANGLO IDIOMATA CONSCRIPTA

DE CASIBVS MISERRIMIS CVIVSDAM BAVARI MILITIS

IPSIVS PRINCIPIS GRATIA ET ASSENSV

REVERENTER ET IN OBSEQVI TESTIMONIAM

INSCRIPSIT

IOANNES BVCHAN TELFER.

COUNCIL
OF
THE HAKLUYT SOCIETY.

Colonel H. YULE, C.B., President.
Admiral C. R. DRINKWATER BETHUNE, C.B., Vice-President.
Major-General Sir HENRY RAWLINSON, K.C.B., Vice-President.
W. A. TYSSEN AMHERST, Esq.
Rev. Dr. G. P. BADGER, D.C.L., F.R.G.S.
J. BARROW, Esq., F.R.S.
WALTER DE GREY BIRCH, Esq.
E. A. BOND, Esq.
E. H. BUNBURY, Esq.
Admiral Sir RICHARD COLLINSON, K.C.B.
The Earl of DUCIE.
AUGUSTUS W. FRANKS, Esq., F.R.S.
Lieut.-General Sir J. HENRY LEFROY, C.B., K.C.M.G.
R. H. MAJOR, Esq., F.S.A.
Colonel Sir WM. L. MEREWETHER, C.B., K.C.S.I.
Admiral Sir ERASMUS OMMANNEY, C.B., F.R.S.
Lord ARTHUR RUSSELL, M.P.
The Lord STANLEY of Alderley.
EDWARD THOMAS, Esq., F.R.S.
Major-General Sir HENRY THUILLIER, C.S.I., F.R.S.

CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, Esq., C.B., F.R.S., Sec. R.G.S., Honorary Secretary.

PREFACE.
“An editor, or a translator, collects the merits of
different writers, and, forming all into a wreath,
bestows it on his author’s tomb.”—Shenstone.

The world is indebted to the late Professor Karl Friedrich Neumann, for
having rendered the perusal of Johann Schiltberger’s travels generally
accessible. Until his edition of the Heidelberg MS. appeared, in 1859, there
had been no publication of the interesting work, in its integrity, since the
year 1700, the supposed date of an edition, sine anno, sine loco; so that, as a
fact, the work had become scarce, and could be consulted in a few libraries
only, or in private collections of rare books. In 1813, and again in 1814, was
published Abraham Jacob Penzel’s edition of what was known as the
Nuremberg MS.; but its sole merit consisted in the insertion of Proper and
Geographical names in their original orthography, the work being otherwise
vitiated by its modern and paraphrased style, and by the introduction of
passages, of which Schiltberger never could have been the author.
Scheiger1 condemns this book as being written in a very extraordinary and
uncommonly empty style, in which the narrative of the honest old Bavarian
drags itself along very uncouthly. Tobler2 stigmatises it as being an unhappy
translation into modern German, with no Introduction; and Neumann,3 a
still severer critic, says:—“This edition, in its modern garb, does honour to
nobody. The additions to the original text are absurd, and testify to the
editor’s ignorance of Schiltberger’s character, and of the times in which he
lived. Take, for instance, the following sentence, with which Penzel
concludes the author’s address to the reader:—‘Just as the doctor smears
with honey the glass of physic prepared for a sick child, so have I also, as
an agreeable pastime, introduced here and there some wonderful stories
which, I flatter myself, will prove agreeable and instructive reading.’”
Neumann might have added, that Penzel was not even the originator of the
idea conveyed in this passage, evidently borrowed from Tasso!

“Sai, che là corre il mondo, ove più versi
Di sue dolcezze il lusinghier Parnaso,
E che ’l vero condito in molli versi
I più schivi allettando ha persuaso.
Così all’ egro fanciul porgiamo aspersi
Di soave licor gli orli del vaso:
Succhi amari ingannato intanto ei beve,
E dall’ inganno suo vita riceve.”
La Gerusalemme Liberata, Can. i, iii.

In 1823 these travels were again published, in 8vo., at Munich; but this is a
copy of which it would seem that very little is known.
Judging by the numerous editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
each issue being an almost exact transcript of the copy that preceded it,
Schiltberger must have been a popular author during that period. One long
blank occurs from 1557 to 1606, after which the book of travels was not
again reprinted until 1700.
The version now offered is a literal translation of Neumann’s edition in
mittelhoch Deutsch, an exact transcript of the Heidelberg MS., with the
exception of a few errors that have been rectified, and slight alterations in
the headings of some chapters. Neumann believes his book to be the first
printed edition that faithfully represents what Schiltberger wrote, the
wording in all previous editions having been changed to suit the language
of the times. He has added an Introduction and Notes by himself, and Notes
by Fallmerayer and Hammer-Purgstall; such of those Notes as are referred
to in the new Notes at the end of this volume, appear in their proper places
at foot in the text, each bearing the initial of the writer.
Koehler4 finds fault very unsparingly with Neumann, whom he reproaches
with neglect in not correcting and elucidating the wording of the text.
Tobler, on the contrary, considers Neumann’s work more acceptable than
Penzel’s unfortunate translation into modern German, because there is an
Introduction, and the Oriental names employed by the author are explained.
The travels of Johann Schiltberger had never been translated into any
tongue until Professor Bruun’s edition, in Russian, appeared at Odessa in
1866; although a somewhat free interpretation of the original, it has been of
no small assistance to me where passages in the old German seemed
obscure, as also in the identification of names. I am under a deep sense of
gratitude to that learned gentleman, for having enriched my translation with

a large number of most valuable and interesting Notes. They were supplied
to me in French, and to ensure their faithful reproduction, my MS. in the
first instance, and the proofs afterwards, were sent to Odessa, for the
Professor’s corrections or alterations, and approval.
I have to express my thanks to Aly Bey Riza, Cadri Bey, and Rassek Bey of
Alexandria, for their kind aid in simplifying the Turkish and Arabic
sentences that occur in various chapters; to Mr. Mnatzakan Hakhoumoff, of
Shousha, for making clear to me the several phrases in Armenian; and to Dr.
Niccolo Quartano de Calogheras, of Corfu, for his explanation of customs
and rites as they are now observed in the Greek Church. I am also desirous
of acknowledging the courtesy of those gentlemen who have been good
enough to reply to my enquiries, for information that would assist me in
compiling a Bibliography of existing editions of Schiltberger’s travels; and
it gives me much pleasure to name the Rev. Leo Alishan, Venice; Dr. K. A.
Barack, Strasburg; the Rev. A. Baumgarten, at the Kremsmünster near Wels;
Mr. A. Bytschkoff, St. Petersburg; Mr. E. Förstemann, Dresden; Mr. A.
Gutenæker, Munich; M. Edouard Hesse, Paris; Professor Heyd, Stuttgard;
Dr. M. Isler, Hamburg; Mr. J. Kraenzler, Augsburg; Professor Lepsius,
Berlin; Dr. J. E. A. Martin, Jena; Dr. Noack, Giessen; Dr. Joh. Priem,
Nuremberg; Dr. E. Ritter von Birk, Vienna; Dr. G. T. Thomas, Munich; and
Professor Karl Zangemeister, Heidelberg; also the Principal Librarian of the
public library at Frankfort, and of the Bibliotheca Medicea-Laurentiana at
Florence. I have likewise to express my obligations to Colonel Yule, for
some useful and timely hints, so readily given.
Many of the Proper and Geographical names that occur in the Notes, and
they are very numerous, are spelled as they ordinarily appear in English
works, the orthography of the rest being in accordance with their
pronunciation by a Persian and an Armenian gentleman, who did me the
favour to settle my doubts. It being impossible to produce certain sounds
with vowels that are so variously pronounced in the English language, I
have had recourse to giving a phonetic value to various letters, in some
instances accentuating the word for the sake of stress, with the acute or
grave accent as in the Greek. The apostrophe ’ denotes an independent but
rather soft breathing of a letter.

a, as in hart.
e, as in met.
g, usually hard.
o, as in ozone.
ou, as in routine.
u, as in sum.
y, like e in English, and sometimes y.
tch, like ch in church.

London,
July 18th, 1879.

1Taschenbuch für die vaterländische Geschichte. Herausgegeben durch die
Freyherren von Hormayr und von Mednyansky. Wien, 1827, p. 161.
2Bibliographia Geographica Palæstinæ, etc. Leipzig, 1867.
3In the Introduction to his edition of Schiltberger’s Travels, 1859.
4Germania, etc., herausgegeben von F. Pfeifer, viii. Wien, 1862, p. 371–380.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Manuscripts.

1. A MS. of Schiltberger’s travels, undoubtedly of the fifteenth century,
preserved in the University Library at Heidelberg and known as the
Heidelberg MS., consists of ninety-six carefully and neatly written sheets of
paper, in good style, and evidently the work of a professional scribe. It is
about eight inches long by six inches broad, bound in leather, with bronze
corner plates and clasps, and bears on the upper board a portrait in gold of
the Elector, with the initials O. H.—P. C., Otto Heinrich—Palatinus Comes,
and the date 1558. Another date, 1443, probably the year in which the MS.
was written, appears inside the binding, which is beautifully ornamented
with illustrations from the Old and New Testaments. This volume was
included in the Palatine Library that was carried off by Tilly in 1621, and
presented by Maximilian, duke of Bavaria, to Gregory XV. as a trophy of
the Catholic cause. After the general peace of 1815, Pius VII. restored the
collection to Heidelberg, at the instance of the King of Prussia.

2. The ducal library at Donaueschingen possesses a MS. on paper, of the
fifteenth century, consisting of 134 leaves in sheepskin boards, with brass
corner plates and clasps. The work is contemporary with the Heidelberg
MS., or at all events not of a later period.
First page.—ICh Johanns schiltperger zoch vsz von miner haymat mit namen vs der Statt
Múnchen gelegen in Bayern in der czit als kúnig Sygmund zu vngern in die haydenschafft
zoch Das was als man zalt von Crists gebúrt drwczehenhundert vnd in dem vier vnd
núnczigisten Järe mit ainem hern genant lienhart Richartinger vnd kam vs der haydenschafft
wider zu land Als man zalt von Cristi gepúrt vierczehenhundert vnd in dem Súben vnd
zwainczigosten Jär, etc.

At the last page is the Pater Noster in the Armenian and Tatar tongues.1

3. Another MS. of Schiltberger’s travels, of the end of the fifteenth or of the
early part of the sixteenth century, in the public library at Nuremberg, is

entitled:
Hanns Schiltperger von München ist auszgezogen da man zalt 1394—wiedergekommen
1427.
First page.—Ich Hanns Schiltperger pin von meine Heymatt auszgezogen von der statt
genandt Munchen die da leyt zu päyren da man zalt von cristgepüret MCCCLXXXXIIII und
das ist gescheen da konig Sigmundt zu ungern in die Haydenschafft zoch2 und da zoch ich
auss der obgenannten stat gerennes weyss mit und bin wider zu land chomen da ma zalt von
crist gepurt M.CCCC.XXVII auss der Haydenschafft und das ich In der zeitt erfaren han In
der Haydenschafft dat stet hernach geschreibenn Ich mag es aber nicht alles vorschreyben das
ich erfaren han Wann ich es alles nicht Indechtig bin u. s. w.3

Concluding paragraph at the end.
Gott dem sey gedanckt das mir der macht und Krafft gegeben hat und mich behüett vnd
beschirmet hatt zwai vnd dreyssig Jare die ich Hansz Schiltperger jnn der Haidenschafft
gewesen pin vnd alles das vorgeschreiben stet erfaren vnd gesehen han.4

This MS. was formerly the property of Adamnanus Rudolph Solger,
protestant pastor of the church of St. Laurence in Nuremberg, whose library
was sold in 1766, for the sum of 15,000 florins, to the municipality of the
free town of Nuremberg, and now forms part of the public library in that
city. The MS. is bound in the same volume with others, and is thus
described in Solger’s Catalogue.5
66. Ein starker Foliant von unterschiedlichen Reissbeschreibungen: 1) Marcho Polo von
Venedig ein Edler Wandrer und Ritter ist ausgezogen A. 1230.6 2) Der Heil. Vatter und Abt S.
Brandon und mit seinen Brüdern und mehr fahrt. 3) Der Edle Ritter und allervornehmste
Landfahrer Johannis de Monttafilla ist von Engelland ausgezogen 1322, und wiederkommen
1330. 4) Der Heil. Bruder Ulrich Friaul der minder Brüder Baarfüsser Orden ein Mönch, ist
ausgezogen und wiederkommen 1330. 5) Hanss Schildberger ein wahrhaftig frommer
Edelmann der ein Diener ist gewesen des Durchlauchtigen Fürsten Albrecht Pfalzgraf bey
Rhein, ist von München ausgezogen 1394.

4. In 1488, a MS. of Schiltberger’s travels was in the possession of a
Receiver of Revenue, named Matthias Bratzl, who caused it to be bound in
one volume, with MSS. of Marco Polo, St. Brandon, Sir John Mandevile,
and Ulrich of Frioul, and then wrote on the fly-leaf a note to the following
effect:—“Having acquired the herein-named books, I have had them bound
together, and have added a valuable and accurate map. Should the reader of
these writings not know where the countries are, whose customs and habits
are described, they are to look into the map. The map will also serve to
complete what may be wanting in the books, and indicate the roads by

which the travellers went. The map and the books quite agree. Whoever
inherits this volume after my death, is to leave the different books together,
and the map with them.” When Gottlieb von Murr, the distinguished
bibliographer and antiquary (1733–1811), saw the volume, the map was
missing.
This MS. was originally at Munich, but being sent to Nuremberg for the
purpose of being published, was there kept in the city library.
Schlichtegroll, the biographer, sanctioned the loan of it to Penzel, who
turned its contents into modern German, producing the editions of 1813 and
1814. Penzel died at Jena in 1819, leaving his body to the anatomical
theatre, his books to the public library, and all his debts to the grand-duke of
Weimar. He had not returned the MS., and it was never afterwards
recovered. Neumann thinks that it may have been in the author’s own
handwriting.
1Die Handschriften der Fürstlich-Fürstenbergischen Hofbibliothek zu
Donaueschingen. Geordnet and beschreiben von Dr. K. A. Barack, Vorstand der
Hofbibliothek. Tübingen, 1865, p. 326.
2Communicated by Dr. Joh. Priem of Nuremberg.
3Completed from Panzer, Annalen der älteren deutschen Litteratur etc., 1788–
1805, i, 41.
4Communicated by Dr. Joh. Priem of Nuremberg.
5Bibliotheca sive supellex Librorum impressorum in omni genere scientiarum
maximam partem rarissimorum et Codicum Manuscriptorum etc. Nuremberg.
6Printed by Anton Sorg, Augsburg, 1481.

Printed Books.

(1.) s.a. s.l. fol. with woodcuts; 37 lines (?) in each page.
Printed, probably, by Günther Zainer, Ulm. 1473?
Title.—Hie vahet an d Schildberger der vil wunders erfaren hatt in der heydenschafft und in d
türckey.

A copy of this edition is in the public library at Augsburg; another is at
Munich, but in a very defective state.

This edition, believed to be the earliest, is mentioned by Panzer, Ebert,
Kobolt, Brunet, Hain, Ternaux-Compans, and Grässe.

(2.) s.a. s.l. fol. with 15 woodcuts.
Forty-six leaves without pagination, register or catch-words; 33, 34, 35, or
36 lines in each page.
Printed, probably, by A. Sorg, Augsburg. 1475?
Ich Schildtberger zoche auss von meiner heimet mit Namen auss der stat münchen gelegen in
bayern in der zeyt als künig Sigmund zu vngern in die heydenschafft zoch das was als man
zalt von christi geburt dreizechenhundert und an dem vier und neüntzigesten Jar etc.

A copy at the British Museum is bound in one volume with duke Ernest of
Bavaria; S. Brandon, abbot; and Ludolphus de Suchem. Another copy is in
the public library, Munich.

(3.) s.a. s.l. Fifty-seven leaves.
Hyē vahet an der Schildtberger der vil wunders erfaren hat in der heydenschafft vnd in d
Türckey.

A copy at the public library, Munich, is bound in one volume with duke
Ernest, and S. Brandon. A duplicate is defective. The imperial and royal
library at Vienna also possesses a copy.

(4.) 1494. Frankfort. 4o.
Mentioned by Tobler who quotes Grässe.

(5.) 1513.
Tobler mentions an edition of this date, being a reprint of Zainer’s edition,
1473?

(6.) s.a. J. v. Berg and U. Newber, Nuremberg. 4o. with woodcuts. No
pagination, but with catch-words.
Title.—Ein wunderbarliche vnnd kürtzweylige Histori wie Schildtberger einer auss der Stat
München in Bayern von den Türcken gefangen in die Heydenschafft gefüret vnnd wider
heymkommen Item was sich für krieg vnnd wunderbarlicher thaten diervyl er inn der

Heydenschafft gewesen zugetragen gantz kürtzweylig zu lesen Nürmberg durch Johann vom
Berg Vnd Ulrich Newber.

Copies of this edition are in the royal library, Dresden, and the public
library, Munich.
Mentioned by Ebert and Tobler.

(7.) 1549. Herman Gülfferich, Frankfort. 4o. with 37 woodcuts. Seventy
leaves; 32 lines in each page. No pagination, but with catch-words. Has a
preface.
Title.—Ein wunderbarliche vnd kurtzweilige History wie Schildtberger einer auss der Stad
München inn Beyern von den Türcken gefangen inn die Heydenschafft gefüret vnnd widder
heimkommen ist sehr lüstig zu lesen. M.D.XLIX.
Colophon.—Gedruckt zu Franckfurdt am Mayn durch Herman Gülfferichen inn der
Schnurgassen zu dem Krug.

Copies of this edition are in the British Museum, in the public library,
Munich, and imperial public library, St. Petersburg.
Mentioned by Panzer, Ebert, Kobolt, Ternaux-Compans, Grasse, and Tobler.

(8.) 1549? Nuremberg. 4o.
Title.—Similar to that printed at Frankfort in 1549.

Mentioned by Panzer who quotes Meusel.

(9.) s.a. s.l. small 4o.
Scheiger saw at Wels, in Austria, a copy which was supposed to be of the
year 1551, and published at Munich. It was stated in a MS. marginal note,
that Schiltberger was born at mid-day, on the 8th day of May.

(10.) s.a. Weygandt Han, Frankfort. 4o. with 37 woodcuts, similar to those
in the edition of 1549. Seventy leaves; 32 lines in each page. No pagination,
but with catch-words. Has a preface.
Title.—Ein wunderbarliche unnd kurtzweilige History Wie Schildtberger einer auss der Stadt
München in Beyern von den Türcken gefangen in die Heydenschafft gefüret vnd wider
heimkommen ist sehr lüstig zu lesen.

Colophon.—Gedruckt zu Franckfurdt am Mayn durch Weygandt Han in der Schnurgassen
zum Krug.

Copies of this edition are in the British Museum, where it is catalogued,
1554? In the royal library, Dresden; public library, Frankfort; public library,
Hamburg; imperial public library, St. Petersburg.
Mentioned by Panzer, Ebert, and Tobler who says that the above Title, and
the Title of the edition printed at Nuremberg by J. v. Berg and U. Newber
(see 6), are identical!

(11.) 1557. Frankfort. 4o.
Title.—Gefangenschaft in der Türckey. (According to Ternaux-Compans.)

(12.) 1606. J. Francke, Magdeburg. 4o., with woodcuts.
Title.—Eine wunderbarliche vnd kurtzweilige History, Wie Schildtberger, einer aus der Stadt
München in Bayern, von den Türcken gefangen, in die Heydenschafft geführet, vnd wider
heymkommen ist, sehr lustig zu lesen.

A copy of this edition is in the library of the imperial university, Strasburg.
Mentioned by Freytag, Ebert, Kobolt, Tobler who quotes Grässe, and
Ternaux-Compans from whom we learn of another edition—

(13.) 1606. Frankfort. 8vo.
Title.—Reise in die Heydenschaft.

(14.) s.a. s.l.
Supposed by Tobler to be of the year 1700.

(15.) 1813. Edited by A. J. Penzel. Munich, small 8vo.
Title.—Schiltberger’s aus München von den Türken in der Schlacht von Nicopolis 1395
gefangen, in das Heidenthum geführt, und 1427 wieder heimgekommen. Reise in den Orient
und wunderbare Begebenheiten von ihm selbst geschrieben. Aus einer alten Handschrift
übersetzt und herausgegeben von A. J. Penzel.

(16.) 1814. Edited by A. J. Penzel. Munich, small 8vo.

A copy of the last edition, with similar title-page.

(17.) 1823. Munich. 8vo.
Title.—Sch. a. München v. d. Türken in d. Schlacht v. Nicopolis 1395 in d. Heidenthum
geführet u. 1417 (sic) wieder heimgekommen, Reise in den Orient u. wunderb. Beg. v. ihm. s.
geschr.

Thus quoted by Grässe.

(18.) 1859. Edited by Prof. K. F. Neumann. Munich, small 8vo.
With Introduction and Notes by the editor, and Notes by Fallmerayer and
Hammer-Purgstall.
Title.—Reisen des Johannes Schiltberger aus München, in Europa, Asia, und Afrika, von
1394 bis 1427. Zum ersten Mal nach der gleichzeitigen Heidelberger Handschrift
herausgegeben und erläutert von Karl Friedrich Neumann.

In the copy of this edition at the Institut, Paris, are several loose sheets
containing a resumé of the Travels, in MS., by D’Avezac.

(19.) 1866. Edited by Professor Philip Bruun. Odessa. 8vo.
Title.—Pouteshestvy’ye Ivana Schiltbergera pa Yevrope, Asii y Afrike, s. 1394 po 1427 god.

Published in the Records of the Imperial University of New Russia, vol. i.

This attempt at a Bibliography of the Travels of Johann Schiltberger is no
doubt far from being complete; but I believe it to be the first of its sort. The
details given by Bibliographers are not, in many cases, very explicit, and no
little difficulty has been experienced in collecting desirable information,
replies to enquiries not being always readily obtained.
According to Tobler, for instance, the university at Berlin possesses copies
of six different editions; but my requests for particulars have not been
successful—and so in other quarters.
Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes.

INTRODUCTION
“was ich die zit in dem land der haidenschafft strites und wunders
herfaren Und och was ich hoptstett und wassers gesehen und
gemercken mügen hab Davon vindent ir hienach geschriben villicht
nicht gar volkomenlich Dorumb das ich ein gefangener man vnd nicht
min selbs was Aber sovil ich des hon begriffen vnd mercken mocht So
hon ich die land vnd die stett genant nach den sprachen der land”—
Schiltberger.

If any reliance is to be placed in a MS. marginal note that appears on a page
of an old edition of the Travels of Schiltberger, presumed to be of the year
1551, and preserved at Wels in Austria,1 then the author of the work before
us was born at mid-day on the 9th day of May—in the year 1381, according
to his own showing, because he states in the opening of his narrative, that
he had not yet attained his sixteenth year when at the battle of Nicopolis
(Sept. 28, 1396). So completely does Schiltberger eschew all reference to
himself, that he leaves us quite in the dark even with regard to the place of
his birth; for, in addressing the Reader, he states that his home was near the
city of Munich; but upon his return to Bavaria, he proceeds to Frisingen,
near which town he was born. Nothing whatever is known of his parentage
or childhood; and that he has not remained entirely neglected and forgotten
is owed to Thurnmaier, better known as Aventinus, who states, that upon his
return from bondage, Schiltberger was taken in hand by the duke Albrecht
III., and nominated his Chamberlain, an appointment that was probably
made, in Neumann’s opinion, before the duke’s reign began, in 1438. This
is all the Bavarian annalist has to say of his interesting countryman.
In the Introduction to his edition, Neumann offers a few particulars on the
Schiltberge family, as they were communicated to him by Cölestin von
Schiltberg, Manager of the Royal Salt Mines at Reichenhall.
The origin of the ancient name of Schiltberger, or Schiltberge, is not known,
but it is, in all probability, composite, from Schild—a coat of arms—and
Berg, the mount on which the arms were raised. A certain Berchtholdus
Marescalcus de Schiltberg is mentioned in a document of the year 1190, and
others of the name appear at later dates as burghers, and marshals to the
dukes of Bavaria.2

The Schiltberges of to-day trace their pedigree to our author, who is styled
Chamberlain and Commander of the Body-guard to Albrecht III. Several of
their ancestors, during the 18th century, were Counsellors in the Bavarian
Electorate, and two Schiltberges, Johann Peter and Franz Joseph, were
Professors of Law at the University of Ingolstadt. An Imperial decree, dated
March 27, 1786, raising three brothers of the “ancient and noble lineage of
Schiltberg” to the dignity of nobles of the State, having been confirmed by
the Bavarian Electorate, the Schiltberges have ever since been included in
the peerage of Bavaria.
Neumann’s complaint that our author has never been fully appreciated by
his countrymen, appears to be only too true; but the same cannot be said of
aliens. Leunclavius has availed himself largely, in his Pandects,3 of the
information supplied by an eye-witness, for the purpose of illustrating the
history of the Turks; and in later times, such men as J. R. Forster, M. C.
Sprengel, J. Chr. von Engel, Hugh Murray, Hammer, Scheiger, Aschbach,
Vivien de Saint-Martin, Fallmerayer, D’Avezac, Bruun, and Yule, have
borne witness to the worth of what Schiltberger has left behind. If he is
charged by Karamsin with making confused and senseless statements, the
historian at least believes him to be truthful, and to have really been at all
the places he claims to have visited.
Johann Schiltberger left his home in the year 1394, as he himself informs
us, with his master, Leonard Richartinger. That was two years before the
battle of Nicopolis was fought, ten months of which time be spent in
Hungary, where his lord was in all probability serving in the auxiliary
forces under Sigismund, king of that country. He must therefore have been
launched into the world when in his fourteenth year only, and whatever the
state of his education at that early age, certainly no opportunities could have
been afforded him for improving it, during his long term of servitude. The
composition of his work, throughout, and the diversified and undetermined
mode of spelling Proper and Geographical names, show that the scribe was
not a careful one, and tends to prove Schiltberger’s inability to read what
was written, and correct the mistakes that were made; it is thus fairly
conclusive, I venture to say, that his book, like so many other narratives of
the Middle Ages, was written under dictation, a fact exhibiting marvellous
retention of memory, when it is considered that the incidents extend over
the space of about thirty-three years. That no journal was kept, is apparent

from errors in computation of time. Of this there are two striking instances;
the first, in the estimate of length of service under Bajazet, from September
1396 to July 1402, which is calculated at twelve years; and the author’s
statement that he was six years with Timour, when, as a matter of fact, the
actual period extended from July 1402 to February 1405.
Schiltberger no doubt dictated his adventures soon after his return to his
native country, because in the concluding chapter he explains “how and
through what countries I have come away”. The various incidents of his
career in the East are recorded without method, and were evidently related
just as the recollection of them occurred to him, so that the attempt to
follow in his footsteps, with any precision, becomes a hopeless task; and
irregularly interspersed with his narrative, are descriptions of places and
events, that he learnt from hearsay only, not having been either a spectator
or participator. This inconsistent and incongruous style, again, betokens the
man wanting in instruction; but every page affords evidence of the
intelligence, veracity, modesty, and high principles of the honest-minded
Bavarian; indeed the whole, so straightforward, truthful, and certainly
useful, will compare favourably with the most trustworthy of mediæval
writers, not excepting even Marco Polo. “Notwithstanding a few historical
and geographical errors,” says Hammer, “this book of Travels remains a
precious monument of the history and topography of the middle ages, of
which Bavarians may be as justly proud as Venice is of her Marco Polo.”4
There is nothing to show that Schiltberger was a reading man, or that he
availed himself of the writings of others, except in one instance, in which it
can scarcely be doubted that he had recourse to some authority when giving
the dimensions of the walls of Babylon, which coincide so exactly with
what is found recorded in Herodotus. How otherwise could the poor slave
have traced and verified such measurements?
Schiltberger has wisely distinguished what he heard from what he himself
saw, and therefore does not hesitate to indulge in the recital of the
marvellous and ridiculous, without, however, the least touch of humour or
criticism. A battle was fought between serpents and vipers, near Samsoun
on the Black Sea coast; not whilst he was in the city, but “during the time I
was with Bajazet”. Entering with childlike pleasure into the fullest
particulars on the Castle of the Sparrow-hawk, he takes care to say, that
when one of his companions wanted to visit it and see the virgin who

resided there, nobody could be found to show the way, because the castle
was hidden by trees, and the Greek priests also forbade approach to it. Then
there is the story of the destruction of the mirror at Alexandria, related in
the most perfect simplicity, and, as is his custom, without a word of
comment; but that the Pope’s conduct was iniquitous in the sight of good
Schiltberger is very certain, for he seeks to excuse his lesson of
dissimulation to the priest, on the plea that all was done “for the sake of the
Christian faith”. Vera sunt vera et falsa sunt falsa; sed si ecclesia dicit vera
esse falsa et falsa esse vera, falsa sunt vera et vera sunt falsa. If Bellarmine
was really the first to pen these lines, verily it was no new precept that he
was promulgating. Another instance of Schiltberger’s appreciation of the
truth is to be found in his relation of the tale of the saintly man in Khorasan,
who had attained his three hundred and fiftieth year. “So the Infidels said,”
are the words added. Such is the manner in which Schiltberger treats these
and all the other absurd inventions to which he listened in his leisure hours.
When the text is largely illustrated with Notes—in the present work they
form the greater part of the volume—little room is left for introductory
remarks; nor is it necessary to recapitulate the substance of the text. It will
therefore suffice to give a rapid outline of the author’s movements during
his lengthened captivity.
The battle of Nicopolis is the most important episode in the busy and
eventful career of Schiltberger, whose circumstantial account of the action
fully agrees with what we learn from other sources. He escaped the general
massacre of prisoners, upon the defeat and flight of Sigismund, through the
timely intervention of Souleiman, the eldest son of Bajazet. Thurnmaier
says that Schiltberger was spared on account of his good looks, and at once
appointed page to the Sultan;5 but this is probably a fancy of the Bavarian
annalist, because it is very distinctly asserted in the text that none under
twenty were executed, and the youthful captive was barely sixteen years of
age. He suffered considerably from the effects of three wounds, a
circumstance to which he casually and most modestly refers in a subsequent
chapter. Whilst in the service of Bajazet, he was employed as one of his
personal attendants in the quality of runner; he possibly took part in the
siege of Constantinople; was in an expedition sent to Egypt for the relief of
the sultan Faradj, when he probably embarked at some port in Cilicia; and
in various expeditions in Asia Minor.

Upon the fall of Bajazet at the battle of Angora, July 20th, 1402, our runner
became the prisoner of Timour, with whom he remained in Asia Minor; the
Sultan himself being a captive in the camp. The fable of the iron cage is
scarcely worth recalling to mind; but had there been a shadow of truth in it,
Schiltberger would not have failed to notice the circumstance of the
powerful monarch he had served so long being thus ignominiously treated.
Schiltberger’s first acquaintance with Armenia and Georgia was made upon
the occasion of Timour’s invasion of those countries after his conquests in
Asia Minor. Then followed the expedition to Abhase, the period of rest in
the plain of Karabagh, and the return to Samarkand across the Araxes and
through the kingdoms of Persia.
As the victories of the invincible Timour in India, Azerbaijan, and Syria,
were related to him by his new comrades, so has Schiltberger recorded
them, with some fresh details on the horrible atrocities committed.
Upon the death of Timour, at Otrar, in 1405, our author passed into the
hands of his son, Shah Rokh, probably taking part in the expeditions of that
monarch into Mazanderan and the Armenian provinces, Samarkand, and the
territories about the Oxus, spending his winters in the plain of Karabagh,
where good pasturage was to be found; but after the defeat of Kara
Youssouf, Chief of the Turkomans of the Black Sheep, he remained in the
contingent left by Shah Rokh, at the disposal of his brother, Miran Shah.
This amir was afterwards himself overthrown by Kara Youssouf, and
Schiltberger became subject to Aboubekr, a son of Shah Rokh, under whom
he served for some time, first at Kars6 and then at Erivan, where he had
frequent opportunities for again enjoying the society of his friends and co-
religionists, the Armeno-Catholics, and perfecting himself in their language.
From Erivan, Schiltberger was dispatched with four other Christians as part
escort to the Tatar prince, Tchekre, recalled to assume the supreme power in
the Golden Horde. Traversing the provinces on the western shore of the
Caspian Sea, and passing through Derbent into Great Tatary, they reached a
place that we find named “Origens”, and which Professor Bruun is at some
pains to prove was no other than Anjak, at one time a port on the Caspian,
near Astrahan. Some curious details are given on the succession to the
Khanate of the Golden Horde, which serve to authenticate historical
accounts, as will be found on reference to the Notes thereon; and we also

read of the warlike qualities of the Tatars of the Horde, of their hardy mode
of living, eating meat raw and drinking the blood of their horses, a custom
of war mentioned by Marco Polo.
We now come to what may be considered to be about the most interesting
portion of the travels before us, viz.: the expedition to Siberia for the
purpose of conquest. The customs, religion, food, mode of travelling, and
clothing of its inhabitants, are so circumstantially laid before the reader, that
it cannot be doubted Schiltberger saw with his own eyes all he recounts; he
would never otherwise have observed that there were many wild beasts in
the country, the names of which he could not tell, because they did not exist
in Germany; nor would he have concluded the chapter in which he speaks
of these things, by saying: “All this I have seen, and was there with the
above-named king’s son, Zeggra.”
In alluding to the sledge-dogs of Great Tatary and Siberia, Rubruquis,
Marco Polo, and Ibn Batouta, dwell upon their large size. It is not a little
remarkable that Marco Polo, who never saw those animals, should have
heard that they were as big as donkeys; the very simile employed by
Schiltberger. They now are certainly much inferior in size.
The conquest of Siberia by Ydegou, was followed by that of Great Bolgara;
after which, Tchekre returned into Great Tatary, and in due course became
ruler of the Horde. Upon his death, the author fell into the hands of one of
his counsellors, named “Manstzusch”, who, being forced to flee, traversed
the kingdom of Kiptchak, and arrived at Kaffa in the Crimea. It was when
upon this journey that Schiltberger saw the river Don; the city of Tana,
Solkhat the capital of Kiptchak, and the cities of Kyrkyer and Sary Kerman.
In Chapter 37, the author says that he was present at the marriage festivities
of a daughter of the sultan, Boursbaï, a monarch who ascended the throne in
1422; and as he did not lose his lord, Tchekre, until about the year 1424 or
1425, it follows that he must have gone to Egypt, at least for the second
time, subsequently to the latter date, but by what route and for what purpose
there are no means of determining; although this was probably the occasion
of his passing the island of Imbros, and touching at the port of Salonica.
During his sojourn in Egypt, the author was afforded the opportunity of
witnessing the reception of foreign ambassadors at the Court of the
Mamelouk monarch, some portion of the ceremonial observed upon those

occasions reminding us of the brilliant doings in the palace of the Greek
Emperors, amongst whose earliest predecessors those magnificent state
formalities were introduced by the Romans, who had themselves adopted
them from the Kings of Persia, after their conquests in the far East.
From Egypt, Schiltberger was sent into Palestine, when he visited several of
the holy places, and to Arabia, where it may be taken for granted that he
assisted at one of the customary Mahomedan pilgrimages. Being too
devotedly attached to his own Church to entertain the least sympathy for
Islamism, our traveller is careful to avoid saying anything that might be
construed into a semblance of his having renounced his religion, under
whatsoever circumstances; but that he must have done so, inevitably, may
be accepted as an unquestionable fact, for where is the page in the history of
Bajazet, of Timour, and of his successors, that tells of a Christian having
been spared persecution, followed by torture and death? Nor is it credible
that the presence of a slave, professing Christianity, would have been at all
tolerated in the camps of those barbarous and fanatic rulers. Schiltberger
has taken delight in supplying all the information he was able to obtain on
the forms and solemnities of the Armenian and Greek Churches, showing at
the same time the respect in which he held Saints in general, by never
failing to relate the miracles attributed to them, for
“Our superstitions with our life begin;”

but he has equally proved his proficiency in Mahomedanism, in devoting no
less than eleven chapters to an exposition of its history, doctrines, and
legends.
Whether or not Schiltberger traversed the Hyjaz of Arabia, will possibly
remain a controverted point; the probability is that he did do so, not from
the shores of the Red Sea, but from Syria and Palestine. We find him
describing from personal observation, first, the pelican, a bird which,
according to Buffon, frequents the borders of Palestine and Arabia, and
even the arid wastes of Arabia and Persia; then the “giant’s shin-bone”, that
spanned a ravine between two mountains and served as a bridge; an
indication that leads Professor Bruun to the neighbourhood of Kerak and
Shaubek, on the beaten track to the Hyjaz. More than this, mention is made
of the tomb of the prophet at a place called “Madina”, its situation and
ornamentations being clearly explained; accuracy that is quite exceptional,
as nearly all mediæval notices of the tomb of Mahomet place it at Mecca. If

our author did indeed travel into Arabia from Palestine, he would have been
the predecessor of Varthema (1503) by that route, and he is also the first
European known to have visited the holy places of Islam.
Quitting Egypt, Schiltberger returned to the Crimea, afterwards
accompanying his lord, “Manstzusch”, to the Caucasus, where he found the
slave trade in full swing, a traffic he vigorously condemns by saying of the
people, who sold even their own children, that they were “bös lüt”. Whilst
in Circassia, at that time tributary to the Golden Horde, the Great Khan
required of its ruler that “Manstzusch” should be expelled his territory. That
prince being thus forced to change his residence, proceeded to Mingrelia,
through Abhase and Soukhoum its chief town. An unhealthy country, says
our author, when describing the peculiar customs, dress, and religion of the
people.
It is singular that, although Schiltberger notices the existence of Christians
at Samsoun, Joulad, in Georgia, the Crimea, and other places, he makes no
mention of the large European community at Savastopoli, as Soukhoum
was called by the Genoese, who, especially, were very numerous, and had
had a consul at that port from the year 1354. That there were many Roman
Catholics at Savastopoli is very certain, for the place was constituted a
bishop’s see, a condition not at all gratifying to the native population which
belonged to the Greek Church, as would appear from the following
circumstance:—
In 1330, Peter, bishop of Senascopoli (sic) or Savastopoli, addressed a letter
to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England, collectively, in
which he complains of the oppression practised on Christians in the East,
who were carried off into slavery; an infamous traffic he was unable to
suppress because the local authorities, who belonged to the schismatic
Greek religion, were inimical to him. He entreats the bishops of England to
present the bearer of the letter, one Joachim of Cremona, to the warriors of
England, who fight for God and aspire to power! That letter is preserved in
the public library at Ratisbon, and can scarcely be supposed to have reached
its destination at any time.
Being in Mingrelia, Schiltberger was in a Christian country temptingly
situated on the borders of the Black Sea. It is most likely that he received
sufficient encouragement from the people to induce him to attempt to regain

his liberty, and, at a favourable moment, he and four of his Christian
comrades made their escape and succeeded in reaching the coast at Poti,7
where they had hoped to find some friendly vessel that would receive them.
Failing in this, they rode along the shore to the hills in Lazistan, and one
evening, after dark, had the good fortune to communicate, by means of
signal fires, with a European ship off the land. Our traveller and his
companions were obliged to prove their identity by repeating the Pater
Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo, before the boat’s crew could be prevailed
upon to take them off to the ship; and after a tedious voyage of many
weeks, during which the vessel was chased by pirates and detained by
contrary gales, and the crew had suffered from want of provisions,
Constantinople was reached. There the runaways were kindly received and
cared for by the emperor (John VIII. Palæologos), who placed them in
charge of the patriarch, in whose house they lived. Schiltberger is full of
admiration for the great palaces, the church of St. Sophia, and the
magnificent walls of the imperial city; but not being free to move about as
he pleased, during his long stay in it, the account of Constantinople and of
its marvels is exceedingly meagre, when compared with the descriptions
left by other visitors. Indeed, what little Schiltberger was able to do in the
way of sight-seeing was effected surreptitiously, with the connivance of the
patriarch’s servants, whom he accompanied on their errands as
opportunities offered.
At the expiration of three months, our author and his comrades were sent to
Kilia at the estuary of the Danube. Hence Johann Schiltberger easily found
his way to his native country, where he arrived some time in the year 1427,
offering thanks to Almighty God for his escape “from the Infidel people and
their wicked religion”, and for having preserved him from “the risk of
perdition of body and soul”.

1I regret that two applications to the library at Wels for the fullest particulars
with reference to this marginal note, have been unsuccessful.
2For notices on the Schiltberger family, see Monumenta Boica, iii, 170; vi, 532,
538; vii, 137; viii, 150, 504; ix, 93, 577; and many other records in this
collection. Also Hund’s Bayrischen Stammbuche, i, 332, ii, 108, 478;
Meichelbeck’s Historia Fris., ii, 43, etc.

3Neuwe Chronica Türckischer nation von Türcken selbs beschreiben etc.,
Franckfurt am Mayn, 1590, iii, 207.
4Berichtigung der orientalischen Namen Schiltberger’s, in Denkschriften der
Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, für Jahre 1823 und
1824. Band ix.
5“Joannes Schildtperger tum puer, Monachi oppido Bojariæ ortus, captus, ob
elegantiam formæ a filio Basaitis servatus, in aula Turcarum educatus et victo
Basaite a Tamerlano rege Persarum, arma victoris secutus est, et tandem mortuo
Tamerlane in patriam postliminio reversus a Cubiculo Alberto avo Principum
nostrorum fuit. etc.”—Annalib. p. m., 805.
6Gouria, according to Professor Bruun.
7Batoum, according to Professor Bruun.

INDEX TO THE CHAPTERS.
Schiltberger to the Reader 1
1. Of the first combat between King Sigmund and the Turks 1
2. How the Turkish king treated the prisoners 4
3. How Wyasit subjugated an entire country 6
4. How Wyasit made war on his brother-in-law, and killed him 7
5. How Weyasit drives away the king of Sebast 10
6. What sixty of us Christians had agreed upon 10
7. How Wyasit took the city of Samson 12
8. Of serpents and vipers 12
9. How the Infidels remain in the fields with their cattle, in winter and summer 14
10. How Weyasit took a country that belonged to the Sultan 18
11. Of the King-Sultan 19
12. How Temerlin conquered the kingdom of Sebast 20
13. Weyasit conquers Lesser Armenia 20
14. How Tämerlin goes to war with the King-Sultan 22
15. How Tämerlin conquered Babiloni 24
16. How Tämerlin conquered Lesser India 24
17. How a vassal carried off riches that belonged to Tämerlin 26
18. How Tämerlin caused MMM children to be killed 27
19. Tämerlin wants to go to war with the Great Chan 28
20. Of Tämerlin’s death 29
21. Of the sons of Tämerlin 30
22. How Joseph caused Mirenschach to be beheaded, and took possession of all his territory 31
23. How Joseph vanquished a king and beheaded him 32
24. How Schiltberger came to Aububachir 33
25. Of a king’s son 33
26. How one lord succeeds another lord 36
27. Of an Infidel woman, who had four thousand maidens 37
28. In what countries I have been 38
29. In which countries I have been, that lay between the Tonow and the sea 39
30. Of the castle of the sparrow-hawk, and how it is guarded 41
31. How a poor fellow watched the sparrow-hawk 42
32. xxxii More about the castle of the sparrow-hawk 42
33. In which countries silk is grown, and of Persia and of other kingdoms 44
34. Of the tower of Babilony that is of such great height 46
35. Of great Tartaria 48
36. The countries in which I have been, that belong to Tartary 49
37. How many kings-sultan there were, whilst I was amongst the Infidels 51
38. Of the mountain of St. Catherine 54
39. Of the withered tree 56

40. Of Jherusalem and of the Holy Sepulchre 57
41. Of the spring in Paradise, with IIII rivers 61
42. How pepper grows in India 61
43. Of Allexandria 62
44. Of a great giant 64
45. Of the many religions the Infidels have 65
46. How Machmet and his religion appeared 65
47. Of the Infidels’ Easter-day 70
48. Of the other Easter-day 71
49. Of the law of the Infidels 71
50. Why Machmet has forbidden wine to Infidels 72
51. Of a fellowship the Infidels have among themselves 73
52. How a Christian becomes an Infidel 74
53. What the Infidels believe of Christ 75
54. What the Infidels say of Christians 76
55. How Christians are said not to hold to their religion 77
56. How long ago it is, since Machmet lived 78
57. Of Constantinoppel 79
58. Of the Greeks 80
59. Of the Greek religion 81
60. How the city of Constantinoppel was built 83
61. How the Jassen have their marriages 85
62. Of Armenia 86
63. Of the religion of the Armenians 87
64. Of a Saint Gregory 89
65. Of a dragon and a unicorn 90
66. Why the Greeks and Armani are enemies 96
67. Through which countries I have come away 99
The Armenian Pater Noster 102
The Tartar Pater Noster 102

SCHILTBERGER TO THE READER.

I, Johanns Schiltberger, left my home near the city of Munich, situated in
Payren, at the time that King Sigmund of Hungary left for the land of the
Infidels. This was, counting from Christ’s birth, in the thirteen hundred and
ninety-fourth year,1 with a lord named Leinhart Richartingen. And I came
back again from the land of the Infidels, counting from Christ’s birth,
fourteen hundred and twenty seven. All that I saw in the land of the Infidels,
of wars, and that was wonderful, also what chief towns and seas I have seen
and visited, you will find described hereafter, perhaps not quite completely,
but I was a prisoner and not independent. But so far as I was able to
understand and to note, so have I [noted] the countries and cities as they are
called in those countries, and I here make known and publish many
interesting and strange adventures, which are worth listening to.
1Neumann states in a note that this date, through the transcriber’s error, appears
as 1344 in the Heidelberg MS.

1.—Of the first combat between King Sigmund and the Turks.
From the first, King Sigmund appealed in the above-named year, thirteen
hundred and ninety-four, to Christendom for assistance, at the time that the
Infidels were doing great injury to Hungern. There came many people from
all countries to help him;(1) then he took the people and led them to the Iron
Gate, which separates Ungern from Pulgery and Walachy, and he crossed
the Tunow into Pulgary, and made for a city called Pudem.(2) It is the capital
of Pulgery. Then came the ruler of the country and of the city, and gave
himself up to the king; then the king took possession of the city with three
hundred men, good horse and foot soldiers, and then went to another city
where were many Turks. There he remained five days, but the Turks would
not give up the city; but the fighting men expelled them by force, and
delivered the city to the king. Many Turks were killed and others made
prisoners. The king took possession of this city also, with two hundred men,
and continued his march towards another city called Schiltaw, but called in
the Infidel tongue, Nicopoly.(3) He besieged it by water and by land for XVI
days, then came the Turkish king, called Wyasit, with two hundred thousand
men, to the relief of the city. When the king, Sigmund, heard this, he went
one mile to meet him with his people, the number of whom were reckoned
at sixteen thousand men. Then came the Duke of Walachy, called
Werterwaywod,1(4) who asked the king to allow him to look at the winds.2
This the king allowed, and he took with him one thousand men for the
purpose of looking at the winds, and returned to the king and told him that
he had looked at the winds, and had seen twenty banners, and that there
were ten thousand men under each banner, and each banner was separate
from the other. When the king heard this, he wanted to arrange the order of
battle. The Duke of Walachy asked that he might be the first to attack, to
which the king would willingly have consented. When the Duke of Burguny
heard this, he refused to cede this honour to any other person, for the just
reason that he had come a great distance with six thousand men,(5) and had
expended much money in the expedition, and he begged the king that he
should be the first to attack. The king asked him to allow the Ungern to
begin, as they had already fought with the Turks, and knew better than
others how they were armed. This he would not allow to the Ungern, and

assembled his men, attacked the enemy, and fought his way through two
corps; and when he came to the third, he turned and would have retreated,
but found himself surrounded, and more than half his horsemen were
unhorsed, for the Turks aimed at the horses only, so that he could not get
away, and was taken prisoner. When the king heard that the Duke of
Burgony was forced to surrender, he took the rest of the people and
defeated a body of twelve thousand foot soldiers that had been sent to
oppose him. They were all trampled upon and destroyed, and in this
engagement a shot killed the horse of my lord Lienhart Richartinger; and I,
Hanns Schiltberger his runner, when I saw this, rode up to him in the crowd
and assisted him to mount my own horse, and then I mounted another
which belonged to the Turks, and rode back to the other runners. And when
all the [Turkish] foot-soldiers were killed, the king advanced upon another
corps which was of horse. When the Turkish king saw the king advancing,
he was about to fly, but the Duke of Iriseh, known as the despot,(6) seeing
this, went to the assistance of the Turkish king with fifteen thousand chosen
men and many other bannerets, and the despot threw himself with his
people on the king’s banner and overturned it; and when the king saw that
the banner was overturned and that he could not remain, he took to flight.3
Then came he of Cily,4 and Hanns, Burgrave of Nuremberg, who took the
king and conducted him to a galley on board of which he went to
Constantinoppel. When the horse and foot soldiers saw that the king had
fled, many escaped to the Tünow and went on board the shipping; but the
vessels were so full that they could not all remain, and when they tried to
get on board they struck them on the hands, so that they were drowned in
the river; many were killed on the mountain as they were going to the
Tunow. My lord Lienhart Richartinger, Wernher Pentznawer, Ulrich
Kuchler, and little Stainer, all bannerets, were killed in the fight, also many
other brave knights and soldiers. Of those who could not cross the water
and reach the vessels, a portion were killed; but the larger number were
made prisoners. Among the prisoners were the Duke of Burgony(7) and
Hanns Putzokardo,5 and a lord named Centumaranto.6 These were two lords
of France, and the Great Count of Hungern. And other mighty lords,
horsemen, and foot-soldiers, were made prisoners, and I also was made a
prisoner.
1This name appears as Martin in edition of 1814; Merter Waywod in edition of
1475; and Merte Weydwod in that of 1549.

2To reconnoitre. In the edition of 1814 the term employed is “zu recognosciren”.
3The battle of Nicopolis was fought September 28th, 1396.
4Herman of Cily. N.
5Boucicault, who has described the battle in his Memoirs. H.
6Saint Omer. F.

2.—How the Turkish king treated the prisoners.
And now when the King Weyasat had had the battle, he went near the city
where King Sigmund had encamped with his army, and then went to the
battle-field and looked upon his people that were killed; and when he saw
that so many of his people were killed, he was torn by great grief, and
swore he would not leave their blood unavenged, and ordered his people to
bring every prisoner before him the next day, by fair means or foul. So they
came the next day, each with as many prisoners as he had made, bound with
a cord. I was one of three bound with the same cord, and was taken by him
who had captured us. When the prisoners were brought before the king, he
took the Duke of Burgony that he might see his vengeance because of his
people that had been killed. When the Duke of Burgony saw his anger, he
asked him to spare the lives of several he would name; this was granted by
the king. Then he selected twelve lords, his own countrymen, also Stephen
Synüher and the lord Hannsen of Bodem.(1) Then each was ordered to kill
his own prisoners, and for those who did not wish to do so the king
appointed others in their place. Then they took my companions and cut off
their heads, and when it came to my turn, the king’s son saw me and
ordered that I should be left alive, and I was taken to the other boys,
because none under xx years of age were killed, and I was scarcely sixteen
years old. Then I saw the lord Hannsen Greiff, who was a noble of Payern,
and four others, bound with the same cord. When he saw the great revenge
that was taking place, he cried with a loud voice and consoled the horse-
and foot-soldiers who were standing there to die. “Stand firm”, he said,
“when our blood this day is spilt for the Christian faith, and we by God’s
help shall become the children of heaven.” When he said this he knelt, and
was beheaded together with his companions. Blood was spilled from
morning until vespers, and when the king’s counsellors saw that so much
blood was spilled and that still it did not stop, they rose and fell upon their
knees before the king, and entreated him for the sake of God that he would
forget his rage, that he might not draw down upon himself the vengeance of
God, as enough blood was already spilled. He consented, and ordered that
they should stop, and that the rest of the people should be brought together,
and from them he took his share and left the rest to his people who had

made them prisoners. I was amongst those the king took for his share, and
the people that were killed on that day were reckoned at ten thousand men.
The prisoners of the king were then sent to Greece to a chief city called
Andranopoli, where we remained prisoners for fifteen days. Then we were
taken by sea to a city called Kalipoli;(2) it is the city where the Turks cross
the sea, and there three hundred of us remained for two months confined in
a tower. The Duke of Burgony also was there in the upper part of the tower
with those prisoners he had saved; and whilst we were there, the King
Sigmund passed us on his way to Windischy land.(3) When the Turks heard
this, they took us out of the tower and led us to the sea, and one after the
other they abused the king and mocked him, and called to him to come out
of the boat and deliver his people; and this they did to make fun of him, and
skirmished a long time with each other on the sea. But they did not do him
any harm, and so he went away.

3.—How Wyasit subjugated an entire country.
On the third day after the Turkish king had killed the people and sent us
prisoners to the above named city, he marched upon Ungern and crossed the
river called the Saw, at a city called Mittrotz, and took it and all the country
around; and then he went into the Duchy of Petaw, and took with him from
the said country sixteen thousand men with their wives and children and all
their property, and took the city of the above name and burnt it; and the
people he took away and some he left in Greece.1(1) And after he passed the
river called the Saw, he sent orders to Karipoli that we were to be taken
across the sea; and when we were taken across the sea, we were taken to the
king’s capital called Wursa, where we remained until he himself came. And
when he arrived in the city he took the Duke of Burgony and those the duke
had saved, and lodged them in a house near to his palace. The king then
sent a lord named Hoder of Ungern, with sixty boys, as a mark of honour to
the king-sultan;(2) and he would have sent me to the king-sultan, but I was
severely wounded, having three wounds, so for fear I might die on the way
I was left with the Turkish king. Other prisoners were sent as an offering to
the king of Babilony(3) and the king of Persia,(4) also into White Tartary,2(5)
into Greater Armenia,(6) and also into other countries. I was taken to the
palace of the Turkish king; there for six years I was obliged to run on my
feet with the others, wherever he went, it being the custom that the lords
have people to run before them. After six years I deserved to be allowed to
ride, and I rode six years with him, so that I was twelve years with him; and
it is to be noted what the said Turkish king did during these twelve years, all
of which is written down piece by piece.
1Styrian historians have overlooked this statement of Schiltberger. N.
2White Tartars, i.e., Free Tartars. White signifies free in the Tartar and Russian
tongues; black, on the contrary, signifies subject-races or those that are tributary.
N.

4.—How Wyasit made war on his brother-in-law, and killed him.
From the first he was at war with his brother-in-law, who was called
Caraman, and this name he had because of his country. The capital of the
country is called Karanda,(1) and because he would not be subject to him, he
marched upon him with one hundred and fifty thousand men. When he
knew that King Weyasit had advanced, he went to meet him with seventy
thousand men, the best he had in the land, and with whom he intended to
resist the king. They met each other on the plain in front of the city called
Konia, which belonged to the said lord, Caraman. Here they attacked each
other and began to fight, and had on the same day two encounters by which
one tried to overcome the other, and both sides had rest at night, that one
might not do harm to the other. That same night Karaman made merry with
trumpets, with drums, and with his guards, with the object of causing alarm
to Weyasit; but Weyasit arranged with his people that they should not make
a fire except for cooking, and should immediately again put it out. At night
he sent thirty thousand men to the rear of the enemy, and said to them that
when he should attack in the morning they should also attack. When the day
broke, Weyasit went against the enemy, and the thirty thousand men
attacked in the rear as they were ordered, and when Karaman saw that the
enemy was attacking him in front and behind, he fled into his city of Konia,
and remained in it to defend himself. Weyasit lay siege to the city for xi
days without being able to take it; then the citizens sent word to Weyasit
that they would surrender the city if he would secure to them their lives and
property. To this he agreed. Then they sent word to say that they would
retire from the walls when he came to storm, and thus he might take the
city. And this occurred. And when Karaman saw that Weyasit was entering
the city, he attacked him with his warriors, and fought with him in the town,
and if he had received the least assistance from the inhabitants he would
have forced Weyasit out of the city; but when he saw that he had no
assistance, he fled, but was taken before Weyasit, who said to him: “Why
wilt thou not be subject to me?” Karaman answered, “Because I am as great
a lord as thyself.” Weyasit became angry, and asked three times if there was
anybody who would rid him of Karaman. At the third time came one who
took him aside and cut off his head and went back with it to Weyasit, who

asked what he had done with him? He answered, “I have beheaded him.”
Then he shed tears and ordered that another man should do to him what he
did to Karaman, and he was taken to the place where he beheaded Karaman
and he was also beheaded. This was done because Weyasit thought that
nobody should have killed so mighty a lord, but should have waited until
his lord’s anger had passed away. He then ordered that the head of Karaman
should be fixed on a lance and carried about the country, so that other cities
might submit to him on hearing that their lord was killed. After this he
occupied the city of Konia with his people and marched upon the city of
Karanda, and called upon them to surrender as he was their lord, and if they
would not do so he would compel them with the sword. Then the citizens
sent out to him four of their most eminent [fellow citizens], to beg that he
would ensure to them their lives and their property, and begged, as their
lord Karaman was dead, and they had two of his sons in the city, that he
would appoint one of them to be their lord; and should he do so, they would
surrender to him the city. He replied that he should spare their lives and
property, but when he would have possession of the city, he should know
what lord to appoint, whether the son of Karaman or one of his own sons.
And so they parted. When the citizens heard Weyasit’s answer they would
not give up the city, and said that although their lord was dead he had left
two sons, under whom they will recover or die. And so they defended
themselves against the king until the fifth day. And as Weyasit saw that they
continued to resist, he sent for more people and ordered arquebuses to be
brought, and platforms to be constructed. When Karaman’s sons and their
mother saw this, they sent for the chief citizens and said to them: “You see
plainly that we cannot resist Weyasit, who is too powerful for us; we should
be sorry if you died for our sakes, and we have agreed with our mother that
we will trust to his mercy.” The citizens were pleased at this, and the sons
of Karaman and their mother, and the chief citizens of the city, opened the
gates and went out. And as they were advancing, the mother took a son in
each hand and went up to Weyasit, who, when he saw his sister with her
sons, went out of his tent towards her, and when they were near him they
threw themselves at his feet, kissed them, and begged for mercy, and they
gave the keys of the gates and of the city. When the king saw this, he
ordered his lords who were near him to raise them. When this was done he
took possession of the city, and appointed one of his lords to be governor,
and he sent his sister and her two sons to his capital called Wurssa.

5.—How Weyasit drives away the king of Sebast.(1)
There was a vassal named Mirachamad who resided in a city called
Marsüany; it was on the border of Karaman’s country. When Mirachamad
heard that King Weyasit had conquered Karaman’s country, he sent to him
to ask him to drive away also the king of Sebast, who was called
Wurthanadin, who had seized upon his territory because he could not
himself expel him, and he should give him the territory in exchange for one
in his own country. Weyasit sent to his assistance his son Machamet with
thirty thousand men, and they forcibly expelled the king called Wurthanadin
out of the country.1 Then Mirachamad bestowed upon Machamet2 the
capital and all the territory, because his first engagement had been in its
behalf. Then Weyasit took Mirachamad with him to his own country, and
gave him another territory for his own.
1 1394.
3Mouhammed, a younger son of Bajazet.

6.—What sixty of us Christians had agreed upon.
And when Weyasit came to his capital, there were sixty of us Christians
agreed that we should escape, and made a bond between ourselves and
swore to each other that we should die or succeed together; and each of us
took time to get ready, and at the time we met together, and chose two
leaders from amongst ourselves by lot, and whatever they ordered we were
to obey. Then we rose after midnight and rode to a mountain and came to it
by daybreak. And when we came to the mountain we dismounted, and let
our horses rest until sunrise, when we remounted and rode the same day and
night. And when Weyasit heard that we had taken to flight, he sent five
hundred horse with orders that we were to be found, that we were to be
caught, and brought to him. They overtook us near a defile, and called to us
to give ourselves up. This we would not do, and we dismounted from our
horses and defended ourselves against them as well as we could. When their
commander saw that we defended ourselves, he came forward and asked for
peace for one hour. We consented. He came to us and asked us to give
ourselves up as prisoners; he would answer for the safety of our lives. We
said we would consult, and did consult, and gave him this answer: We knew
that so soon as we were made prisoners, we should die so soon as we came
before the king, and it would be better that we should die here, with arms in
our hands, for the Christian faith. When the commander saw that we were
determined, he again asked that we should give ourselves as prisoners, and
promised on his oath that he would ensure our lives, and if the king was so
angry as to want to kill us, he would let them kill him first. He promised
this on his oath, and therefore we gave ourselves up as prisoners. He took
us before the king, who ordered that we should be killed immediately; the
commander went and knelt before the king, and said that he had trusted in
his mercy and had promised us our lives, and asked him also that he should
spare us because he had even sworn that such would be the case. The king
then asked him if we had done any harm? He said: No. Then he ordered that
we should be put into prison; there we remained for nine months as
prisoners, during which time twelve of us died. And when it was the Easter-
day of the Infidels, his eldest son Wirmirsiana,1(1) begged for us, then he set
us free, and ordered that we should be brought to him; then we were obliged

to promise him that we should never try to escape again, and he gave us
back our horses and increased our pay.
1The Amir Souleiman. The other sons of Bajazet were Mouhammed and Mousa.

7.—How Wyasit took the city of Samson.(1)
Afterwards, in the summer, Wyasit took eighty thousand men into a country
called Genyck, and lay siege to a capital called Samson. This city was built
by the strong man Samson, from whom it has its name. The lord of the
country was of the same name as the country, Zymayd, and the king
expelled the lord out of the land; and when it was heard in the city that their
lord was driven away, the people gave themselves up to Weyasit, who
occupied the city and all the country with his people.

8.—Of serpents and vipers.
A great miracle is to be noted which took place near the said city of
Samson, during the time that I was with Weyasit. There came around the
city such a lot of vipers and serpents, that they took up the space of a mile
all round. There is a country called Tcyenick which belongs to Sampson; it
is a wooded country in which are many forests. One part of the vipers came
from the said forests, and one part came out of the sea. The vipers remained
for xi days, and then they fought with each other, and nobody dared to leave
the city on account of the vipers, although they did no harm either to men or
to cattle. Then the lord of the city and of the country gave orders that
likewise no harm should be done to these reptiles, and said it was a sign and
a manifestation from Almighty God. And now on the tenth day, the serpents
and vipers fought with each other from morning until the going down of the
sun, and when the lord and the people of the city saw what was done, the
lord caused the gate to be opened, and rode out with a few people out of the
city, and looked where the vipers were fighting, and saw that the vipers
from the sea had to succumb to those of the forests. And the next morning
early, the lord again rode out of the city to see if the reptiles were still there;
he found none but dead vipers, which he ordered to be collected and
counted. There were eight thousand. He then ordered a pit to be made, and
ordered all to be thrown in and covered with earth, and he sent to Weyasit,
who at that time was lord in Turkey, to tell him of the marvel. He took it for
a piece of luck, as he had only just taken the city and country of Samson,
and almost rejoiced that the forest adders had succumbed to the sea adders,
and said it was a manifestation from Almighty God, and he hoped that as he
was a powerful lord and king of the sea-board, so he would also, by the help
of God the Almighty, become the powerful lord and king of the sea. Samson
consists of two cities opposite to each other, and their walls are distant, one
from the other, an arrow’s flight. In one of these cities there are Christians,
and at that time the Italians of Genoa(1) possessed it. In the other are
Infidels to whom the country belongs. At that time the lord of the city and
country was a duke called Schuffmanes, son of [the duke of] Middle
Pulgrey, the chief city of which country is Ternowa,(2) and who at that time
had three hundred fortified towns, cities, and castles. This country was

conquered by Weyasit who took the duke and his son. The father died in
prison, and the son became converted to the faith of the Infidels, so that his
life might be spared. Weyasit conquered Samson and the country, and
conquered Zyenick; and the city and the country he gave to him for his
lifetime, in place of his fatherland.

9.—How the Infidels remain in the fields with their cattle, in winter
and summer.
It is the custom among the Infidels for some lords to lead a wandering life
with their cattle, and when they come to a country that has good pasturage,
they rent it of the lord of the country for a time. There was a Turkish lord
called Otman, who wandered about with his cattle, and in the summer came
to a country called Tamast, and the capital of the country is also so called.
He asked the king of Tamast, who was called Wurchanadin,(1) that he would
lend him a pasturage where he and his cattle might feed during the summer.
The king lent him such a pasturage, to which he went with his dependants
and cattle, and remained there the summer; and in autumn he broke up and
returned to his country, without the king’s permission and knowledge; and
when the king heard of this he became very angry, and took one thousand
men with him and went to the pasturage that Otman had occupied, and
encamped there, and sent four thousand horsemen after Otman, and ordered
that they should bring back Otman alive, with all his belongings. And when
Otman heard that the king had sent after him, he hid himself in a mountain,
so that those who rode after him could not find him; and they encamped on
a meadow in front of the mountain where Otman was with his people, and
remained there that night without troubling themselves about him. And
when the day dawned, Otman took one thousand of his best horsemen to
look at the winds, and when he saw that they were not on their guard, and
were without care, he rode towards them and suddenly took them by
surprise, so that they could not defend themselves, and many of them were
killed; the others took to flight. The king was told how Otman had
annihilated his expedition, but he would not believe it, and thought that fun
was being made of him, until some of them came running to him. Even then
he would not believe it, and sent one hundred horsemen to see if such was
the case; and when the hundred horsemen went to see about it, Otman was
on his way with his people to attack the king; and when he saw the hundred
horsemen he overtook them, and came with them into the camp. And when
the king and his people saw that they were overtaken, and that they could
not defend themselves any more, they took to flight. The king himself had
scarcely time to mount his horse, and took to flight to a mountain; but one

of Otman’s servants saw him, and hastened after him on the mountain; then
the king could fly no farther, and the soldier called upon him to surrender;
but he would not give himself up. Then he took his bow and would have
shot him, when the king made himself known and asked him to let him go,
promising to give him a fine castle, and he wanted to give him the ring he
had on his hand as a pledge. The soldier would not do so, and made him a
prisoner and brought him to his lord. And Otman pursued the people all day
until the evening, and killed many of them, and encamped where the king
had stayed, and sent for the people and cattle that he had left to run about
the mountains. And when the people came with the cattle, he took the king,
and went to the capital called Tamastk, where he encamped with all his
people, and sent word into the city that he had captured the king, and that if
they would deliver to him the city, he would give peace and security. The
city made this answer: If he had their king, they had his son, and they had
lords enough, as he was too weak to be a lord. He then said to the king, that
if he wanted his life to be spared, he should speak to the citizens that they
give up the city. So they took him before the city, and he asked the citizens
that they should deliver him from death, and give up the city to Otman.
They replied: We will not give up the city to Otman, because he is too
feeble a lord for us; and if thou shouldst no longer care to be our lord, we
have thy son, whom we will have for our lord. When Otman heard this, he
was angry, and seeing his anger, the king begged him to spare his life,
promising to give him the city of Gaissaria, with all its dependancies. This
Otman would not do, and he ordered the king to be beheaded in sight of the
people of the city, and ordered that afterwards he should be quartered, each
part being fixed on a stake stuck in the ground in sight of the city, and the
head on the point of a lance, together with the four quarters. And whilst the
king lay before the city, the king’s son sent to his father-in-law, the
powerful ruler of White Tartary, that he should come to his assistance,
because Otman had killed his father and many others, and that he was
before the city. And so soon as his father-in-law heard this, he took with
him all his people, with their wives, children, and all their cattle, as is the
custom of the country, because he intended going to Tamast to deliver the
country from Otman, and his people were numbered at forty thousand men,
without including women and children. When Otman heard that the Tartar
king was approaching, he went with his people to the mountains, where he
encamped. The Tartar king encamped before the city, and so soon as Otman

heard of it, he took fifteen hundred men and divided them into two parts,
and when night came he marched upon them on both sides with loud cries.
When the Tartar king heard of this, he thought they wanted to betray him,
and fled into the city, which, when his people heard, they also took to flight.
Otman pursued them and killed a great many, and captured much booty.
They returned to their country, and Otman took with him to the mountain
where he had left his cattle, the cattle and the booty that he had taken from
them. Before it was day, the Tartar king rode after his people to make them
turn back; this they would not do, so he turned back again. Then Otman
again lay siege to the city, and invited them to give him the city, and he
would do as he had promised. This they would not do, and sent to beg
Weyasit to come and drive Otman out of the country, and they would
surrender the city to him. Weyasit sent his eldest son, with twenty thousand
horsemen and four thousand foot-soldiers, to the help of the town; and I
also was in this expedition. And when he heard that the son of Weyasit was
coming, he sent his property and cattle to the mountain where he had been,
and he himself remained in the plain with one thousand horsemen. Then the
king’s son sent two thousand horsemen to see if they could find Otman; and
when they saw Otman, they attacked each other. And when they saw that
they could not overcome him, they sent for assistance. Then came Weyasit’s
son, with all his people. But when Otman saw him, he rode against him, and
would quickly have put him to flight, for the people were not close together.
The king’s son cried to his people, and they began to fight, and they fought
for three hours consecutively. And when they were fighting with each other,
four thousand foot-soldiers attacked the tent of Otman, and when he heard
this, he sent four hundred horsemen, who, with the assistance of those who
kept the goods and cattle, expelled the foot-soldiers out of the tent. Otman
went with a force into the mountain, where his property was, and sent it
away, and remained during that time before the mountain. Then the king’s
son appeared before the city, and the citizens opened the gates of
Damastchk, and rode out and asked him to take the city. This he would not
do, and sent to his father, that he should come and take the city and
territory. He came with one hundred and fifty thousand men, took the city
and country, and gave them to his son Machmet, and not to him who had
expelled Otman from being king of the city and country.(2)

10.—How Weyasit took a country that belonged to the Sultan.
After Weyasit had installed his son in the kingdom, he sent to the king-
sultan in respect to a city called Malathea,(1) and the country that belonged
to the city, because the city and the country belonged to the above-named
kingdom which was in the possession of the king-sultan, and therefore
required that he should surrender the city of Malathea and the territory,
because he had conquered the kingdom. The king-sultan sent word to him
that he had won the kingdom by the sword, and he who wished to have it
must also win it by the sword. When Weyasit received this answer, he went
into the country with two hundred thousand men, and lay siege to the city
for two months; and when he found that it would not surrender, he filled up
the ditches and surrounded the city with his people, and began to storm.
When they saw this they asked for mercy, and gave themselves up. Then he
took the city and the country, and occupied it.
At about the same time, the White Tartars besieged the city called Angarus,
which belonged to Weyasit; and when he heard of this, he sent to its
assistance his eldest son with thirty-two thousand men. He fought a battle,
but he was obliged to return to Wyasit, who ordered more men, and sent
him back again. But he fought with him, and took the Tartar lord and two
vassals, and brought them as prisoners to Weyasit, and thus the White
Tartars gave themselves up to Weyasit. He put another lord over them, took
the three lords to his capital, and then marched against another city called
Adalia,1 which belonged to the sultan, and the city is not far from Zypern;
and in the country to which the city belongs, there are no other cattle but
camels. After Weyasit took the city and the country, the country made him a
present of ten thousand camels; and after he occupied the city and the
country, he took the camels into his own country.
1Adalia or Satalia, on the sea-shore. William of Tyre so called the chief city of
Pamphylia. The town lies, as correctly stated, opposite to Cyprus. N.

11.—Of the King-Sultan.
About this time died the king-sultan, named Warchhoch, and his son named
Joseph became king; but one of his father’s dependants went to war with
him for the kingdom. Then Joseph sent to Weyasit, and became reconciled
with him, and asked him that he should come to help him. So he sent twenty
thousand men to help him, in which expedition I was also. Thus Joseph
expelled his rival, and became a powerful king.(1) After this it was told him,
that five hundred of his dependants were against him, and were in favour of
his rival. He ordered that they should be taken to a plain, where they were
all cut into two parts. Afterwards, we again returned to our lord, Weyasit.

12.—How Temerlin conquered the kingdom of Sebast.
When Weyasit had expelled Otman from Tamast, as has already been stated,
he went to his lord named Tämerlin, to whom he was subject, and
complained of Weyasit, how he had driven him away from the kingdom of
Tamask, which he had conquered, and at the same time asked him to help
him to reconquer his kingdom. Tämerlin said that he would send to
Weyasit, to restore the country. This he did, but Weyasit sent word that he
would not give it up, for as he had won it by the sword, it might as well be
his as another’s. So soon as Tämerlin heard this, he assembled ten hundred
thousand men, and conducted them into the kingdom of Sebast, and lay
siege to the capital, before which he remained XXI days, and he
undermined the walls of the city in several places, and took the city by
force, although there were in it five thousand horsemen sent by Weyasit.(1)
They were all buried alive in this way. When Tämerlin took the city, the
governor begged that he would not shed their blood. To this he consented,
and so they were buried alive. Then he levelled the city, and carried away
the inhabitants into captivity in his own country. There were also nine
thousand virgins taken into captivity by Tämerlin to his own country.(2)
Before he took the city, he had at least three thousand men killed. Then he
returned to his own country.

13.—Weyasit conquers Lesser Armenia.

Scarcely had Tämerlin returned to his own country,(1) than Weyasit
assembled three hundred thousand men, and went into Lesser Ermenia and
took it from Tämerlin, and took the capital called Ersingen, together with its
lord who was named Tarathan,(2) and then went back to his own country. So
soon as Tämerlin heard that Weyasit had conquered the said country, he
went to meet him with sixteen hundred thousand men; and when Weyasit
heard this, he went to meet him with fourteen hundred thousand men. They
met near a city called Augury, where they fought desperately. Weyasit had
quite thirty thousand men of White Tartary, whom he placed in the van at
the battle. They went over to Tämerlin; then they had two encounters, but
neither could overcome the other. Now Tämerlin had thirty-two trained
elephants at the battle, and ordered, after mid-day, that they should be
brought into the battle. This was done, and they attacked each other; but
Weyasit took to flight, and went with at least one thousand horsemen to a
mountain. Tämerlin surrounded the mountain so that he could not move,
and took him.1 Then he remained eight months in the country, conquered
more territory and occupied it, and then went to Weyasit’s capital and took
him with him, and took his treasure, and silver and gold, as much as one
thousand camels could carry; and he would have taken him into his own
country, but he died2 on the way3 (3). And so I became Tämerlin’s prisoner,
and was taken by him to his country. After this I rode after him. What I have
described took place during the time that I was with Weyasit.
1July 20th, 1402.
2March 8th, 1403, at Aksheher.
3Schiltberger’s accounts agree perfectly with the statements made by Byzantine
and Eastern historians. We are forced to conclude, after Hammer’s searching
enquiries, that there is no truth whatever in the story of Bajasid having been
confined by Timur in an iron cage. N.

14.—How Tämerlin goes to war with the King-Sultan.
After Tämerlin had overcome Weyasit and returned to his own country, he
went to war with the king-sultan, who is the chief king among Infidels. He
took with him XII hundred thousand men, went into his territory, and lay
siege to a city called Hallapp, which contains four hundred thousand
houses. Then the lord and governor of the city took with him eighty
thousand men, and went out and fought with Tämerlin, but he could not
overcome him, and fled again into the city, and many people were killed in
his flight. He continued to defend himself, but Tämerlin took a suburb on
the fourth day, and the people he found in it he threw into the moat of the
city, put timber and mire upon them, and filled the moat in four places. The
moat was twelve fathom deep, and [cut] in the solid rock. Then he stormed
the city, and took it by assault and captured the governor, and fully occupied
the city, and then went to another city called Hrumkula, which surrendered.
Then he went to another city called Anthap. There he lay siege for VIIII
days, and took it on the tenth day by assault, and pillaged it, and went to
another city called Wehessum. There he lay siege for XV days. After that
they gave themselves up and he occupied it. The cities I have named are
chief cities in Syria.(1) Then he went to another city called Damaschk; it is
the principal capital in the country. When the king-sultan heard that he was
laying siege to Tamasch, he sent and begged that he would not injure the
city, and spare the temple. To this he consented, and went further on. The
temple in the city of Tamasch is so large, that it has externally forty gates.
Inside the temple hang twelve thousand lamps, of which number IX
thousand are lit daily. But every week, on Friday, all of them are lit.
Amongst these lamps are many in gold and silver, made by the order of
kings and great lords. So soon as Tämerlin had gone out from the city, the
king-sultan left his capital Alchei Terchei, with thirty thousand men, hoping
to arrive before Tämerlin took it, and he sent twelve thousand men to
Tamaschen. When Tämerlin heard this, he marched towards him, and the
king-sultan returned again to his capital. Tämerlin pursued him, and where
the king-sultan passed the night, there in the morning he caused the water
and the grass to be poisoned; and wherever Tämerlin came, he suffered
great losses amongst his people and cattle, and could not overtake him.

Then he turned again against Tamaschen and besieged it for III months, but
could not take it. During those three months they fought every day, and
when the twelve M men saw that they had no assistance from their lord,
they asked Tämerlin to be allowed to pass. He consented, and they left the
city at night and returned to their lord. Then Tämerlin stormed the city and
took it by assault. And now, soon after he had taken the city, came to him
the Geit, that is as much as to say a bishop, and fell at his feet, and begged
mercy for himself and his priests. Tämerlin ordered that he should go with
his priests into the temple; so the priests took their wives, their children and
many others, into the temple for protection, until there were thirty thousand
young and old. Now Tämerlin gave orders that when the temple was full,
the people inside should be shut up in it. This was done. Then wood was
placed around the temple, and he ordered it to be ignited, and they all
perished in the temple. Then he ordered that each one of his [soldiers]
should bring to him the head of a man. This was done, and it took three
days; then with these heads were constructed three towers, and the city was
pillaged.(2) After this he went into another country called Scherch,(3) a
country where no cattle are bred, and this country gave itself up. He ordered
them to bring food for his people who were famished, although they had
been before a city so rich in spices. Then he returned to his country, having
left that country and occupied the cities.

15.—How Tämerlin conquered Babiloni.
Now when he returned from the land of the king-sultan, he took ten
hundred thousand men with him and marched upon Babiloni. When the
king1 heard this, he left a garrison in the city and went out of it. Tämerlin
besieged it for a whole month, during which time he undermined the walls,
took the city and burnt it. Then he had the earth ploughed and barley
planted there, because he had sworn that he would destroy the city, so that
nobody should know whether there had been houses or no. Then he went to
a fortress; it stood in a river, and the king kept his treasure there.(1) He could
not take this fortress, across the water, so he turned away the water, and
found under the water three leaden chests full of gold and silver; each chest
was two fathoms long, and one fathom broad. The king sank them here, so
that if the fortress was taken, the gold would remain. The chests he
removed, and he took the fortress and found fifteen men in it. They were
hanged. They also found in the fortress four chests full of silver and gold,
which he also took away, and then conquered three cities. Then summer
began, so that on account of the heat he could not remain in the country.

1Sultan Achmed, of the last Ilchans.—See Deguignes, Germ. Trans., iii, 313. N.

16.—How Tämerlin conquered Lesser India.(1)
When Tämerlin returned home from Babiloni, he sent word to all in his land
that they were to be ready in four months, as he wanted to go into Lesser
India, distant from his capital a four months’ journey. When the time came,
he went into Lesser India with four hundred thousand men, and crossed a
desert of twenty days’ journey; there, is a great want of water, and then he
got to a mountain which it took him eight days, before he came out of it. On
this mountain there is a path, where camels and horses must be bound to
planks and lowered. Then he came to a valley where it is so dark, that
people cannot see each other by the light of day, and it is of half a day’s
journey.(2) Then he came to a high mountainous country, in which he
travelled for three days and three nights, and then got to a beautiful plain,
where lies the capital of the country. He stopped with his people in the
plain, near the wooded mountain, and sent word to the king of the country:
Mirttemirgilden, that is as much as to say, Give up thyself, the lord
Tämerlin is come.(3) When the king received the message, he sent word to
tell him that he would settle with him with the sword. Then he marched
against Tämerlin with four hundred thousand men, and with four hundred
elephants trained for war; upon each elephant was a turret, in each of which
were at least ten armed men. When Tämerlin heard of this, he advanced
with his people to meet him; in the mean time the king placed the elephants
in the front, and when they engaged, Tämerlin might easily have conquered;
but he could not overcome the king, because his horses were afraid of the
elephants and would not advance. This went on from morning until mid-
day, so that Tämerlin retired and had his counsellors to consult, how the
king and his elephants were to be overcome? One named Suleymanschach
advised, that camels should be taken and wood fastened on them, and when
the elephants advanced, the wood should be ignited, and the camels driven
up against the elephants; thus would they be subdued by the fire and the
cries of the camels, because the elephants are afraid of fire. Then Tämerlin
took twenty thousand camels and prepared them as above described, and
the king came with his elephants in front. Tämerlin went to meet him, and
drove the camels up against the elephants, the wood on them being on fire.
The camels cried out, and when the elephants saw the fire and heard the

great cries, they took to flight, so that none could hold them. When
Tämerlin saw this, he pursued them with all his force, and of the elephants
many were killed.(4) When the king saw this, he went back into his capital.
Tämerlin followed him up and besieged the city for ten days. In the mean
time the king agreed with him, to give him two zentner of gold of India,
which is better than the gold of Arabia, and he also gave him many precious
stones, and promised to lend him thirty thousand men whenever he might
want them; and so they were reconciled with each other. The king remained
in his kingdom, and Tämerlin returned to his country, and took with him
one hundred elephants and the riches the king had given him.

17.—How a vassal carried off riches that belonged to Tämerlin.
When Tämerlin returned from Lesser India, he sent one of his vassals
named Chebakh, with ten thousand men, to the city of Soltania,1 (1) to bring
to him the five-yearly tribute of Persia and Ermenia which was kept in that
city. He came, and took the tribute, and loaded one thousand waggons, and
then he wrote to a lord in the country of Massander, who was his friend. He
came with fifty thousand men, they made an alliance with each other, and
the treasure was taken to Massenderam. When Tämerlin heard of this, he
sent a great many people to conquer the above-named country, and bring to
him the two lords as prisoners. When the people got to the country, they
could not do any harm because of the large forests which surround it, and
they sent to Tämerlin for more people. He sent other seventy thousand men
to clear the woods and make a road. They did so for ten miles, but could not
conquer the territory. They sent to tell Tämerlin, and he ordered them to go
home, which they did, without having done anything.
1Sultania, to the north of Kaswin. The construction of this city was begun by
Ilchan, or by Argun the Persian viceroy, and completed by Chasan. These
powerful despots of Persia wanted to acquire, as is not rarely the case with other
despots, immortal fame for themselves, by extorting from their subjects for the
purpose of constructing magnificent buildings. Their wishes have not been
realised. N.

18.—How Tämerlin caused MMM children to be killed.
Then he went into a kingdom called Hisspahan and made for the capital,
Hisspahan, and required it to surrender. They gave themselves up, and went
to him with their wives and children. He received them graciously, occupied
the city with six thousand of his people, and took away with him the lord of
the city, whose name was Schachister. And so soon as the city heard that
Tämerlin was gone out of the country, they closed all the gates and killed
the six thousand men. When Tämerlin knew this, he returned to the city and
besieged it for XV days, but he could not take it, and made peace with them
on condition that they should lend him the archers that were in the city, for
an expedition; after that, he should send them back. They sent to him twelve
thousand archers; he cut off all their thumbs, and forced them back into the
city and himself entered it. He assembled all the citizens, and ordered all
those over fourteen years to be beheaded, and the boys under XIIII years he
ordered to be spared, and with the heads was constructed a tower in the
centre of the city; then he ordered the women and children to be taken to a
plain outside the city, and ordered the children under seven years of age to
be placed apart, and ordered his people to ride over these same children.
When his counsellors and the mothers of the children saw this, they fell at
his feet, and begged that he would not kill them. He would not listen, and
ordered that they should be ridden over; but none would be the first to do
so. He got angry, and rode himself [amongst them] and said: “Now I should
like to see who will not ride after me?” Then they were all obliged to ride
over the children, and they were all trampled upon.(1) There were seven
thousand. Then he set fire to the city, and took the other women and
children into his own city; and then went to his capital called Semerchant,
where he had not been for twelve years.

19.—Tämerlin wants to go to war with the Great Chan.
At about this time, the great Chan, king of Chetey, sent an ambassador with
four hundred horsemen, to demand of him the tribute which he had
forgotten, and kept for five years. Tämerlin took the ambassador with him,
until he came to his above-named capital, and sent him from there to tell his
lord, that he would neither pay tribute nor be subject to him, and that he
should himself pay him a visit. Then he sent messengers all over his country
that they should prepare, as he wished to advance on Cetey, and taking
eighteen hundred thousand men, he marched for a whole month. He then
came to a desert that was seventy days journey across; there he travelled ten
days, and lost many people there for want of water. Great harm also befel
his horses and other cattle, because it was very cold in that country;(1) and
when he perceived his great losses amongst his people and cattle, he turned
and went back to his capital and fell ill.

20.—-Of Tämerlin’s death.
It is to be noted, that three causes made Tämerlin fret, so that he became ill,
and died of that same illness. The first cause was grief that his vassal had
escaped with the tribute; the other it is to be noted was, that Tämerlin had
three wives, and that the youngest, whom he loved very much, had been
intimate with one of his vassals whilst he was away. When Tämerlin came
home, his eldest wife told him that his youngest wife had cared for one of
his vassals, and had broken her vow. He would not believe it. She came to
him and said: “Come to her and order her to open her trunk: you will find a
ring with a precious stone, and a letter which he has sent to her.” Tämerlin
sent to tell her that he would pass the night with her, and when he came into
her room, he told her to open her trunk. This was done, and he found the
ring and the letter. He sat down near her, and asked whence the ring and
letter had come to her? She fell at his feet, and begged he would not be
angry, because one of his vassals had sent them to her without any right.1
After this he went out of the room, and ordered that she should be
immediately beheaded. This was done. He then sent five thousand
horsemen after this same vassal, that they might bring him as a prisoner; but
he was warned by the commander who was sent after him, and the vassal
took with him five hundred men, his wife and children, and fled to the
country of Wassandaran. There Tämerlin could not get at him. It fretted him
so much that he had killed his wife, and that the vassal had escaped, that he
died, and was buried in the country with great magnificence. Be it also
known that, after he was buried, the priests that belong to the temple, heard
him howl every night during a whole year. His friends gave large alms, that
he should cease his howlings. But this was of no use. They asked advice of
their priests, and went to his son and begged that he would set free the
prisoners taken by his father in other countries, and especially those that
were in his capital, who were all craftsmen he had brought to his capital,
where they had to work. He let them go, and so soon as they were free,
Tämerlin did not howl any more. All that is written above, happened during
the six years that I was with Tämerlin,2 and I also was present.
1“One alle Geüard.”—See chap. 65, note 3.

2This is an error in dates, as regards his period of service under Bajasid.
Schiltberger was with Timur from July 20th, 1402, only. N.

21.—-Of the sons of Tämerlin.
You should know that Tämerlin left two sons. The eldest was named
Scharoch, who had a son to whom Tämerlin gave his capital and the
country that belonged to it, and to each of his two sons, Scharoch and
Miraschach, he gave a kingdom in Persia, and other large territories that
belonged to them. After the death of Tämerlin, I came to his son named
Scharoch, who had the kingdom of Horossen, the capital of which is called
Herren. Here Schiltberger remained with Miraschach, the son of Tämerlin.
The younger son of Tämerlin had in Persia a kingdom called Thaures, and
after his father’s death came a vassal named Joseph, who expelled
Miraschach from his kingdom. He sent to his brother Scharoch, and asked
him to help him to recover his kingdom. His brother came with eighty
thousand men, and sent thirty thousand men to his brother, that he might
expel the vassal, and kept to himself forty-two thousand men. With these he
marched against Joseph, who, on learning this, went to meet him with sixty
thousand men, and they fought a whole day, without either the one or the
other being overcome. Then Mirenschach asked his brother, Scharoch, to
come with the rest of his people, He came. Then he fought with Joseph and
drove him away, and Mirenschach returned to his kingdom. There were also
two countries that were subdued by Joseph; the one was called Churten,1
the other was Lesser Armeny. Scharoch went into these countries and
conquered them, and bestowed them on his brother, and then returned into
his own country, leaving, for the assistance of his brother, twenty thousand
men from amongst his people, with whom I also remained.(1)

22.—How Joseph caused Mirenschach to be beheaded, and took
possession of all his territory.
After Mirenschach had remained in peace for one year, Joseph entered his
country with a large number of people, which, when he perceived, he went
to meet him with fully four hundred thousand men. They met each other at
a plain called Scharabach,1(1) and fought together for two days.
Mirenschach was overcome and made a prisoner. Soon afterwards, Joseph
ordered he should be beheaded. It is to be noted why Joseph killed
Mirenschach. Joseph had a brother named Miseri, who killed a brother of
Mirenschach, called Zychanger. When they met in a battle, Mirenshach
took Miseri and killed him in prison, so that Mirenschach also was put to
death;(2) and Joseph had Mirenschach’s head stuck on a spear, and taken to
the city called Thaures after the kingdom, and showed it there, that they
might give themselves up the sooner. When they saw that their lord was
dead, they gave themselves up; and then he took the city and the whole
kingdom with all its dependencies.
1Kourdistan.
1Karabagh, to the West of the Caspian Sea. Karabagh, “Black Garden”, is the
name given by the Persians and Turks to the entire district extending from
Shirwan, on the west, to that point where the Kur and Araxes unite. In ancient
times the Armenians called this region Arzach. The city of Karabagh is the birth-
place of the Armenian historian, Thomas Medzopezi. Indschidschean is unable to
state on good grounds, why this district and place are so called. He holds, on the
contrary, that Karabagh is the same as that called Chachchach by Agathangelos
and older Armenian chroniclers. N.

23.—How Joseph vanquished a king and beheaded him.
And now when Joseph had taken the kingdom, the king of Babilonie sent to
him that he should give up the kingdom, as it belonged to his own kingdom,
and his residence was in it; and because it was not right that he should keep
the kingdom, as he was not noble and would be a bad vassal. Joseph sent
back word that there must be a ruler in the kingdom, and that he should
confirm it to him, and sent to say that he would mint in his name, and
observe all that was due to him. The king would not do so, because he had a
son to whom he wished to give the kingdom; and he attacked Joseph with
fifty thousand men. Joseph went to meet him with sixty thousand men, and
they fought with each other at a plain called Achtum.1(1) The king fled to a
city near the plain. Joseph followed, and took the king and beheaded him,
and occupied the kingdom as before.
1In all probability Nachdschowan, or Nachidschewan, the Naxuana of Ptolemy.
The plain and the town are of the same name. N.

24.—How Schiltberger came to Aububachir.
And after that Miraschach, Tämerlin’s son, was taken in battle and
beheaded, I came to his son Aububachir, with whom I remained four years.
And after the king of Babiloni was also killed by Joseph, as is already
written, Abubachir took a country called Kray; it belonged to the kingdom
of Babiloni. Aububachir had also a brother called Mansur,(1) who had a
country called Erban. He sent [word] that he should come to him. This,
Mansur would not do; so he went and took him, put him into prison and
strangled him, and took his country. It is also to be noted, that Abubachir
was so strong, that he shot through a ploughshare with an Infidel bow; the
iron went through, and the shaft remained in the ploughshare. This
ploughshare was sent as a marvel to Tämerlin’s capital, called Samerchant,
and fixed to the gate. When the king-sultan heard of his strength, he sent to
him a sword that weighed twelve pounds. It was worth one thousand
guldens. And when the sword was brought to him, he ordered that an ox,
three years old, should be brought to him, as he wished to try the sword.
When the ox came, he cut it into two parts at one blow. This happened
during Tämerlin’s lifetime.

25.—Of a king’s son.
With Abubachar, was the son of a king of Great Tartary. To him came
messengers, wanting him to go home, that he might be responsible for the
kingdom. He asked Abubachir to allow him to go; this he did, and so he
went home with six hundred horsemen; I was one of five [Christians?] who
went with him into Great Tartary. You must notice through which countries
he passed. First, through the country called Strana, where silk grows; then
through a country called Gursey, where there are Christians, and they
believe in the Christian faith, and Saint Jörig is patron there. After that, he
passed through a country called Lochinschan; there, also, silk grows; then
through another called Schurban, where silk grows of which the good stuffs
are made at Tamasch and at Kaffer, and also at Wursa, the capital of the
Infidels, situated in Turkey; this silk is also taken to Venice and to Lickcha,
where good velvet is worked; but it is an unhealthy country. Afterwards he
passed through a country called Samabram;(1) then through one called in the
Tartar tongue, Temurtapit,1(2) which is as much as to say, the Iron Gate. This
divides Persia and Tartary. Then he passed through a city called Origens; it
is powerful, and lies in the middle of a river called Edil.(3.) Then he
travelled through a mountainous country called Setzulet, where there are
many Christians who have a bishop there; their priests belong to the Order
of the Shoeless, who do not know Latin, and they sing and read their
prayers in the Tartar tongue. It is found that thus the laity become stronger
in the faith, and also many Infidels are confirmed in the Christian faith,
because they understand the words that the priests sing and read. After that,
he went into Great Tartaria, and came to the lord named Edigi, who had
written and sent messengers to him, as he wanted him to come and rule the
kingdom. And when he arrived, Edigi was waiting, having prepared to go
into a country called Ibissibur.2 It is to be noted, that it is the custom for the
king, in Great Tartary, to have a Chief to rule over him, who can elect or
depose a king, and has also power over vassals. Now at that time Edigi was
the Chief. The vassals in Tartary wander about in winter and summer, with
their wives and children, and their cattle, and when the king encamps, there
must be erected one hundred thousand huts. Now when the son of the
above-named king of Tartary, and who was named Zegre,(4.) had come to

Edigi, he went with him into the above-named country, Ibissibur, and they
travelled two months before they arrived there. There is a mountain in that
country, which is thirty-two days’ journey in extent. The people there,
themselves say, that at the extremity of the mountain is a desert, and that the
said desert is the end of the earth; and in this same desert nobody can have
an habitation, because of snakes and wild beasts. On the same mountain
there are savages, who are not like other people, and they live there. They
are covered all over the body with hair, except the hands and face, and run
about like other wild beasts in the mountain, and also eat leaves and grass,
and any thing they can find. The lord of the country sent to Edigi, a man
and a woman from among these savages, that had been taken in the
mountain.(5) The horses are of the same size as donkeys, and there are many
wild beasts that are not in Germany, and of which I do not know the names.
There are also in the above-named country, dogs, that go in carts and in
sledges; they are also made to carry luggage, and are as large as donkeys.
Dogs are eaten in this country. It is also to be noted, that the people in this
country believe in Jesus Christ like the III kings who came and brought
offerings to Christ at Bethlaem, and saw him lying in the manger; and they
have a picture, which is a representation of our Lord in a manger, as the
three holy kings saw him, when they brought offerings to him. They have
this also in their temples, and say their prayers before it; and the people who
are of this faith are called Ugine.(6) In Tartaria there are many people of this
religion. It is also the custom in the country, that when a young man, who
has not had a wife, dies, he is dressed in his best clothes, and players carry
him, and he is laid on a bier, and a canopy is placed over him. And all the
young people, also dressed in their best clothes, go before, and the players
with them. The father and mother, and friends, also follow the bier, and it is
taken to the grave by the young people and by the players, with singing and
much merry-making. But the father and mother and friends, go near the bier
and weep; and when they have buried him, they bring their food and drink,
and the young people and the players sit down, and eat and drink by the
grave with much rejoicing. The father and mother and friends, sit on one
side, and lament, and when they have done, they take the father and mother
to the place where they live, and there they lament; and so they end the
ceremony which was as if they had had a wedding, because he had no wife.
In this country they have nothing but millet, and they do not eat bread. All
this I have seen, and was there with the above-named king’s son, Zeggra.

1Derbend, i.e., the closed gate or barricade, called by the Turks Timurcapi, or the
Iron Gate. N.
2This, undoubtedly, is Siberia, here mentioned for the first time. It so happens
that the name of Siberia appears in the Russian annals of about the same period,
1450.—See Lehrberg’s Zur Erläuterung der älteren Geschichte von Russland,
St. Petersburg, 1816. Schiltberger probably looks upon the Buddhists as
Christians, as has frequently been the case. N.

26.—How one lord succeeds another lord.
And after that Edigi and Zeggra had subdued the country Ibissibur, they
went into the country Walher, and conquered it also, and afterwards they
went back to their country. At that time, there was a king in Great Tartaria
who was called Sedichbechan, and kan is as much as to say a king, in the
Tartar tongue. When he heard that Edigi had come into his country, he took
to flight. Edigi sent after him, that he should be brought as a prisoner, but he
was killed in a battle.(1) Then Edigi elected a king named Polet, who
reigned one year and a half.(2) Then there was one named Segelalladin, who
expelled Polet; and after this, Polet’s brother was king, and he reigned
fourteen months. Then came his brother, named Thebachk, who fought with
him for the kingdom, and killed him,(3) and then there was no king. But he
had a brother called Kerumberdin, who became king, and reigned five
months. Then came his brother Theback, and he expelled Kerimberdin and
became king. Then came Edigi and my lord Zeggra, and they drove away
the king, and Edigi made my lord the king as he had promised. He was king
for nine months. Then came one named Machmet, and he fought with
Zeggra and with Edigi. Zeggra fled to a country called Distihipschach, and
Machmet became king. Then came one named Waroch; he expelled
Machmet and became king. After that, Machmet recovered, and he drove
away Waroch and was again king. Then came one named Doblabardi, who
drove away Machmet and became king, and was king for three days only.
Then came the same Warach, who expelled Doblabardi, and again became
king. Then came my lord Machmet, and he overcame Waroch and again
became king. After that, came my lord Zeggra, and he fought with Machmet
and was killed.(4)

27.—Of an Infidel woman, who had four thousand maidens.
During the time that I was with Zeggra, there came to Edigi, and also to
Zeggra, a Tartar woman named Sadurmelickh,(1) with four thousand
maidens and women. She was powerful, and her husband had been killed
by a Tartar king. She wanted to be revenged, and therefore came to Edigi,
so that he should assist her to expel the king. And you must also know, that
she and her women rode to battle and fought with the bow, as well as men;
and when the women rode to battle, they had on one side a sword, and on
the other a bow. In a battle she had with a king, there was the king’s cousin
who had killed the husband of this woman, and he was made a prisoner. He
was brought before the woman; she ordered him to kneel, and drew her
sword, and cut off his head at one blow, and said: “Now am I revenged.” I
was present there, and I also saw this.

28.—In what countries I have been.
Now I have described the battles and the fights which took place, during the
time that I was with the Infidels. Now I will also write and name the
countries that I have been in, since I left Bavaria. At first I went into
Ungeren, before the great expedition against the Infidels. There I remained
ten months, and after that we went amongst the Infidels as is described. I
have also been in Wallachy and in its two chief cities; one is called Agrich,1
the other Türckisch; also in a city called Übereil, situated on the Tunow.
There were the kocken(1) and the galleys, in which merchants bring their
goods from the land of the Infidels. It is also to be noted, that the people in
Little and in Great Walachy hold to the Christian faith, and they also speak
a particular language; they also allow their hair and beard to grow, and
never cut it. I have also been in Little Walachy, and in Sybenbürgen which
is a German country; the capital of this country is called Hermenstat. Also
in Zwürtzenland; the capital is called Bassaw.2(2) These are the countries on
this side of the Tonow, in which I have been.
1Agrisch, now better known as Ardschisch in Walachia. For Türckisch we should
read Bukurescht. F.
2Brasowa or Burzelland in Siebenbürgen. Wurzerland was also written
Burzerland and Burzelland. It is to the south-east of Siebenbürgen, its capital
being Cronstadt, Brasowa in Slav, called Bassaw by Schiltberger. F.

29.—In which countries I have been, that lay between the Tonow
and the sea.
Now will be noted the countries that are between the Tunow and the sea, in
which I have been. First, I have been in three countries, which three
countries are all called Pulgrey. The first Pulgrey is where people cross
from Hungern to the Iron Gate; the capital is called Pudem. The other
Pulgrey above lies opposite to Walachy; the capital is called Ternau. The
third Pulgery lies where the Tunow flows into the sea; the capital is called
Kallacercka.1(1) I have also been in Greece; the capital is Adranapoli, which
city has fifty thousand houses. There is also a large city by the White Sea in
Greece, and it is called Salonikch;(2) and in this city lies Saint Sanctiniter,
from whose grave oil flows.2(3) In the middle of the church there is a well,
and on his day the well is full of water, but it is dry on every other day in
the year. I have been in this city. There is also a mighty city in Greece,
called Seres; and all the territory that lies between the Tünow and the sea,
belongs to the Turkish3 king. There is a city and a fortress called Chalipoli;
there the high sea is crossed. I myself crossed there, over to Turkey. This
same sea is crossed to go to Constantinoppel. I was three months in the said
city where people go over into Great Turkey. The capital of Turkey is called
Wursa. The city contains two hundred thousand houses, and eight hospitals
where poor people are received, whether they be Christians, Infidels, or
Jews. Three hundred castles are dependant on this city, without excepting
the chief towns which are hereafter described. The first is called Asia,4(4) in
which is the grave of St. John the Evangelist; it is in a fertile country called
Edein in the Infidel tongue; but the natives call it Hohes. The other city and
country that belongs to it, is called Ismira, and Saint Nicholas was bishop
there.(5) There is also a city and a country called Maganasa,(6) which is a
fertile country. There is also a city called Donguslu;(7) the country that
belongs to it is called Serochon, and there the trees bear fruit twice yearly.
There is a city called Kachey, situated high up a mountain, and has a fertile
country called Kennan. There is also a city called Anguri; it has a fertile
country also called Siguri.5 In this city are many Christians who hold to the
Ermenian faith; and they have a cross in their church that shines day and

night; even Infidels go to the church, and they call the cross the bright
stone. The Infidels also wanted to carry it off and put it in their temple, but
whoever touches it, his hands become distorted. There is also a city called
Wegureisari,(8) and the country is called by the same name. There is also a
country called Karaman, the chief city being called Laranda. There is also
in this country a city called Könia, in which lies the saint, Schenisis, who
was first an Infidel priest, and was secretly baptised; and when his end
approached, received from an Armenian priest, the body of God in an apple.
He has worked great miracles. There is also a city called Gassaria, and the
country is of the same name. In this country Saint Basil was bishop.(9) I
have also been in Sebast, which was once a kingdom. There is a city on the
Black Sea called Samson; it is in a fertile country called Zegnikch. The
above-named countries and cities all belong to Turkey, and I have been in
them all. Item, there is a country called Zepun; it is on the Black Sea. In this
country they sow millet only, and they make their bread of this millet. There
is the kingdom of Tarbesanda; it is a small and well protected country, and
fruitful in vineyards, and is on the Black Sea, not far from a city called
Kureson(10) in the Greek tongue.
1Kallacercka is the old Bulgarian port Callat, Callatis, or Callantra, to the north
of Varna, which has taken the place of Callat. F.
2The miracle of the exudation of oil from the body of Demetrius, is related by
Nicetas, i, 7, 193, Edit., Paris. The similarity in the statements made by the
Bavarian and by Nicetas, leave no room whatever for doubting that this is the
correct name of the Saint, and not that of Theodora, as given by a transcriber’s
error in the Anagnosta, De excidio Thessalonicensi. H.
3“Tütschen”, in the text.
4Asia is a mistake for Ephesus. To this belongs the passage, “hie zeland heiszet
es Hoches”. The Turkish Aisulugh, i.e., Ἅγιος-Θεολόγος, as the Byzantines
called St. John. F. and H.
5Printed editions give Sigmei, which is nearer to the true reading, Sultan Öni or
Ögi. Anguri or Ancyra, belongs to the province of Sultan Ögi or Öni. F.

30.—Of the castle of the sparrow-hawk, and how it is guarded.
There is on a mountain a castle, called that of the sparrow-hawk. Within, is
a beautiful virgin, and a sparrow-hawk on a perch. Whoever goes there and
does not sleep but watches for three days and three nights, whatever he asks
of the virgin, that is chaste, that she will grant to him. And when he finishes
the watch, he goes into the castle and comes to a fine palace, where he sees
a sparrow-hawk standing on a perch; and when the sparrow-hawk sees the
man, he screams, and the virgin comes out of her chamber, welcomes him
and says: “Thou hast served me and watched for three days and three
nights, and whatever thou now askest of me that is pure, that will I grant
unto thee.” And she does so. But if anybody asks for something that
exhibits pride, impudence, or avarice, she curses him and his offspring, so
that he can no longer attain an honourable position.

31.—How a poor fellow watched the sparrow-hawk.
There was also once a good poor fellow, who watched for three days and
three nights before the castle; and when he had watched, he went into the
palace, and when the sparrow-hawk saw him, he screamed. The virgin came
out of her room and welcomed him, and said: “What dost thou require of
me. Whatever is of this world and that is honourable, I will grant unto
thee.” He asked her for nothing more than that he and his family might live
with honour; this was granted. There also came the son of a king of
Armenia, who also watched for three days and three nights. After that, he
went into the palace where stood the sparrow-hawk. The sparrow-hawk
screamed, the virgin came out, welcomed him and asked: “What dost thou
want that is of this world and that is honourable.” He asked for nothing, and
said he was the son of a mighty king of Armenia, and had silver and gold
enough, and also precious stones, but he had no wife, and he asked her to be
his wife. She answered him and said: “Thy proud spirit that thou hast, must
be broken in thee and in all thy power”; and she cursed him and all his
kindred. There also went a lord of the Order of St. John, who also watched
and went into the palace. The virgin came out, and asked him also what he
desired. He asked her for a purse that would never be empty, which was
granted. But after this, she cursed him and said: “The avarice thou hast
shewn, brings great evil to thee. Therefore I curse thee, so that thy order
may diminish and not increase.” Then he left her.(1)

32.—More about the castle of the sparrow-hawk.
During the time that I and my companions were there, we asked a man to
take us to the castle, and gave him money; and when we got to the place,
one of my companions wanted to remain and keep watch. He who brought
us advised him against it, and said that if he did not carry out the watch, he
would be lost, and nobody would know where he went; the castle is also
hidden by trees, so that nobody knows the way to it. It is also forbidden by
the Greek priests, and they say that the devil has to do with it, and not God.
So we went on to a city called Kereson. There is also a country that belongs
to the above-named kingdom, called Lasia,(1) and it is fertile in vineyards.
Greeks are in that country. I have also been in Lesser Armenia; the capital is
Ersinggan. There is also a city called Kayburt,1(2) and it has a fertile
country. Also a city called Kamach,(3) situated on a high mountain, and
below the mountain flows a river called the Eufrates; it is one of the rivers
that flows out of Paradise. This river also flows through Lesser Armenia,
and then courses through a desert ten days’ journey across; then it is lost in
a marsh, so that nobody knows where it goes.(4) It courses also through
Persia. There is also a country called Karasser; it is fertile in vineyards.(5)
There is also a country called Black Turkey; the capital is called Hamunt,
and the people are warlike.(6) There is also a country called Churt, the
capital of which is Bestan.(7) Item, a kingdom called Kursi, where the
people hold to the Christian faith, have a distinct language and are a warlike
people. There is a country called Abkas, its capital Zuchtun;(8) it is an
unhealthy country, and men and women wear flat caps on their heads,
which they do because the place is unhealthy. There is also a small country
called Megral, the capital is Kathon,2(9) and in which country they hold to
the Greek faith. Also a country called Merdin;(10) this is a kingdom where
there are Infidels. I have been in all the above-named countries, and have
learnt their peculiarities.
1Baiburt. N. Byburt, in edition of 1814.
2Possibly Gori in Mingrelia. N.

33.—In which countries silk is grown, and of Persia and of other
kingdoms.

The chief city of all the kingdoms of Persia is called Thaures.(1) The king of
Persia has a larger revenue from the city of Thaures, than has the most
powerful king in Christendom, because a great many merchants come to it.
There is also a kingdom in Persia, the capital of which is called Soltania.
There is also a city called Rei,(2) in a large country where they do not
believe in Machmet as do other Infidels. They believe in a certain Aly who
is a great persecutor of the Christian faith; and those of this doctrine are
called Raphak.1(3) There is also a city called Nachson;(4) it lays near the
mountain where the ark stood in which was Noah, and the country is fertile.
In it are also three cities, one called Maragara,(5) the other Gelat,(6) and the
third Kirna.(7) All three are in a fertile country. There is also, on a mountain,
a city called Meya; it is a bishop’s see where they hold to the Roman
religion; the priests are of the Order of Preachers, and sing in the Armenian
tongue.(8) There is a rich country called Gilan, where rice and cotton only is
grown, and the people wear knitted shoes. There is a large city called Ress,
(9)
in a good country where good silk kerchiefs are made. Also a city called
Strawba,(10) in a good country. Another called Antioch;(11) the city wall is
stained with the blood of Christians, so that it is red. And a city called
Aluitze.2(12) Tämerlin besieged it for sixteen years before he took it. There
is also a country called Massandaran, which is so wooded, that nobody can
go into it. There is a city called Scheckhy; it is in a fertile country near the
White Sea.3(13) In this country also is silk grown. Item, a country called
Schuruan, and the capital is called Schomachy; it is a hot and unhealthy
country, but the best silk is grown there. There is also a city called
Hispahan, which is in a good country. There is also in Persia the kingdom
Horoson,4 and its capital is called Hore,5(14) which has three hundred
thousand houses. In this same country and kingdom, during the time that I
was amongst the Infidels, there was a man three hundred and fifty years old.
So the Infidels said. The nails on his hands were one inch in length, his
eyebrows hung down from his eyes over his cheeks. He was without teeth,
which had fallen out twice, and for the third time two grew, but they were

weak and not as strong as they should be, and he could not masticate nor eat
with them; they had to feed him. The hair in his ears went down to his jaw;
the beard reached to his knees. He had no hair on his head, and could not
speak, but he made himself understood with signs. They were obliged to
carry him as he could not walk. This man was held to be a saint by the
Infidels, and they went to him on a pilgrimage as people do to a saint, and
said that Almighty God had chosen him, because for a thousand years no
man had lived so long as this man; and who honours him, honours
Almighty God, who had wrought such miracles and signs in him. This man
was called Phiradamschyech.(15) There is a city called Schiras; it is large
and in a good country, where no Christian is allowed to trade, especially in
the city. A city called Kerman(16) in a good country, and a city called
Keschon which lies near the sea; there pearls grow, and it is a good country.
Item, a city called Hognus; it is large and lies near the sea where one goes
to Great India, and great merchandise comes there from India. It is a good
country, wherein are found many precious stones which are peculiar to it.
There, also, is the city called Kaff,(17) also a good country, where all kinds
of spices are found, and whence also one goes to Great India. There is a
country called Walaschoen; it has a high mountain where many precious
stones are found; but nobody can take them because of the serpents and
wild beasts. When it rains, it is the torrent that brings them down, then
come the experts who know them, and pick them out of the mud. There are
also unicorns in those mountains.(18)
1Raschedi. N.
2This is the castle of Alandschik, mentioned by Scherifeddin.—Hist. de
Timurbec, ii, 391. H.
3By White Sea is here understood (in contradistinction to the Black) the Caspian,
and Scherki is intended to indicate its western coast. H.
4Chorasan. N.
5Herat. N.

34.—Of the tower of Babilony that is of such great height.
I have also been in the kingdom of Babilonien. Babilonien is called Waydat
in the Infidel tongue. The great Babilonie was surrounded by a wall,
twenty-five leagues broad, and one league is three Italian miles; the wall
was two hundred cubits high and fifty cubits thick, and the river Euffrates
courses through the middle of the city; but it is now all in ruins, and there is
no longer any habitation in it. The tower of Babilonien is distant fifty four
stadia, and four stadia is an Italian mile, and in several places it is X leagues
in length and in breadth. The tower is in the desert of Arabia, on the road
when one goes into the kingdom of Kalda; but none can get there because
of the dragons and serpents, and other hurtful reptiles, of which there are
many in the said desert. The tower was built by a king who is called in the
Infidel tongue, Marburtirudt.(1) It is also to be noted, that a league is three
Lombard miles, and four stadia is one Italian mile. One Italian mile should
have one thousand full paces, and one pace should have v feet,1 and one
foot should have nine inches, and one inch is the first member of the thumb.
(2)
Now I will also take note of New Babilonien. New Babilonien is
separated from Great Babilony by a river called Schatt;(3) it is a large river,
and in it are many sea monsters that come from the Indian sea. Near the
river grows a fruit tree called the date, but the Infidels call it kinna,(4) and
nobody can pick the fruit until the storks come and drive away the serpents,
which live under the tree and on it; for this reason nobody can get the fruit
which grows twice during the year. It is also to be noted, that in the city of
Babilony two languages are spoken, the Arabic and Persian. There is also a
garden in Babilony, in which are all kinds of beasts; this garden is ten miles
long and enclosed by a wall, so that none can get out. In this garden, the
lions have a place to themselves in which they can move about. I have also
seen the garden. In this kingdom the people are not warlike.(5) Item, I have
also been in Lesser India, which is a fine kingdom. The capital is called
Dily. In this country are many elephants, and animals called surnasa, which
is like a stag, but it is a tall animal, and has a long neck four fathoms in
length or longer. It has long fore legs, and the hinder are short.(6) There are
many animals in Lesser India. There are also many parrots, ostriches, and

lions. There are also many other animals and birds, of which I cannot give
the names. There is also a country called Zekatay;(7) the capital is called
Samerchant, and it is a large and mighty city. In this country the language is
distinct; it is half Turkish and half Persian, and the people are warlike. In
this country they do not eat bread. It is also to be noted, that an Infidel lord
named Tämerlin had conquered all the country during the time that I was
with him. I have been in all those countries; but he conquered many other
countries in which I have not been.
1“schuch”, in text.

35.—Of Great Tartaria.(1)
I have also been in Great Tartaria, and of the custom of the country it is to
be noted, first, that nothing besides millet is sown. They do not eat bread,
and they do not drink wine, but they drink the milk of mares and of camels,
and they also eat camel and horse flesh. It is also to be noted, that the king
of these countries and his vassals pass winter and summer in the fields, with
their wives and children, with cattle and all that belongs to them; and they
go from one pasturage to the other, because it is a flat country. It is also to
be noted, that when they choose a king, they take him and seat him on white
felt, and raise him in it three times.(2) Then they lift him up and carry him
round the tent, and seat him on a throne, and put a golden sword in his
hand. Then he must be sworn as is the custom. It is also to be noted, that
when they eat or drink, they sit on the ground, as all Infidels do. There is
not a more warlike people among the Infidels than the Great1 Tartars, who
can fight and perform journeys as they do. I myself have seen them bleed
[their horses] and drink the blood after they have cooked it. This they do
when they are in want of food. I have also seen when they are long on a
journey, that they take a piece of flesh, cut it into slices, place it under the
saddle, and ride on it, and eat it when they were hungry; but they salt it first
and think that it will not spoil, because it becomes dry from the warmth of
the horse, and becomes tender under the saddle from riding, after the juice
has gone out of it. This they do when they have no time to prepare their
food. It is also the custom, that when the king rises in the morning, they
bring to him some mare’s milk in a golden goblet, which he drinks fasting.
1The word is “roten” in the text, doubtlessly for “grossen”.

36.—The countries in which I have been, that belong to Tartary.
Here is to be noted in which countries I have been, that belong to Great
Tartary. A country called Horosaman;1 the name of the capital is Orden, and
it lies in a river called Edil, which is a great river.(1) There is also a country
called Bestan; its capital is Zulat, and it is a mountainous country. Item, a
city called Haitzicherchen, which is a large city,(2) and in a good country.
Another city called Sarei; there, is the residence of the kings of the Tartars.
There is also a city called Bolar, in which are different kinds of beasts.(3)
Also a city called Ibissibur,(4) and a city Asach, which the Christians call
Alathena.(5) It has a river, called Tena, and much cattle. They send large
kocken and galleys full of fish from this country, and they go to Venice,
Genoa, and the islands that are in the sea. Item, there is a country called
Ephepstzach; its capital is Vulchat.2(6) In this country every kind of corn is
cultivated. A city called Kaffa, which lies by the Black Sea, and is
surrounded by two walls. Within one wall are six thousand houses, in which
are Italians, Greeks, and Armenians; it is a chief city on the Black Sea, and
has within the outer walls, XI thousand houses, in which are many
Christians; Romans, Greeks, Armenians, and Syrians. There are also three
bishops; a Roman, a Greek, and an Armenian. There are also many Infidels
who have their particular temple. The city has four towns subject to it; they
are by the sea. There are also two kinds of Jews in the city, and they have
two synagogues, and four thousand houses are in the suburbs.(7) Item, a city
called Karckeri,(8) in a good country called Sudi; but the Infidels call it
That;(9) there are Christians of the Greek faith in it, and there are good
vineyards. It lies near the Black Sea, and in this country Saint Clement was
thrown into the sea. Close by, is a city, called in the Infidel tongue,
Serucherman.(10) Item, a country called Starchas, which also lies by the
Black Sea, where the people are of the Greek faith; but they are a wicked
people, because they sell their own children to the Infidels, and steal the
children of other people and sell them; they are also highway robbers, and
have a peculiar language. It is also their custom, that when one is killed by
lightning, they lay him in a box and put it on a high tree. Then all the people
in the neighbourhood come, and bring their food and drink under the tree;

they dance and enjoy themselves under it; they kill oxen and lambs, and
give them away for the sake of God. This they do for three successive days,
and at the end of a year they come to where the dead man lies, near the tree,
and again do what they did before, until the body putrefies. This they do,
because they suppose that a man struck by lightning is a saint.(11) Item, the
kingdom of Rewschen, which is tributary to the Tartar king. It is to be
noted, that there are three tribes amongst the Great3 Tartars. One is called
Kayat,4 the other Inbu,5 the third Mugal.(12) It is also to be noted, that
Tartary is a three months journey in extent, in which no wood or stones are
to be found, only grass and shrubs. The countries described all belong to
Great Tartary, in all of which I have been. I have also been in Arabia; there
the capital is called in the Infidel tongue, Missir.6 The city in this kingdom
has twelve thousand streets, and each street has twelve thousand houses. In
the city, is the residence of the king sultan, who is king over all Infidel
kings, and lord of all Infidels. He is a mighty lord in silver and gold, and in
precious stones, and has daily twenty thousand men at his court.(13) It is
also to be noted, that no person can be made king-sultan unless he has been
sold.(14)
1Chowaresm, whence we have Chiwa, its capital being Orgens or Urgendsch. N.
2Selgath or Sorgathi, which Abulfeda calls Crimea or the Fortress, whence the
entire Tauric peninsula has received its name. Schiltberger is wrong in saying
that it was the capital of Kiptschak. N.
3The word “roten” is here repeated. See p. 48.
4Kajat, Kerait. N.
5Uighur. N.
6Missir, Miser, we are informed in chap. 40 and chap. 44, was called Cair by the
Christians; we should therefore here read Egypt for Arabia.

37.—How many kings-sultan there were, whilst I was amongst the
Infidels.
You should know, and take note, how many kings-sultan there were during
the time that I was there. The first king-sultan was named Marochloch; then
there was one named Mathas, king; he was made a prisoner, and placed
between two planks and sawn in two parts, lengthways. After him, was a
king named Jusuphda, with whom I was for eight months; he was made a
prisoner and beheaded. After him was one named Zechem; then one called
Schyachin, who was fixed on an iron spike; for it is the custom in this
kingdom, that when two fight for that kingdom, whichever overcomes the
other and brings him to prison, takes him when convenient and dresses him
like a king, and leads him to a house made for the purpose, in which there
are iron spikes, and he is put on one of those spikes, so that it comes
through at the neck, and on the spike he must rot.(1) There was a certain
king named Malleckchafcharff; this king invited to a marriage, [those] in
Rom, in all Christendom, and also in all lands. Now you must note what is
his title and superscription.(2) We, Balmander,1 the all-powerful of
Carthago,(3) Sultan of the noble Saracens, Lord of Zuspillen, Lord of the
highest God2 in Jherusalem,(4) in Capadocie,(5) the Lord of Jordan, the Lord
of the East whence flows the boiling sea; the Lord of Bethlahen where your
Lady our niece was born, and her son our nephew3 of Nazareth.(6) The Lord
of Synay, of Talapharum, and of the valley of Josaphat. The Lord of
Germoni, around which mountain are seventy-two towers all embellished
with marble.(7) The Lord of the great forest, four hundred miles in length,
and inhabited by seventy-two languages.(8) The Lord of Paradise and of the
rivers that flow from there, situated in our country of Capadocie; the
guardian of the caves,(9) the mighty emperor of Constantinoppel, Amorach
of Kaylamer, the mighty emperor of Galgarien, the Lord of the withered
tree, the Lord where the sun and the moon rise and set, from first to last; the
lord [of the places] where Enoch and Helyas are buried. Item, the protector
of the first Prester John, in enclosed Rumany, and guardian of Wadach.
Guardian of Alexander, Founder of the fortified city of Babilonie, where the
seventy-two languages were invented. Emperor king of all kings. The Lord

of Christians, Jews, and Infidels. Destructor of the Gods.(10) Thus did he
write to Rom when he wanted to have his daughter’s marriage, at which
marriage I also was present. It is also to be noted, that it is the custom in the
country of the king-sultan, that during the week of their feast, married
women are at liberty to be wanton with men if it be their desire, without
their husbands or anybody else having anything to say, because it is the
custom. It is also the custom for the king-sultan, when he rides into a city,
or when people from strange countries come to him, to cover his face that
none may see it; and if it be a great guest, he must first kneel three times4
and kiss the ground, then stand up and go near him. If he is an Infidel, he
kisses his bare hand, but if he is a Christian, he draws his hand into his
sleeve, and puts out the sleeve which he must kiss. When the king-sultan
sends a messenger, he has at the several stations on the road, horses ready
with all that is needed. His messenger, whom he sends, has a bell at his
girdle; he covers it with a cloth until he gets near a station, then he removes
it and lets it ring. When it is heard at the station, a horse is prepared for him,
and he finds it ready. He rides to another station, and there he again finds
one ready. This he goes on doing, until he gets to the place to which he was
sent. This is done on all the roads of the king-sultan.(11) It is also to be
noted, that the king-sultan also sends letters by pigeons, because he has
many enemies, and is afraid that they might stop his messengers. They are
sent mostly from Archey to Tamasgen, between which places is a great
desert. It is also to be noted, how the pigeons are sent to any city to which
the king-sultan wishes to have them sent. Two pigeons must be put together,
and sugar must be put into their food, and they are not allowed to fly; and
when they know each other well, the hen-pigeon is taken to the king, and he
keeps it, and marks the cock-pigeon that it may be known from which city it
is; it is then put into a separate place that is prepared, and the hen-pigeon is
no longer allowed inside. They no longer give him so much to eat, and no
more sugar as he used to have; this is done that he may wish to return as
soon as possible to the place where he was before, and where he was
trained. When they wish to despatch him, the letter is tied under a wing, and
he flies away straight for the house where he was trained. There he is
caught and the letter taken from him, and they send it to whomsoever it
belongs.(12) When a guest comes to the king-sultan, whether he be a lord or
a merchant, they give him a pass; and when the letter is shewn in his
country, they kneel when it is read, and they kiss it, and shew the guest

great honour and attention, and they take him over the country from one
place to the other. It is also to be noted, that when the ambassador of a king,
or of some other lord of a foreign country, comes, it is the custom among
the Infidels to attach to him a chief with three or four hundred, or with six
hundred horsemen; and when the king-sultan becomes aware of him, he is
seated on his throne in attire ornamented with precious stones, and having
seven curtains before him. And when the lord who is sent on the embassage
wants to enter, one curtain is withdrawn after the other, and each time he
must bow and kiss the ground. When the last is withdrawn, he kneels before
the king, who holds out to him his hand; he kisses it and then delivers his
message. There is a bird in Arabia called sacka,(13) which is larger than a
crane, and has a long neck, and a broad and long beak. It is black and has
large feet, which are much like the feet of a goose in the lower parts; its feet
are also very black; its colour is the same as that of a crane; it has a large
crop in front of its neck, in which it has quite a quart of water. It is the habit
of this bird, to fly to a river and fill its crop with water; then it flies away to
the desert where there is no water, and pours it out of its crop into a hole in
the rock. Then come the little birds of the desert to drink, when he attacks
those birds for his food. This is the same desert that people cross, who go to
the tomb of Machmet where he is buried.
1This letter and all these titles are inventions, related to Schiltberger in all
probability by the Armenian. N.
2“ain herr des obristen gots.”
3“neff.”
4“stunt.”

38.—Of the mountain of St. Catherine.
The Red Sea is two hundred and forty Italian miles broad; it is called the
Red Sea, but it is not red, but the land around is in some parts red. It is the
same as other seas, and is near Arabia, and is crossed to go to Saint
Catherine, and by whoever wishes [to go] to Mount Sinay, where I have not
been; but I have heard about it from Christians and Infidels, because
Infidels also go there. The Infidels call the mountain Muntagi,1(1) which is
the same as calling it the mountain of the apparition, because God appeared
before Moysi on this mountain, in a flame of fire, when he spoke to him.
On the mountain there is a monastery, in which are Greeks who form a
large brotherhood; they do not drink wine, and live like recluses; they do
not eat meat, and are a religious people, and fast always. Within, are many
burning lamps, and of the oil for burning and eating, they have enough sent
to them by a miracle from God, which happens in this way. When the olives
are ripe, all the birds that are in the country come together, and each bird
brings a branch in its beak to the mount of Saint Catherine, and they bring
so many, that they have enough for the lamps and for food. In the church,
behind the altar, is the place where God appeared to Moysi in the burning
bush; when the monks go near it they are bare-footed, because it is a holy
place; because our Lord commanded Moysi to take off his shoes because
the place is holy, and the place is called the place of God. Three steps
higher up, is the high altar where lay the bones of Saint Catherine; the abbot
shews this sanctuary to pilgrims, and he has a silver thing with which he
touches the sanctuary and the bones. In this way he obtains an exudation of
oil, which is neither like oil nor balsam; this he gives to the pilgrims, and
shews there the head of Saint Catherine and many other sacred things. A
great miracle takes place in this monastery, where there are as many lamps
that are always burning, as there are monks. When a monk is about to die,
his lamp becomes dim, and when it goes out, he dies. When the abbot dies,
he who sings the mass finds on the altar a letter, in which is written the
name of the man who is to be the abbot, and his lamp re-lights itself. In the
same abbey is the spring where Moysi caused the water to flow, when he
struck the rock with his staff. Not far from the said abbey, is the church
built in honour of our Lady, where she appeared to the monks; higher up, is

the chapel of Moysi, to which he fled when he saw our Lord face to face.
There is also on the mount, the chapel of the prophet Helyas; the mount is
called Oreb; close to the chapel of Moysi is the site where our Lord
delivered to him the tables with the ten commandments, and on this same
mountain is the cave in which Moysi remained, when he fasted forty days.
From this valley one gets to a larger valley, and gets to the mountain to
which Saint Catherine was carried by angels. In the same valley is a church,
built in honour of the forty martyrs, in which the monks often sing the
mass. The valley is cold, and the place on Saint Catherine’s mount where
she was carried by the angels, is nothing but a heap of stones; but there has
been a chapel which is destroyed. There are also two mounts called Sinay,
which are near each other, except for the valley which is between them.
1Muntagi should be called Huschan-Daghi, Mountain of the Apparition. F.

39.—Of the withered tree.

Not far from Ebron is the village of Mambertal,(1) where is the withered tree
which the Infidels call kurruthereck; it is also called carpe,1 and has been
since the time of Abraham, and was always green until our Lord died on the
cross; since His death it has withered. It is found in prophecy, that a prince
will come from the Occident towards the sun, and will with the Christians
take possession of the holy sepulchre, and will cause the celebration of the
mass under the withered tree; then will the tree become green and bear fruit.
The Infidels hold it in great honour, and take good care of it. It has also the
virtue, that when anybody suffers from epilepsy, and he passes by it, he falls
no more; and it possesses many other virtues, so that it is well taken care of.
(2)
Item, it is two full days journey from Jherusalem to Nazereth where our
Lord was brought up, which was formerly a considerable city; but now it is
a small village, the houses are far from each other, and mountains are
around it. There was a church where our Lady received the salutation of the
archangel Gabryel, but now there is only a pillar.(3) The Infidels guard it
well, because of the offerings which the Christians bring there; these they
take away because they are enemies, but they dare not do anything to them,
because it is forbidden by the sultan.
1Selvy is the Turkish for cypress tree. This word appears as Sirpe in edition of
1814.

40.—Of Jherusalem and of the Holy Sepulchre.
When I was at Jherusalem, I was there during a great war, and our thirty
thousand [men] were encamped near the Jordan on a beautiful meadow; this
is the reason why I could not see all the holy places well; but I will relate
some things. I went twice to Jherusalem with a koldigen(1) named Joseph.
Jherusalem lies between two mounts, and there is great want of water. The
Infidels call Jherusalem, Kurtzitalil.(2) The church in which is the holy
sepulchre is a fine church, high and circular; it is covered all over with lead,
and is outside the city. In the middle of the church, in the chapel on the right
hand, is the holy sepulchre, wherein nobody can enter, unless he is a great
lord; but a stone of the holy sepulchre is let into the wall of the tabernacle,
and the pilgrims can kiss and touch it.(3) There is a lamp that burns all the
year until Good Friday, then it goes out, and re-lights itself on Easter day.
There is also on Easter eve a brightness above the holy sepulchre, that is
like fire;(4) many people come there from Ermenia, from Siria, and from the
country of Prester John, to see this brightness in the church; On the right
hand is Mount Calvarie where is an altar (?);1 there, is the pillar to which
our Lord was bound whilst he was scourged. Near the said altar, are forty-
two steps under ground; there, were found the holy cross and those of the
two thieves. In front of the gate of the church, are eighteen steps; there, our
Lord on the cross said to his mother: “Woman, behold, that is thy child”;
and he said to Saint Johannsen: “Behold, that is thy mother.” He went up
those very steps when he carried the cross; and on the same side, but a little
higher, is the chapel in which are the priests from the country of Prester
John.(5) In front of the city is the church of Saint Steffan, where he was
stoned;(6) and against the valley of Josophat, is the golden gate before the
church where is the holy sepulchre. Not far from there is the great hospital
of Saint Johanns, in which they receive sick people. The hospital has one
hundred and thirty-four columns; there is another hospital that rests on fifty-
four marble columns.(7) Below the hospital is a fine church, called that of
our great Lady, and between them is another church called that of our Lady,
where Mary Magdalen and Mary Cleophas tore out their hair when they
saw God on the cross. In front of the church where is the holy sepulchre, is

the temple of our Lord; it is very fine, high, and circular; it is also wide and
covered with tin; there is also a fine open space with houses around, and it
is paved with white marble; the Infidels do not allow either Christians or
Jews to enter it.(8) Near to the great temple is a church covered with lead,
and called the throne of Salomon;(9) and on the left hand is a palace, called
the temple of Salomon. A church there, is in honour of Saint Annen, in
which is a well; whoever bathes in it is healed, whatever be his disease. It
was there our Lord healed the bed-ridden man.(10) Not far from this is the
house of Pilate, and close by, is the house of Herod(11) who ordered the
children to be killed. A little further, there is a church called that of Saint
Annen, in which is an arm of Saint Johannes Crisostimus, and the greater
portion of the head of Saint Stephen.(12) There is a street which leads to
Mount Syon, where is the church of Saint James. Not far from the mount, is
the church of our Lady, where she lived and also where she died. When one
is on Mount Syon, there is a chapel in which is the stone that was over the
holy sepulchre; there is also a pillar to which our Lord was bound, when the
Jews scourged him. In the same place was the house of Annas, who was the
Jewish bishop. At the top of thirty-two steps, is the place where our Lord
washed the feet of his disciples; near the same place, Saint Stephen was
buried. This is also the place where our Lady heard the angels sing the
mass; in the same chapel, near the high altar sat the twelve holy apostles on
the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost came upon them. At this same
place, our Lord celebrated the Passover with his disciples. Mount Syon is in
the city of Jherusalem, and stands higher than the city.(13) Below the mount
is a beautiful castle which was built by the king-sultan.(14) On the mount are
buried King Soldan(15) and King David, and many other kings. Between
Mount Syon and Salomon’s temple, is the house where our Lord raised the
maiden from death; it is also the place where Isayas the prophet was buried.
In front of the city of Jherusalem, lies buried the prophet Dayel. Between
the mount of Oliueli and Jherusalem, is the valley of Josophat which
reaches to the city. There is a brook in the valley of Josophat where is the
sepulchre of our Lady, XL steps below ground.(16) Not far off is a church
where Jacob and Zacharias the prophets are buried.2 Above the valley is the
mount of Olives, and close to the mount, is the mount of Galilee.(17) From
Jherusalem two hundred stadia are counted to the Dead Sea, which is one
hundred and fifty stadia wide,(18) and into which flows the river Jordan, at

the source of which,3 and at no distance, is the church of Saint Johannes;
and a little higher up, Christians usually bathe in the Jordan,(19) which is
neither broad nor deep, but there are good fish in it; its source is from two
springs on the same mountain, one spring is called the Jor, the other, Don,
and from these it has its name;(20) it flows through a lake, then under a
mountain, and comes up on a beautiful plain, where the Infidels often have
a fair during the year.(21) In this same plain is the grave of Saint James, and
on this same plain we encamped with our young king, with thirty thousand
men sent to him by the Turkish king. There are many Christians on the
Jordan, and they have many churches there. It is to be noted, that the
Infidels took possession of the holy sepulchre, twelve hundred and eighty
years from Christ.(22) Ebron lies seven leagues from Jherusalem, and is the
chief city of the Philistines; on Ebron are the graves of the patriarchs,
Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of their wives Eva, Sara, Rebecca,
and Lia. There is a fine church which the Infidels take great care of, and
hold in great honour, because the holy fathers lie there; they do not allow
either Christians or Jews to enter, unless they have the permission of the
king-sultan, and they say, we are not worthy to enter so holy a place. In
front of the city of Miser, which the Christians call Cair, there is a garden
where balsam grows; it grows there only, and in India. The king-sultan
enjoys a large income from this balsam. The Infidels often adulterate it, and
merchants and druggists also mix it, and this they do that they may make
more profit.(23) Genuine balsam is pure and clear, and has a pleasant taste,
and is yellow; but when it is thick and red, it is not genuine. Take a drop of
balsam in the hand, and expose it to the sun; if it is good, you cannot keep it
long in the sun, because you feel the great heat. Take a drop of balsam on a
knife, and put it near a glowing fire; if the balsam burns, it is genuine. Take
a silver cup or goblet full of goat’s milk, stir it quickly and put a drop of
balsam into it; if it is good, the milk will immediately curdle, and so the
balsam is proved.
1The word altar is omitted in the edition of 1859. Neumann states that several
editions give different substitutes for this word. In those of 1475 (?) and 1549,
the word “altar” is inserted.
2“da sint begraben Jacob und Zacharyas, die propheten.”
3The words in italics are wanting in the edition of 1859, and are substituted from
that of 1814, a reproduction of the passage in the editions of 1475 (?) and 1549.

41.—Of the spring in Paradise, with IIII rivers.
In the middle of Paradise there is a spring, from which flow four rivers that
course through different countries. The first is called Rison and flows
through India; in this river are found many precious stones and gold. The
other is called Nilus: it flows through the country of the Moors and through
Egypt. The third is called Tigris, and flows through Asia and Great
Armenia. The fourth is called the Eufrates, which flows through Persia and
Lesser Armenia. Of these four rivers I have seen three.(1) One is called
Nilus, the other Tigris, the third, Eufrates. I have been many years in the
countries through which these rivers flow, and have there experienced many
things that are good and bad, of which a great deal more might be said.

42.—How pepper grows in India.
I have not been in Great India where the pepper grows, but I have heard in
the Infidel country from those who have seen it, where and how it grows. In
the first place, I have understood and heard, that it grows near the city of
Lambe, in a forest called Lambor;(1) this forest is quite XIIII days journey
in length. In this forest are II cities and many villages in which are
Christians; it is very hot where the pepper grows. The pepper grows on trees
which are like the wild vine, and is something like the sloe when it is green;
and they bind them to poles as they do the vine, and the trees bear a great
deal. When it is green it is ripe, then they cut it as they do grapes, and
expose it to the sun until it is dry. Three kinds of pepper grow; the long and
black grows with the leaves. There is the white, which is the best, and they
keep it in the country; but not so much of this grows as of the other. There
are also many serpents there, produced by the heat. Some people say, that
when the pepper is to be gathered, fires are made in the forest to drive away
the serpents, therefore the pepper becomes black; but this is not the case,
because if they made a fire, the trees would wither and bear no more fruit;
but the truth is, that they wash their hands with the juice of an apple which
they call liuon,(2) or of some other plant; the serpents escape from the smell,
and then they gather the pepper without trouble. In the same country they
also grow good ginger, and many spices and aromatics.

43.—Of Allexandria.
Alexandria is quite seven Italian miles long, and three broad, and is a fine
and pretty city, and the river Nilus flows past the city into the sea; and the
city has no other drinking water, and it is conducted into the city by means
of cisterns. Many merchants come there from over the sea, from Italian
countries, from Venice and from Genoa. Those from Genoa have their own
counting-houses at Alexandria, and those from Venice likewise.(1) It is the
custom at Alexandria, that at the hour of vespers, all the Italians must be in
their counting-houses, and no longer without, about the city, which is
strictly forbidden. Then an Infidel comes and locks up the counting-house,
and takes away the key until the morning, when he comes and opens it
again. Thus they take care that the Italians shall not take their city, because
they were once conquered by the king of Zipern.(2) Near the port of
Alexandria there is a fine high tower, on which there was not long ago a
mirror, in which one could see from Alexandria toward Cipern those who
were on the sea; and whatever they were doing, all could be seen in this
mirror at Allexandria, so that at the time that the king of Zipern went to war
with Allexandria, he could do them no harm. Then came a priest to the king
of Ziperen, and asked what he would give him if he broke the mirror. The
king replied, that if he would break the mirror, he would give him
whichever bishopric he might choose to have in his country. The priest then
went to Rome to the Pope, and said: That he would break the mirror at
Allexandria, if he would allow him to abjure the Christian faith. He gave
him permission that he might do so in words, and not in deeds nor with the
heart. Now he did this for the sake of the Christian faith, because the
Christians at sea suffered many injuries from the Infidels, through this
mirror. The priest returned from Rome to Alexandria, and was converted to
the faith of the Infidels, and learnt their writing, and became an Infidel
priest and their preacher, and taught them the Infidel faith against the
Christian faith, and they held him in great honour, and wondered, because
he had been a Christian priest, and they trusted in him very much. They
asked him which temple in the city he wished for, as they would give it to
him for his life time. There was also a temple in the middle of the tower
where the mirror was; this temple he asked for, for his life time; they gave it

to him together with the keys of the mirror. There he remained nine years,
and then one day he sent to the king of Zypperen that he should come with
his galleys, and he would break the mirror which was in his power, and he
thought, that, after breaking the mirror, if the galleys were there, he would
go on board. One morning many galleys came, he struck the mirror three
blows with a hammer before it broke, and from the noise all the people in
the city were frightened, and ran to the tower and fell on him, so that he
could not get away; then he jumped out of a window of the tower, into the
sea, and was killed. Soon afterwards, the king of Zyperen came with a large
force, and took Allexandria, and remained in it three days.(3) Then came the
king-sultan, and he marched upon him so that he could not remain; and he
burnt the city, and took away with him many people with their wives and
children, and much booty.

44.—Of a great giant.
It is to be noted, that in Egypt there was a giant, who was called in the
Infidel tongue, Allenklaisser. In this country is the city called Missir, but the
Christians call it Kayr, and it is the capital of the king-sultan. In this same
city are twelve thousand baking ovens. Now the said giant was so strong,
that one day he brought into the city a bundle of wood to heat all the ovens,
and one bundle was enough; each baker gave him a loaf, which makes
twelve thousand loaves. All these he ate in one day. The shin-bone of this
giant is in Arabia, in a valley between two mountains. There is a deep valley
between the rocks, where flows a river at such a depth that no person can
see it, one only hears its rush. It is in this same valley that the shin-bone of
the giant serves as a bridge; and whoever comes there, whether they are
riding or on foot, must pass over this shin-bone. It is also on a road where
traders pass, coming and going, because the defile is so narrow, that people
cannot pass by any other way; and the Infidels say that this bone is one
frysen1 in length, which is equal to an arrow’s flight, or more. There, a toll
is taken from traders; with the same, they buy oil to anoint the bone that it
may not rot. It is not a long time since a king-sultan had a bridge built near
the bone; it is about two hundred years [ago], according to an inscription on
the bridge. When a lord comes there with many people, he passes over the
bridge, and does not pass over the bone; but whoever wishes to pass over
this wonder, may do so, that he may say of it that in this country there is an
incredible thing, and which is nevertheless surely true. And if it were not
true, or had I not seen it, I would not have spoken or written about it.(1)
1Farsang or fursak = 3 m. 787-1/2 yds.

45.—Of the many religions the Infidels have.
It is to be noted, that the Infidels have five religions. First, some believe in a
giant called Aly, who was a great persecutor of Christians. Others believe in
one who was called Molwa,(1) who was an Infidel priest. The third believe,
as the three kings believed, before they were baptised. The fourth believe in
fire, because they say that Abel, the son of Adam, brought his offering to
Almighty God, and the flames of the fire were the offering; therefore they
believe in this offering. Among the fifth, some believe, and the largest
number among the Infidels believe, in one who is called Machmet.

46.—How Machmet and his religion appeared.
It is here to be noted of Machmet, how he came and how he brought his
religion. Item, his father and mother were poor people, and he is a native of
Arabia. When he was thirteen years old he went away from home, went to
[some] merchants who wanted to go to Egypt, and asked them to take him
with them. They took him, agreeing that he must look after the camels and
horses, and wherever Machmet went, or stood, there stood always a cloud
over him, which was black; and when they came to Egypt, they encamped
near a village. Now at that time there were Christians in Egypt; the pastor of
the village came to the merchants, and invited them to dine with him. They
did so, and told Machmet that he must look after the horses and camels.
This he did. And now when they came into the pastor’s house, the pastor
asked them if they were all there? The merchants said: “We are all here,
except a boy who is guarding our camels and horses.” Now this priest had
read in a prophecy, how one, born of two persons, would spread a doctrine
against that of Christianity, and that as a sign who the man was to be, a
black cloud would stand over him. The pastor went out, and saw a black
cloud over the little boy, who was Machmet. When he had now seen him,
he asked the merchants that they should bring the boy; they brought him.
The pastor asked him his name. He said, “Machmet”. This, the priest also
found in prophecy, and more [than this], that he would be a mighty lord and
man, and that he would greatly trouble Christianity; but that his doctrine
would not last one thousand years, and then it would decrease. When the
pastor knew that he was named Machmet, and saw the black cloud stand
over him, he understood that he was the man who would introduce this
doctrine, and he placed him at his table above the merchants, and showed
him great honour. After the meal, the pastor asked the merchants if they
knew the boy. They said; “No, but he came to us, and asked us to take him
with us into Egypt.” Then the pastor told them how he had read in a
prophecy, how this boy would introduce a doctrine against Christians,
through which they would suffer much, and for a sign [of this], a black
cloud would be always over him; and showed them the cloud and said, that
when he was in the galley, the cloud was there also. He said to the boy:
“Thou shalt be a great teacher, and shalt introduce a particular doctrine

amongst the Infidels, and thou shalt overpower the Christians by thy might,
and thy descendants will also acquire great power.(1) Now I pray thee that
thou wilt leave my race, the Armeny, in peace.” This he promised him, and
then went with the merchants to Babiloni, and became a great scholar in
Infidel writings, and preached to the Infidels that they should believe in
God who had created heaven and earth, and not in the idols that were the
creatures of men; they have ears and hear not; they have eyes and see not;
they have a mouth and speak not; they have feet and walk not; nor can they
save either the body or soul; and he converted the king of Babilony and
many people with him. Then the king took him, and gave him power over
the land; this he exercised; and when the king died, he took the king’s wife,
and became a mighty Calpha, which is as much as to say, a Pope. He had
four men with him who were well learned in Infidel writings, and to each he
gave an office. To the first, he gave charge of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; to
the other, lay jurisdiction; the first, was named Omar, the other, Otman; the
third was named Abubach, to whom he gave charge of weights and
manufactures, so that he was over them, and each one should be faithful in
his work. The fourth was named Aly; he made him chief over all his people,
and sent him into Arabia that he should convert Christians, because
Christians were there at the time; but if any would not be converted, then he
should compel them by the sword. We read in the Infidel book, Alkoray,
that in one day ninety thousand men were killed for [the sake of]
Machmet’s doctrine, and the whole of Arabia was converted. Machmet gave
them a law, how they were to conduct themselves before God, who had
created heaven and earth. And the law of the Infidels begins in this way.
First, when a boy was born, when he comes to be thirteen years old, he
must be circumcised, and he has instituted five daily prayers, which must be
daily repeated. The first prayer is when the day breaks; another, in the
middle of the day; the third, at the time of vespers; the fourth, before the
sun goes down; the fifth, when day and night part. With the first four, they
praise God, who has made heaven and earth; with the fifth, they pray to
Machmet, that he will intercede for them with God. And they must go into
the temple at certain times of the day; and when they want to go into the
temple, they must wash the mouth, then the hands, feet, ears, and eyes. And
when any one has sinned with his wife, he cannot go into the temple, until
he has washed his whole body; this they do in the same belief as we
Christians who confess; and the Infidels believe that, after they have

washed, they are as pure as Christians, who, with full penitence, have
confessed to the priest. And when they want to enter the temple, they take
off their shoes and go in bare footed; they cannot take in any arms, or
weapons that cut, and they do not allow any woman in the temple, so long
as they are inside; and when they go into the temple, they stand near each
other, with their hands close to each other; and they bend and kiss the
ground, and their priest sits on a seat before them, and begins a prayer
which they repeat after him. It is also to be noted, that in the temple no one
speaks to another, nor looks at another, until the prayer is ended. In the
temple they do not put one foot far from the other, but keep them close
together; they do not go to and fro, nor look here and there, but they stand
still in one place, and keep their hands together until they have quite
finished their prayer; and when they have quite finished, they bow to each
other, and only then go out of the temple. It is also to be noted, that no door
of the temple is left open. They have no painting and no picture inside, only
their writings, plants, roses, and flowers. They do not willingly allow
Christians to enter, and more than this, it is to be noted, that Infidels must
not spit, cough, or do anything of the sort in their temple; but if some one
does so inside, he must go out and wash himself, and, added to this, must
suffer much reproach from the Infidels; and when one coughs, sneezes, or
..., he must go out of the temple and wash himself after it. It is also to be
noted, that they keep Friday as we keep Sunday, and whoever does not go
to the temple on their holy-day, is taken and tied to a ladder, and carried
about the town from one street to the other, and tied in front of the temple
until their prayer is finished; and then they beat him twenty-five times with
a rod on the naked body, whether he is rich or poor. Item, all the young
dropped by their cattle on the Friday, are given to the hospital. Their priests
also say, that when prayer is finished on a holy-day, people may work,
because work is holy, and that man commits more sin by being idle than
with work, and therefore they allow their people to work on holy days after
they have finished their prayer. And when they finish their prayers on holy-
days, they raise their hands towards God, and all pray with common voice
for vengeance on Christendom, and say: “Almighty God, we pray thee not
to suffer Christians to be united,” and say, that if Christians are united and
have peace amongst themselves, they must succumb. It is also to be noted,
that they have three kinds of temples; one, to which they all go, is Sam, a
parish church; the other, into which priests go, is a monastery, and in which

they also go through their probation; the third, is where their kings and
mighty vassals have their burial, and in it poor people are received for the
love of God, whether they be Christians, Infidels, or Jews, and the temple is
like a hospital. The first temple is also called Mesgit, the other Medrassa,
the third, Amarat.(2) It is also to be noted, that they do not bury their dead
either in the temples, or around them; they bury in the fields and on the high
roads; this they do that those who pass by, may pray to God for them. And
when one is about to die, they stand around him, and tell him that he must
think of God, and call to God to have mercy upon him; and when he dies,
they wash him, and then their priests carry him, singing, to the grave, and
bury him. It is also to be noted, that the Infidels fast one month in the year,
and this fast changes every year to another month, and they fast one whole
day without eating or drinking, until they see the stars in the sky. Then the
priest goes up the tower, and calls the people to prayer, and they go into the
temple and say their prayers, and only when they have finished their prayer,
they go home and eat all night until the morning, meat, or whatever they
may have. Also, they do not lay with their wives during their fast; and when
a woman is pregnant or in child-bed, she may eat during the day, and the
sick may do the same. They do not take payment during fast, either for
houses or for any thing that pays interest.

47.—Of the Infidels’ Easter-day.(1)
It is also to be noted of the Infidels’ Easter day, that, after they have fasted
four weeks, they have Easter for three days following, and on the morning
of Easter day they go to the temple, and finish their prayer as is their
custom; and when they have done, the common people put on their arms,
and then come to the high priest’s house, with the chiefs of the town and the
soldiers, and then take out of the priest’s house, the tabernacle, and
ornament it with cloth of gold and velvet, and the chiefs and the principal
[people] carry it in front of their temple, and in front of the tabernacle they
carry their banners, and all the musicians they can find also go before it;
and when they bring it to the temple, they put it down, and the chief priest
goes into the tabernacle and preaches inside it. When he has preached, they
put a sword in his hand; he draws it and speaks to the people, and calls upon
God that he should give us might and strength against all the enemies of
Machmet’s faith, so that we may overcome them with the sword. Then they
all put out their hands, and pray to our Lord that it may so happen, and after
this, the mighty lords go into the temple and pray, and during that time, the
people must guard the tabernacle and the lords. When their prayer is
finished, they take the tabernacle with the priest inside, and carry him back
to his house, with the musicians and banners. Afterwards, they go to their
houses and have great rejoicings for three days.

48.—Of the other Easter-day.
And then, after a month, they have another Easter day in honour of
Abraham. On this [day] they kill lambs and oxen, and give to the poor, by
the will of God, [and] to the honour of Abraham, because he was obedient,
and wanted to sacrifice his son to God. At this time, the Infidels go to the
grave of Machmet, and to the temple which Abraham built and which lies in
front of the city, and Machmet has his grave in it, and it is called Madina.
On Easter day the king-sultan covers the temple of Abraham with velvet,
which is black, and then their priest cuts off a small piece for each Infidel
pilgrim that comes, that he may take it away as a sign that he has been
there.

49.—Of the law of the Infidels.
It is also here to be noted, what Machmet has forbidden in the laws he has
given to the Infidels. First, he has forbidden the Infidels that they should
dare to cut the beard, because it would be against the will of God when he
created Adam, the first man, in his Divine image; and the Infidels also say,
that he who would have a face different to that he received from God, does
it against God’s command, whether he be young or old. They also say that
whoever cuts his beard, he does it from vanity and pride, and to please the
world, and scorns the creation of God; it is particularly the Christians who
do this to please their women, and this is a great misfortune for them,
because, for the sake of vanity, they disfigure the image in which God
created them. Then Machmet forbade that any one should lift his hat or
uncover his head to another, whether he be king, emperor, noble or
plebeian, which they also observe; but when they go before a mighty man,
they bow and kneel before him. They say, when one’s father, and mother, or
another friend dies, they should uncover the head before him. This they also
do. When they lament for one, they take off their hat, and lift it high and
throw it on the ground, and then they lament. This also has Machmet
allowed, that a man may take as many wives as he can support. It is also
their law, that when a woman is pregnant, they do not go near her until the
child is born, nor for fourteen days after; but they may have a concubine.
The Infidels also say that after the last day they will have wives, with whom
they will lie; but they will always remain virgins. They also say that God
has established marriage only for those who die in the faith of Machmet. He
has also ordered that they must not eat any animal, or bird, unless they cut
its throat and let the blood flow, which they observe. They do not eat pig’s
flesh, because Machmet has also forbidden it.

50.—Why Machmet has forbidden wine to Infidels.
It is also to be noted, that Machmet has forbidden wine to Infidels, because
as the Infidels say: One day he was passing, with his servants, a public-
house, in which were many people making merry. He asked why those
people were so merry; one of his servants told him it was caused by wine.
Machmet said: “Is it such a drink that people become so merry from it!”
Now in the evening Machmet went out again, and there was a great noise
because a man and his wife were fighting, and two persons were killed. He
spoke and asked what was the matter? One of his servants said that the
people who were merry have now lost their senses, because they have taken
too much wine, and they knew not what they did. Then Machmet forbade
wine to all, under a heavy penalty, whether ecclesiastic or lay, emperor,
king, dukes, barons, counts, knight and varlet, servants, and all those who
were of his faith, and that they should no longer drink wine, whether they
be well or ill, and this is why he has forbidden wine to them, as the Infidels
have told me. He has also ordered that the Christians and all those who are
against his faith, should be persecuted day and night, except the Armeny
who are to be free amongst them; and where there are Armeny amongst
them, then they should not take from them a monthly tax greater than two
pfennings, because Machmet had promised the Armenian priest, as has been
stated. He has also ordered, that when they overcome Christians, they
should not kill them; but they should pervert them, and should thus spread
and strengthen their own faith.

51.—Of a fellowship the Infidels have among themselves.
It is also to be noted, that during the time he was on earth, Machmet had
forty disciples. They have a special fellowship and have made an alliance
against Christendom, and this is their law. Whoever wants to be of their
fellowship, must swear that if he meets a Christian, he will not let him live
nor take him a prisoner, whether from favour or for the sake of profit; and if
it should happen that in a battle which Infidels [might] have with Christians,
he cannot succeed to take one, he must buy a Christian and kill him. Those
who are in this fellowship are called They;1(1) there are many of them in
Turkey, and they always go against the Christians because it is their law.
1To those who are unfamiliar with the name, the title of Ghasi would scarcely be
recognised in that of They. N.

52.—How a Christian becomes an Infidel.
It is also to be noted how a Christian, from the beginning, becomes an
Infidel. When a Christian wants to become an Infidel, he must before all
men raise a finger, and say the words: “La il lach illallach;” Machmet is his
true messenger.(1) And when he says this, they take him to the high priest;
then he must repeat the above written words before the priest, and must
deny the Christian faith, and when he has done that, they put on him a new
dress, and the priest binds a new kerchief on his head; and this they do that
it may be seen he is an Infidel, because Christians wear blue kerchiefs, and
the Jews, yellow kerchiefs, on the head. Then the priest asks all the people
to put on their armour, and who has to ride, rides; also all the priests who
are in the neighbourhood. And when the people come, they put him on a
horse, and then the common people must ride before him, and the priests go
behind him, with trumpets, cymbals and fifes, and two priests ride near him;
and so they lead him about in the town; and the Infidels cry with a loud
voice and praise Machmet, and the two priests say to him these words:
“Thary wirdur, Messe chulidur, Maria cara baschidur, Machmet kassuldur”:
which is as much as to say; There is one God, and the Messiah his servant,
Mary his maid, and Machmet his chief messenger.(2) After they have led
him everywhere in the city, from one street to another, then they lead him
into the temple and circumcise him. If he is poor, they make a large
collection and give it to him, and the great lords shew particular honour to
him, and make him rich; this they do, that Christians may be more willing
to be converted to their faith. If it is a woman who wants to change her
religion,1 she is also taken to the high priest, and must say the above words.
The priest then takes the woman’s girdle, cuts it in two, and makes of it a
cross; on this, the woman must stamp three times,2 deny the Christian faith,
and must say the other words above written. The Infidels have a good
custom among their merchants, when one wants to buy from another,
whatever be the merchandise. The buyer says to the seller, that he should
make a just profit on what he buys, so that he also might live; so that he
takes no more profit than one pfenning in forty pfennings, which is equal to
one gulden in forty guldens, and no more; this they call a right purchase and
profit, and this Machmet has also commanded them, so that the poor, like

the rich, might live. The priests also always say in their sermons, that they
should help each other and be subject to their superiors, and the rich are to
be humble before the poor, and when they do this, God Almighty gives
them strength and might against their enemies; and whatever their priest
says to them about spiritual things, they are obedient and submissive to it.
This is the faith of Machmet which he has given to the Infidels as his law,
such as it is, as I then heard it from them.
1The words in italics are wanting in Heidelberg MS. Penzel has it—“Ist die
übertüten wollenden ein Frauenzimmer.” In edition of 1549, we find—“ist aber
ein frau.”
2“stunt.”

53.—What the Infidels believe of Christ.
It is also to be noted, that the Infidels believe that Jesus was born of a
virgin, and that after the birth, she remained a virgin. They also believe that
when Jesus was born, he spoke to his mother and comforted her, and they
believe that Jesus is the highest prophet of God amongst all prophets, and
that he has never committed sin; and they do not believe that Jesus was
crucified, but that it was another who was like him; therefore Christians
have a wicked faith, because they say that Jesus was crucified, who was the
highest friend of God, and has never committed any sin, therefore God
would not have been a just judge if Jesus was crucified and innocent. And
when one converses with them of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, they
say that they are three persons, and not one God, because their book
Alkaron says nothing of the Trinity. When anybody says that Jesus is the
word of God, they say, this we do know, that the word of God has spoken,
otherwise he would not be God; and when one says that wisdom is the Son
of God who was born of the Virgin Mary, from a word which the angels
announced to her, and on account of which word we must all rise and come
to judgment; they say it is true that no one can go against the word of God.
They also say that the strength of the word of God cannot be conceived by
any one, and therefore their book Alkoran says, and gives them a sign, by
the word which the angel spoke to Mary, that Jesus was born of the word of
God. They say that Abraham was the friend of God, Moyses the prophet of
God, Jesus the word of God, so was Machmet the true messenger of God.
They also say, that Jesus, of the four, was the most worthy, and was the
highest with God, and it will be he also who will judge the last judgment of
God over all men.

54.—What the Infidels say of the Christians.
The Infidels also say that whatever territory they possess of the Christians,
they do not owe it to their power, nor to their wisdom, nor to their holiness,
but they have it because of the injustice, perversity, and arrogance which
Christians have against them; therefore Almighty God has decreed, that
they should take the land from Christians, because they do not conduct their
affairs, whether spiritual or temporal, with justice, because they look to
wealth and favour, and the rich treat the poor with haughtiness, and do not
help them either with gifts or with justice, and do not hold to the doctrine
which the Messiah has given them. They also say, that they find it and read
it in their prophecies, that the Christians will yet expel them out of the
country, and will again possess the country; but so long as Christians are
such, and are perverse, and their spiritual and temporal lords live such a
disordered life, we are not afraid that they will expel us out of our country;
because we fear God, and do always what is right and just, and worthy,
according to our faith, for the love of God and in honour of our prophet
Machmet, who is the highest messenger of God, who has given us the right
doctrine by his teaching; to him we are obedient, and always willingly
follow his commandments which are in the book called the Alkoran, which
has been touched upon often before.

55.—How Christians are said not to hold to their religion.
The Infidels also say that Christians do not hold to the commandment, nor
to the doctrine of the Messiah, which the Messiah has commanded them,
and they also do not observe the law of the book Inzil, which is called
Ewangely, nor the rules which stand in that book. They hold to particular
laws, spiritual and temporal, which are against the laws of the book Inzil,
and the commandments and laws contained therein are all holy and just; but
the law and belief which they have set up and invented, are all false and
unjust, because the laws which they have made are for profit and favour,
which is all against God and his dear prophets; and whatever misfortunes
and troubles they have, are all decreed to them by God for their
unrighteousness.

56.—How long ago it is since Machmet lived.
Item, it is to be noted, that the time Machmet was born counts from Christ’s
birth, six hundred and nine years, and the Infidels say, that on the day he
was born, one thousand and one churches fell of themselves, and that
happened as a sign of the injury he would do to Christianity in his time. It is
also here to be noted, how many tongues there are in the Greek faith. The
first is the Greek tongue, in which their books are written; the Turks call
them Vrrum. The other is the Rivssen tongue, which the Infidels call Orrust.
The third, Pulgery, which the Infidels call Wulgar. The fourth, the Winden
tongue, which they call Arnaw.(1) The fifth, the Walachy tongue, which the
Infidels call Vfflach. The sixth, the Yassen tongue, which the Infidels call
Afs.(2) The seventh, the Kuthia tongue, which the Infidels call Thatt.1 The
eighth, the Sygun, which the Infidels call Ischerkas. The ninth, Abukasen,
and the Infidels call them Appkas. The tenth tongue, Gorchillas, and the
Infidels call them Kurtzi. The eleventh, the Megrellen tongue, also so called
by the Infidels. Item, between the Zurian and Greek faith, there is but one
difference, therefore they say the Schurian tongue is also of their faith; but
the Schurians are of Jacob, and have the faith of Saint Jacob, and have it
that each must make the wafer with his own hands, into which God’s body
will be changed. And when he has made the paste, he takes a hair from his
beard and puts it in the wafer, and changes it into God’s body. And there is a
great difference between what the Greek and what the Schurian priest reads,
or sings, in the church, because it is the Schurian and not the Greek tongue.
(3)

1For this name, see chap. 36, note 9.

57.—Of Constantinoppel.
Constantinoppel is a fine large city and well built, and is quite ten Italian
miles in extent at its walls, about which it has fifteen hundred towers. The
city is triangular, having the sea on two sides. The Greeks call
Constantinoppel, Istimboli, but the Turks call it Stampol; and opposite to
the city, is a city called Pera, which the Greeks call Kalathan, and the
Infidels call it the same.(1) Between the two cities is an arm of the sea, quite
three Italian miles in length, and half or more in breadth; and the arm is
crossed from each side, because the distance by land is far. The said city
belongs to Genaw. The great Alexander cut through high rocks and
mountains fifteen Italian miles in length, and caused two seas to flow into
each other;(2) and that which flows is called and is the Great Sea, and it is
also called the Black Sea, and the Tunow and many other great rivers flow
into it. In the said sea one goes to Caffa, to Alathena, to Trabessanda, and to
Samson, and to many other cities and countries that lay around. The arm of
the sea [at] Constantinoppel is called Hellespant by the Greeks, and the
Infidels call it Poges. The Turks also have a shore across the sea, opposite to
Constantinople, which they call Skuter; there, the Turks cross the sea. Also
not far from Constantinoppel by the sea, was Troya, on a fine plain, and one
can still see where the city stood.(3) The emperor of Constantinoppel has
two palaces in the city; one is very beautiful, and is much decorated inside
with gold, lapis-lazuli, and marbles. In front of the palace is a fine square
for tilting, and for all [kinds of] pastime that might be desired in front of the
palace.(4) In front of the palace is the statue of the emperor Justian on a
horse; it is placed upon a high piece of marble, which is a pillar. I asked a
burgher of the city of what this statue was made; he told me it was of
bronze, and that both the horse and the man was entirely of one casting.
Some people of the country say that it is of leather, and yet it must have
stood there quite a thousand years; had it been leather, it would not have
stood so long, it would have rotted. At one time the statue had a golden
apple in the hand, and that meant that he had been a mighty emperor over
Christians and Infidels; but now he has no longer that power, so the apple
has disappeared.(5)

58.—Of the Greeks.
Not far from Constantinoppel there is an island called Lemprie; in it is a
mountain that is so high, it reaches to the clouds.(1) At Constantinoppel is
the most beautiful church, so that nothing like it can be found in India; it is
called Sancta Sophya, and is covered all over with lead, and one can see
one’s self on the walls inside the church as if in a mirror, because the
marble and lapis-lazuli on the wall is clear and clean. In this same church is
their patriarch with his priests, and the Greeks and all those who are under
the patriarch go in pilgrimage, as we, for our sins, go to Rome. When
Constantine had finished the churches, he placed as an improvement in the
church, high up in the middle of the dome, five golden discs, and each disc
is as wide, large, and thick as a mill-stone;(2) but the emperor took down
two during the great war which the Turkish king Wyasit had with him, when
he besieged Constantinoppel for seven years. I myself was at that same time
with the king in Turkey,(3) and I have also seen the three discs [left] in the
church. The church of Sancta Sophia has three hundred gates, which are all
of brass. I was III months at Constantinoppel in the house of the patriarch,
but I and my comrades were not allowed to walk about the city, because
they were afraid that the Infidels would recognise us, and would take us
before the emperor. I would gladly have seen it (the city), but it could not
be, because the emperor had forbidden it, but even then we sometimes went
out with the patriarch’s servants.

59.—Of the Greek religion.
It is to be noted, that the Greeks do not believe in the Holy Trinity; they do
not believe in the Chair at Rome, nor in the Pope. They say that their
patriarchs have as much power as the Pope at Rome. The sacrament they
make of leavened bread, and take it with wine and warm water; and when
the priest changes the body of God, they all fall down on their faces and
say: “No man is worthy to look at God.” And when the priest has finished
the Mass, he takes the bread that remains, of which he had prepared the
sacrament, and cuts it into small pieces on a dish, and then men and women
sit down. Then the priest or his assistant takes the bread round, and so every
one takes a piece and eats it, and this bread they call prossura. This bread is
not baked by any man or woman, only by a virgin or a nun. They also give
the sacrament to young children, but they do not give the sacred oil to any
body; and they also say that nobody is wise, and that no one goes into
heaven or hell before the day of judgment; then each man will go into
heaven or into hell as he has deserved. They have no Mass, unless it is
asked for. They say that only one Mass is to be celebrated at the same altar
in the day, and they do not let Mass be said at their altars in Latin, and Mass
must not be said in any language but in the Greek language, because the
Greek language is of their faith. They say also that their faith is the true
Christian faith, and the others are not true. They also have the Mass on feast
days only, and not on week days, because all their priests are craftsmen and
must work, and all have wives and children, and their priests take one wife
only; and when she dies he cannot take any more, either in marriage or
otherwise. If he has anything to do with a woman, and the bishop becomes
aware of it, he takes away from him his priestly charge, so that he cannot
say the Mass any more. And when a bishop consecrates a priest, he girds
him with a girdle, and when the priest does anything against his priestly
order, the bishop takes away the girdle, so that he cannot say Mass any
more, and is fallen from his office. The best and the richest marry the
priests, and when they are in a house, the priests’ wives sit at the upper
[end] of the table, and when women walk together, the priests’ wives go
first. Their churches are not independent. When a man builds a church and
dies, his heirs inherit the church like other property, and sell it as any other

house. They say, it is not a sin to have to do with unmarried women,
because it is not a deadly sin, as it is natural. They also say, that when one
takes a monthly profit of two pfennings for one hundred pfennings, it is
goodly gain, and not usury. On Wednesdays, they do not eat meat; and so,
on Friday, they eat fish and oil only, and say that Saturday is not a fast-day,
and one may well eat meat on that day. In the churches, the women stand
separately, and neither men nor women dare to go near the altar. And when
they make [the sign of] a cross, they do it with the left hand. And when one
is about to die, they baptise him again, and there are many who are baptised
every year. They have no font in their churches; and when their bishop
stands in the choir, he stands in the middle of the church and in the choir,
and the priests stand around him. Their bishop eats no meat throughout the
year, and during the fasts he eats no fish nor anything that has blood, and all
their clergy do the same. When they baptise a child, they have X or more
godfathers; men and women bring to the child a christening shirt or a
candle. They also say, that our priests sin if they have a Mass every day,
because they cannot always be worthy. They also say, that our priests
commit mortal sin when they shave their beard, because it is not godly,
because it happens from unchastity, and to please the women. And when
one dies, and prayers for the dead are sung for him, boiled wheat to eat is
given to the priests and to the people, after an old usage, and this same
wheat they call coleba. They wash their dead before they bury them. Their
priests sell and buy like other merchants. They fast during Lent for fifty
days; and the priests and the laity also fast forty days in Advent, and for the
twelve holy apostles they fast thirty days; they also fast fifteen days for our
Lady’s Assumption; they have only three days in the year for our Lady,
because they do not keep Candlemas. Item, the Greeks do not keep the
resurrection of Jhesus xpi at the same time with us; they keep it on the next
Friday after Easter. Then they sing Xristos anesti, which is as much as to
say, Xristus is risen.(1)

60.—How the city of Constantinoppel was built.
It is also to be noted, that the emperor of Constantinoppel himself creates
the patriarchs, and also gives all God’s gifts to the church, and is lord of
spiritual and temporal matters as far as his territory reaches. I have heard
much and often from their learned men, that Saint Constantine came from
Rome with many kocken and galleys to Greece, to the place where
Constantinoppel lies, and then there appeared to him an angel from God,
who said to him: “Here must thy dwelling be; now sit on the horse, and do
not look back, and ride to the place from which thou hast begun to ride.” He
mounted, and rode quite half a day; and when at night he arrived at the
same place where he had mounted, he looked back, and saw a wall of the
height of a man spring up from the ground; and from the place where he
had looked back, to the place from which he had begun to ride, which is
quite twenty paces or more, there was no wall; it has been much tried to
build a wall, but it will not stand; but it goes towards the sea, so that they
can defend themselves better than if it had been towards the land. I have
seen it, because in the same place there is a breakwater,1(1) therefore the
Greeks say that the said wall was built by angels; and that the crown with
which their emperor is crowned, and which was brought to Saint
Constantine by an angel from heaven, is a heavenly crown; and therefore
there is no worthier nor more highly born emperor than the emperor of
Constantinoppel. And when a priest dies, they put on him everything that
belongs to a priest at the altar, and they put him on a seat in the grave, and
cover him with earth. The chant, Ayos otheos, which they sing once a year
only, they sing upon all other holy occasions; and during Lent they sing the
Alleluia every day, when they are in church. They sing Kirieleyson only, in
their Mass, and not Xreleyson. They say, there is but one Godhead and no
difference, that it is God the Father and God the Son, and therefore it would
not be right to sing Christ. They also bow very humbly before their priests.
When a layman meets a priest, he takes off his hat, and bows humbly, and
says: “Esloy mena tespotha”; which is as much as to say: Bless me, Lord.
Then the priest lays his hand on the layman’s head and says: “Otheos efflon
essenam”; and that means, God bless thee; and this they do always, men
and women, when they meet a priest. When a priest takes a wife, he takes

her before he becomes a priest; the reason is, because if he does not beget a
child, he cannot be a priest, but so soon as he has got a child, he is
consecrated to be a priest. Laymen pray only with the Pater Noster, and do
not know the Belief nor the Ave Maria. Many priests wear white garments
at Mass.(2)
1“wann es an der selben stat ein getüll hat.”

61.—How the Jassen have their marriages.
Inter illas gentes, Gargetter et Jassen, nuptiæ explentur hac conditione,
videlicet mater puellam suam intactam esse asserit, sed ni reapse sit virgo,
conjugium non conficitur. Quando igitur de nuptiis agitur, cantibus
comitantur puellam ante thalamum, et ibi se ponere jubent; succedit inde
sponsus cum adolescentulis, et gladio stricto percutit thalamum, et prope
illum se se ponit una cum adolescentulis, et comedunt et bibunt, et se
oblectant inter choreas et cantus. Et quum ita solatia cesserint, sponsum
denudant usque ad subuculam suam, et egredientes relinquunt cum sponsa.
Postea venit sponsi frater, et nonnullus ex amicis intimis, et ante ostium
excubat stricto ense; et quum sponsus sponsam virginem non invenit, hoc
matri ejus palam facit. Deinde mater sponsi cum amicis suis ante thalamum
adstat, observant panniculos, et si nullum virginitatis signum inveniunt,
omnes incipiunt se contristare; quum vero pater et mater sponsi cum amicis
suis mane adveniunt, ut festa conjugalia concelebrent, mater sponsi manu
regit poculum in una parte perforatum, et implet vino claudens foramen
digito, et inde matrem sponsæ invitat ut libat amovens digitum e foramine,
et sic vinum extra fluit; tum mater sponsi dicit matri sponsæ: Ita evenit de
filia tua. Hoc summo dedecori est parentibus sponsæ, quam tradunt eis ut
secum ducant, dicentes, se velle nubere filis intactam puellam, sed non ita
evenisse de eorum filia. Then come their priests and the chief [persons] that
are there, and invite the bridegroom’s father and mother, and then they go to
their son the bridegroom, and ask him whether or no he will have her? If he
says, “Yes”, she is given to him by the priests, and the other persons who
have interceded for her. But if he says, “No”, then they are in all things
separated; and whatever he has brought to her, she gives the whole back to
him; and whatever clothes he has given her, she must give back to him;
after which, he can take another wife, and she another husband.(1) There are
many people in Ermenia, who have this custom. The Infidels call the
Gorgiten, Kurtzi; and the Jassen they call Affs.

62.—Of Armenia.
I have also been a great deal in Armenia. After Tämerlin died, I came to his
son, who has two kingdoms in Armenia. He was named Scharoch; he liked
to be in Armenia, because there is a very beautiful plain. He remained there
in the winter with his people, because there was good pasturage. A great
river runs through the plain; it is called the Chur, and it is also called the
Tygris; and near this river, in this same country, is the best silk. The Infidels
call the plain, in the Infidel tongue, Karawag.(1) The Infidels possess it all,
and yet it stands in Ermenia. There are also Armenians in the villages, but
they must pay tribute to the Infidels. I always lived with the Armenians,
because they are very friendly to the Germans, and because I was a German
they treated me very kindly; and they also taught me their Pater Noster and
their language, and they call the Germans, Nymitsch.(2) In Armenia are
three kingdoms; one is called Tiffliss, the other is called Syos, the third is
called Ersingen; the Armenians call it Isingkan, and that is Lesser Armenia.
They also possessed Babylon for a long time; but they now have it no
longer. The son of Tämerlin had Tyfflis and Ersing at the time that I was
there. Sifs belonged to the king-sultan, and was won, counting from Christ’s
birth, twelve hundred and seventy-seven years; then did the sultan of
Alkenier conquer it.(3)

63.—Of the religion of the Armenians.
The Armenians believe in the Holy Trinity. I have also often heard their
priests preach in their churches, when I had gone to Mass, and been in their
churches, that Saint Bartlome and Saint Thaten of the twelve holy apostles,
converted them to the Christian faith, but that they have often been
perverted again. There was a holy man named Gregory, and the king of
Armenia was his cousin, and he lived in the time when Saint Silvester was
Pope at Rome.(1) The king of Armenia died, and he was a good Christian,
and his son was king, and he was named Derthatt; he was very strong,
because he had the strength of forty oxen; what they could drag and lift, that
he could lift alone. It was this same king who built the large church at
Bethleen, as has been already stated.1 (2) And when he became king after his
father, he turned Infidel, and persecuted the Christians, and took hold of his
cousin Gregory, and told him he must worship his idol. This the blessed
man would not do, so he put him into a pit where there were adders and
serpents and many other hurtful reptiles, that they might eat him. But they
did nothing to him. He lay there twelve years. About the same time, several
saintly maidens came to Ermenia from Italy, and preached the Christian
religion instead of the Ermenen religion. The king heard this, and ordered
that they should be brought to him. There was one amongst them who was
named Susanna, who was very beautiful; she was taken to his room, when
he wished to urge her to unchastity, but strong as he was, he could do
nothing with the young woman, nor win her with all his power, for God was
with her. This was told to him in the prison, and he said: “Oh, the wicked
pig!” At the same time, the king fell from his throne, became a pig, and ran
away to the woods. Then there was great disorder in the land, but the
vassals of the country consulted, and took Gregory out of the pit, and asked
him if he could help the king. He answered them and said, that he would not
help him, unless they and he became Christians. The vassals promised him
this, also for the king. Then said Gregory: “Ride into the wood, look for
him, and bring him.” They rode into the wood, and brought him to Gregory;
and as soon as he saw Gregory, he ran to him, and kissed his feet. Gregory
knelt on his knees, and prayed to Almighty God that he would have mercy
on the man, and make him whole. The king again became a man, and was,

with all his people, again a Christian,(3) and went against Babiloni and the
Infidels, and conquered Babilonia and the whole country, three kingdoms,
and converted them to Christianity, and appointed Gregory over the clergy
and all ecclesiastical orders. In this way, their religion was established by
the King Derthat and the man Gregory.(4) They also took much territory that
belonged to the Infidels, and forced them to Christianity by means of the
sword; but now they have lost all their kingdoms, although they are a
fighting people. It is not long since they lost a kingdom, and a good capital
called Siss; it was taken by the king-sultan. It is also their patriarch’s seat,
but he must pay great tribute to the sultan. The king of Zypern has many
nobles of Armenia at his court, because it is near. Then was Gregory told of
the great miracle which Pope Silvester had performed on Constantine,
during the time that he was emperor at Rome, because he had made him
clean of an eruption, and that he had saved from death the children that had
been brought together to be killed, because the doctors informed the
emperor that he should wash in the blood of children, so that he might get
well of his eruptions.
1No such previous statement appears either in the Heidelberg MS. or in Penzel.

64.—Of a Saint Gregory.
Gregory thought over it, and said to the king: “The power that thou has
conferred upon me, has no influence, unless I have it from the holy father
Silvester”; and he told the king of the great miracle performed by the holy
father on the emperor Constantine. The king said that he would willingly
see him, and would go with him, and prepared and made arrangements for
[the government of] his kingdom. He took with him forty thousand men,
good horsemen and foot-soldiers; he also took with him many valuables and
many precious stones, with which to do honour to the holy father, Saint
Silvester.(1) Gregory took with him the most learned men that he had under
him, and went from Babiloni through Persia, through Greater Armenia, and
through many other countries, and went through the Iron Gates which lie
between two seas, and reach into Great Tartary towards Ruwschea; through
Walchi, Pulgeri, through Ungeren, Frigaul, through Lamparten, through
Duschkan, and so they came dry-footed to Rome, as they had not passed
over the sea. And when they were near Rome, Silvester sent to them all the
blind, lame, and sick, that Gregory might heal them, as he wished to test his
sanctity. When the king, Derthat, saw the people, he was angry, and thought
the Pope was making fun of him. Gregory, without being angry, said: “I
know well what he means”; and ordered that water should be brought to
him; and he knelt on his knees, and prayed to Almighty God that those who
will be sprinkled with the water, will become sound. He then took a sponge
on a stick, and sprinkled the people with it; and he who was touched by it,
was healed. The blind received sight. The Pope, Silvester, heard of this, and
went with all his clergy, and with the whole city of Rome, to meet him, and
shewed him deference and honour. They were a whole year going by land,
from Babilony to Rome. Gregory asked the Pope Silvester to give him
power to free his clergy and his people from the jurisdiction of Rome,
because he was so far that he could not always go to the Chair; then he gave
him the power of a patriarch, and whoever wished to have this power, could
not obtain it elsewhere than at Rome, and would have to send an embassy to
Rome every three years. This he vowed to him, and arranged that all those
who were of his faith, ecclesiastical or lay, should be subject to the Chair at
Rome, and whoever would not be so, should be under the ban of the Pope,

be he bishop, lord, or menial, rich or poor, in his land, and this oath the king
and all his knights also took. This lasted three hundred years after the time
of Gregory, that they were subject to the Chair, after which they no longer
went to the Chair, and themselves chose a patriarch. Their patriarch they
call Kathagnes, and a king they call Takchauer.(2)

65.—Of a dragon and a unicorn.
There was also at that same time on a mountain near Rome, a dragon and a
unicorn, that did much harm to the people in the streets, so that none could
pass. Then the holy father, Saint Silvester, asked the king of Armenia, as he
was a powerful man, whether he would not try, with God’s will, to kill the
dragon and also the unicorn; the king went alone, and saw where they were,
and when he got there, he saw them biting each other, and he looked at
them until the dragon escaped, and the unicorn chased him to a hole in the
rock; the dragon turned himself in the hole, and defended himself against
the unicorn. The unicorn struck at the dragon with his tongue, and tried to
draw him outside. The dragon seized the unicorn, and they struggled
together, until the unicorn pulled the dragon out as far as his neck, and the
one would not let the other go. At that moment, the king ran up and cut the
dragon’s neck, and with the tugging that the unicorn gave it, the head rolled
down the rock; the king then sprang up and killed the unicorn also. He then
returned to Rome, and ordered that the heads should be brought; now the
waggon had enough to do to carry the head of the dragon; and so the King
Derthat delivered the Romans of the reptiles, for which the city, and
especially the holy father, shewed him great honour. Then Gregory went to
the Pope, and asked him for the articles which belonged to the faith, which
he gave him, and then they returned to their own country, and Gregory
taught the Christian faith as he received it from the Pope, which they do not
hold any more, as is above stated.(1) Now, they themselves elect their
patriarch, and when they wish to make one, twelve bishops and four
archbishops must be present, and he is elected. Many of the articles that
Gregory brought from Rome, have been changed, and they are now
separated from the church of Rome. Their priests make the sacrament with
unleavened bread, and nobody else prepares the bread, but the priest who is
to celebrate the Mass, and he prepares one only. Whilst he is making it,
other priests must read the psalter right through, and if there are no priests,
then he must say it himself, right through.(2) They say that it is a great sin
that a man or woman should make the bread for the Holy Sacrament; they
also say that it is not right to sell this bread like other bread. They
communicate the Holy Sacrament with wine, and not with water. When

they want to have the Mass, they all stand together, and none communicate
until he who is at the high altar has communicated, so that they all
communicate together. They also read the gospel [looking] towards the
rising of the sun, and whichever priest celebrates the Mass, does not dare to
sleep that day after midnight; and for three nights previously, and one night
after, he must separate himself from his wife. They do not allow any deacon
or any of a lower grade to be at the altar, only the priest; and no man or
woman can attend the Mass unless they have confessed; and no woman can
go into the church whilst she is unwell. Whoever has hatred or enmity
towards another, must stand before the church, and is not allowed to go in
until he has become reconciled. Woman and man sing the Pater Noster and
the Belief, with the priest, when he celebrates the Mass. They give the
Sacrament also to young children. The priests do not shave their hair nor
their beard. Instead of consecrated oil, they have balm, and the patriarch
gives the sultan a large price for the balm, which he sends to his bishopric.
When one wants to be a priest, he must be forty days and nights in the
church; and when the XL days are passed, he sings his first Mass, and he is
led out with singing, dressed for the Mass. Then come his wife and child,
and they kneel before him, and he gives them his blessing; then come the
priest’s friends and those of his wife, and they bring their offerings; also
those who are invited; and there is great rejoicing in his honour, more even
than when he was married, but he cannot be with his wife until he has said
the Mass for forty days in succession. When they baptise a child, a man
receives it, not a woman, because they say that our Lord had only a man to
baptise him, and not a woman. It is also a great sin to take a woman to a
baptism. They hold baptism in great honour, and whoever comes into the
presence of his godfather, must kneel on the ground before him. They hold,
that in sponsorship, marriage is forbidden to the fourth generation. They
place much confidence in our religion;(3) they also willingly go to Mass in
our churches, which the Greeks do not. They say, that between their religion
and ours, there is only a hair’s breadth, but that there is a great division
between the Greek and their religion. During the week, they fast on
Wednesday and on Friday. They do not fast in Advent, and may eat oil, but
on those days they eat as often as they like after mid-day. They fast one
week for Saint Gregory. They have a saint named Aurencius,(4) who was a
doctor, for whom they also fast one week. They fast also on the day of the
Holy Cross, which is in September; they fast also one week for Saint James

the Great;(5) and they fast XV days in August, for our dear Lady. They fast
one week for the three holy kings. They have a saint who was a knight; his
name is Zerlichis;(6) they call upon him loudly when they are at war or in
other necessity; they fast one week for him. There are many knights and
nobles who fast for him for three days in January, so that they do not eat or
drink, because he is a great helper in need. Their saints’ days they keep on
Saturday. On Easter eve, they celebrate the Mass after vespers, because that
is about the time when the light shines on the holy sepulchre at Jherusalem.
They also celebrate Easter, Trinity, and Ascension day with us; the other
holy days they keep separately. Christmas and the Epiphany they keep at
one and the same time, and on that evening, after vespers, they have the
Mass. They say, that God was born on that day, and was baptised thirty
years after, on that same day, and therefore they keep Christ’s birth and his
baptism on the same day, and that is the sixth of January. They fast one
week for the twelve holy apostles, and keep their feast-day one day only,
and that is Saturday. They pray with the Ave Maria once a year only, and
this they do upon our Lady’s day in Lent, which they do not hold as we do.
(7)
When two married persons quarrel with each other, and the one will not
have the other, they are separated at bed and board; but, if neither wishes to
have the other, they are separated so that each can take another spouse. If
they have any children, they are given to the father. Their churches are all
free, as no one can inherit or sell them. When a priest wants to build a
church with his own money, he must give it to the parish, so that after his
death no one may dispose of it, or he is not allowed to build it; and the same
if a lord or layman builds one, so that nobody shall interfere, because it has
been the custom amongst them. When a priest or layman founded a church,
his heirs inherited it as they did his other property, and let it out on usury, or
sold it like other property. This they have changed, and will not allow it any
more, and say that every house of God should be free. Their priests go to
matins every night,1 which the Greek priests do not. They allow the prayers
for the dead to be said for their rich people during their lifetime, and say
that it is better to light a candle with one’s own hand, than to let another
person light it, by which they mean that he who does not care for his soul in
his lifetime, will scarcely be cared for by his friends afterwards, because the
friends get the money and do not care for the soul. They say, that when a
man himself does good to his own soul, it is agreeable to God. When a poor
man dies without confessing or without [having received] the body of God,

a place in the churchyard is obtained for him by his advocate, and they lay
him in the churchyard, and place a large stone on the grave, and write on it
the name of God and the name of the dead man who lies there, and this they
do for a sign that he is dead. And when a bishop or priest dies, they dress
him as he stands before the altar, and the priests make his grave, then carry
him out of the church, and put him on a seat in the grave. The first day they
bury him up to his girdle, and go every day to the grave, and sing and read
the psalter over him, and each priest throws a spadeful of earth over him,
and this they do every day until the eighth day, and then they bury him
altogether.(8) When a young man or a virgin dies, [they put on] silk and
velvet clothes, and gold rings on the ears and fingers, and so they bury
young people who have not been married. And when one marries a young
woman who should be a virgin, and [he] finds that she is not a virgin, he
sends her back to her father, and will not take her unless more fortune is
given to her, than was arranged at the contract. They have only one cross in
their churches, and not more, and say, it is a sin to crucify our Lord more
than once in a church. They have no paintings on their altars, and their
patriarchs and bishops grant no indulgence in their churches, and say, that
pardon and remission belong to the living God, and if a man goes into the
church with repentance and devotion, God, in his compassion, will grant
him pardon and remission of his sins. When the priest finishes the Mass, he
does not give the blessing; he descends from the altar, and men and women
go up to him, and he touches one after the other on the head, and says:
“Asswatz thogu thu miechk”; which means: God forgive thee thy sins.(9)
They read low Mass aloud, that everybody may hear, and they pray for
those who are entrusted to them, and for everything for which they ought to
pray; for the ecclesiastical and lay authorities over all Christendom, and
they pray for the Roman emperor, and all kings, dukes, barons, counts, and
knights, who are subject to him;(10) and while he thus prays, all the people
kneel, and raise their hands to God, and say: “Ogornicka”; which means:
Lord have mercy upon us. And whilst the priest prays, these words are
continually repeated by the women and men. They behave with much
devotion in their churches; they do not look here and there, and do not
speak, especially while they are at Mass. They decorate their churches
beautifully, and have fine vestments of velvet and of silk of all sorts of
colours. None of their laity dare to read the gospel as our own learned laity
do, who, when they come across a book, read what they find in it; no one

dares to do so, for, should he read the gospel, he would be under the ban of
the patriarch, because they say that no one is to read the gospel but a priest.
They incense their houses every Saturday, and on the eve of every feast-day,
and no one has any other incense than the white incense which grows in
Arabia and in India. Priests and laymen eat like the Infidels, sitting on the
ground. They have not many preachers amongst their priests, because
everyone is not allowed to preach. Their preacher must be well read in the
Holy Scriptures, and must have power from the patriarch to preach, and
when he has the power, he may punish a bishop. Such a preacher they call
Varthabiet, which is the same as being a legate; and there are more than
one, and they move from one city to the other and preach. When a priest or
bishop does wrong, they punish him for it, and say, that if a priest teaches
the Word of God, but does not understand and attend to it, he commits a sin.
(11)

1“Und es gond ir priester och all nächt ze mettin.”

66.—Why the Greeks and Armeni are enemies.
The Greeks and Armeni are always enemies, and I will tell you why it is so,
because I have heard it from the Armenians. The Tartars came into Greece
with forty thousand men, and did much harm to the country, and then lay
siege to Constantinoppel. Then the emperor of Constantinoppel sent to the
king of Armenia for forty knights, the best he had in the land, and asked
him to help him. The king asked how many there were [of the enemy]; the
ambassador replied to him, that there were forty thousand. Then the king of
Armenia selected forty knights, the best he had in his land: “I will send
forty knights to the emperor, who will, with God’s help, exterminate the
Infidels, and drive them by force out of the country.” When the knights
came near Constantinoppel to the emperor, then the ambassador told him
what he was ordered to say. The emperor thought that the king of Armenia
wanted to make fun of him; and on the third day, the knights went before
the emperor, and asked to be allowed to go at the enemy. The emperor
asked them if they meant to overcome forty thousand men? They asked to
be allowed to go out, and that the gate should be shut after them, for they
should have Almighty God on their side, and would fight with Him for the
Christian faith, to do which they had come, or else they would die. He gave
them leave, and they went out amongst the enemy, and killed eleven
hundred of them, besides the prisoners they brought to the gate; but the
emperor would not let them come in, unless they also killed the prisoners,
so they killed them all in front of the gate. The emperor was frightened at
this, and took great care of them, and treated them very well, and they
fought with the enemy every day, and every day did them much harm in the
fight, and in a short time expelled the enemy from the city, and drove them
out of the country. And when the devoted knights had driven away the
Tartars, they went to the emperor, and wanted leave to return to their king;
but the emperor took council how he was to put them to death, and invited
them to stay with him three days longer; he would shew them great honour
and consideration, and called out aloud: “Whoever wishes to eat and drink
and live well at the emperor’s court for three days, let him come.” He sent a
pure virgin to each knight at his separate lodging, and this he did that the
virgins might be got with child by the knights, and that they should leave

their seed there; because the emperor told his lords that he wanted to take
the fruit from the trees and fell the trees, thinking, that after he had killed
the knights, the king of Ermenia would become subject to him. On the third
night, he ordered that all the knights should be killed in their lodgings,
which was done, with the exception of one who had been warned by the
young woman he had with him. He returned and complained to the king
that all his companions had been killed by [order of] the emperor. The king
was terrified, and grieved much for his devoted knights, and wrote to the
emperor that he had sent to him forty men who were worth forty thousand;
and he must know that I will come to him, and for each of my forty knights
will kill forty thousand men. Then the king of Ermenia sent to the Kaliphat
of Babilony to ask his aid to march against the Greek emperor. The Kalipha
himself came to help him with a great many people, and then they advanced
together against the emperor with four hundred thousand men. This the
emperor of Constantinoppel heard of, and went out to meet them with a
great many people, and fought with them, but it was not long before he fled
into the city of Constantinoppel. They followed him as far as the sea
opposite to Constantinopoli, and encamped there. Then the king asked the
Calypha to give him all the men he had made prisoners, and he would give
him all the booty he had taken from the Greek. This was done. The king
took the prisoners opposite to the city, and killed forty-times forty thousand
men; and he made the arm of the sea red with blood, because he had sworn
that he would give to the sea the colour of blood; and after all this was
done, he still had so many prisoners, that thirty Greeks were given for an
onion; this was done to insult the emperor, that it might be said that thirty
Greeks were given for an onion.(1) The Armenians are a brave people, those
that live amongst the Christians, [as well as] those that live amongst the
Infidels. They are also clever at work, because all the clever work the
Infidels can do, in gold, purple, silver, and velvet, the Armenians can also
do, and they also make good scarlet. I have described and named the
countries, cities, and religions, that I have been in amongst the Infidels. I
have also written about the fights in which I have been, and of the religion
of the Infidels of which I have experience, and with many other marvels
which are already touched upon. Now you will hear and understand how
and through which countries I have come away.

67.—Through which countries I have come away.
When Zegra was defeated, as is already related, I came over to a lord
named Manstzusch; he had been a councillor of Zegra. He was obliged to
fly, and he went to a city called Kaffa, where there are Christians; it is a
strong city in which there are [people of] six kinds of religion. There he
remained five months, and then crossed an arm of the Black Sea, and came
to a country called Zerckchas; there he remained half a year. When the
Tartar king became aware of this, he sent to the lord of the country, and
asked that he should not allow the lord Mantzuch to remain in his territory,
and he would do him a great favour. Mantzuch went into another country
called Magrill; and, as we now came into the country of Magrill, we, five
Christians, agreed, that we should go to our native country from the land of
the Infidels, as we were not more than three days’ journey from the Black
Sea; and when it appeared to us opportune and right to get away, all five of
us escaped from the said lord, and came to the chief town of the country,
which was called Bothan, on the Black Sea shore, and begged that we
should be taken across [the sea], but it was not granted to us. Then we left
the city, and rode along the sea-shore, and got to a mountainous country.
There we rode until the fourth day, and came to a mountain from which we
saw a kocken on the sea, at about eight Italian miles from the coast. We
remained on the mountain until night, and made a fire, and when the captain
saw the fire, he sent some men in a skiff that they might see who we were
near the fire on the mountain, and when they came towards us, we made
ourselves known. They asked what sort of people we were? We said we
were Christians, and were made prisoners when the king of Ungern was
defeated at Nicopolis, and had come so far with the help of God; therefore,
might we not go over the sea, as we had dependance and hope in God, that
we should yet return to our homes and to Christianity. They would not
believe us, and asked if we could repeat the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria,
and the Belief? We said, “Yes”, and repeated them. They then asked how
many of us there were? We said, “Five”. They told us to wait on the
mountain, and went to their master and told him how we had spoken to
them. He ordered that we should be brought, and they came with the skiff,
and took us to the kocken. On the third day that we were on board the

kocken, pirates came in three galleys, and would gladly have done us harm,
because they were Turks. They chased us three days and two nights, but
could do us no harm. We got to the city of Sant Masicia;(1) there we
remained until the fourth day, then the Turks went their own way. After that,
we went to sea. We wanted to go to Constantinoppoli; but when we got out
to sea, so that we could see nothing but sky and water, there came a wind
which threw back the kocken about eight hundred Italian miles, to a city
called Synopp. There we remained eight days, and after that we went
further, and were one month and a half on the sea without being able to get
to the land; and we ran short of food, and we had no more to eat and drink,
until we got to a rock in the sea, where we found snails and crabs, which we
picked off, and upon which we lived for four days, and were one month on
the sea before we got to Constantinoppoli. And when we got there, I and my
companions remained, and the kock passed through the strait for Italy. And
as we were passing through the gate into Constantinopel, they asked us
where we came from? We replied, that we had been prisoners amongst the
Infidels, and that we had escaped, and wanted to return to Christianity. Then
they took us before the Greek emperor, who asked us how we had escaped
from the Infidels? We related to him from the beginning to the end, and
when he heard it all, he told us not to be anxious; he would take care to
send us home; and he sent us to the patriarch, who also lives in the city, and
ordered us to wait until he sent a galley for his brother, who was with the
queen of Unger, when he would help us into Walachy. Thus we were three
months at Constantinoppel, which is surrounded by a wall eighteen Italian
miles [in extent], and the wall has fifteen hundred towers. There are one
thousand and one churches in the city, and the principal church is called
Sant Sophia, which is built, and is also paved, with polished marble, so that
when one who has not been before, goes into the temple, he imagines that
the church is full of water, the marble shines so. It has a large dome covered
with lead. It has three hundred and sixty gates, of which one hundred are
quite of brass.(2) After three months, the Greek emperor sent us in a galley
to a fortress called Gily, where the Tunow flows into the Black Sea. At this
fortress I separated from my companions and joined some merchants, and
went with them to a city called in German the White City, situated in
Walachy. Then I came to a city called Asparseri;(3) then to a city called
Sedschoff, the capital of Little Walachy; then to a place called in German,
Limburgch, the chief city in White Reissen the Lesser.(4) There I lay ill for

three months. After that, I came to Krackow, the capital of Polan. After that,
to Neichsen in Saxony, and to the city of Bressla, which capital is in Slesy. I
then came to a city called Eger; from Eger to Regenspurg; from Regenspurg
to Lantzhut; from Lantzhut to Frisingen, near which place I was born; and,
with God’s help, I returned to my home and to Christianity. Almighty God
be thanked, and all those who have helped me. And when I had almost
despaired of coming [away] from the Infidel people and their wicked
religion, amongst whom I was obliged to be for XXXII years, and of any
longer having fellowship with holy Christianity, God Almighty saw my
great longing and anxiety after the Christian faith and its heavenly joys, and
graciously preserved me from the risk of perdition of body and soul;
therefore, I ask all who have read or have heard this book read, that they
should think kindly of me before God, so that they should be eternally
freed, there and here, from such heavy and unchristian captivity. Amen.
This is the Armenian Pater Noster.
Har myer ut Gegnikes surpeitza annum chika archawtnichw iogacy kam
thw hy ergnick yep ecgary hatz meyr anhabas tur mies eis or yep thawg
meis perdanatz hentz minck therog nuch meinrock per danabas yep
mythawg myes ypbwertzuchm heba prigo es mies ytzscheren. Amen.
This is the Tartar Pater Noster.
Atha wysum chy chockta sen algusch ludur senung adung kel suū senung
hauluchūg belsun senung arcchung aley gier da vk achta wer wisum
gundaluch otrnak chumusen wougū kay wisum iasochni alei wis dacha
kayelle nin wisū iasoch lamasin dacha koina wisni sunanmcha ilia garta
wisni gemandan.1(5)
The end of Schiltberger.
1These prayers, from the edition of 1475 (?), are omitted by Neumann, who
considered their insertion as being superfluous; nor do they appear in Penzel’s
edition.

NOTES
TO

THE TRAVELS
OF

JOHANN SCHILTBERGER.

NOTES.

CHAPTER I.

(1.) “Then came many people from all countries to help him.“—The army
of King Sigismund, made up of contingents from various states, consisted
of about 100,000 men at the siege of Nicopolis, 60,000 being horsemen. An
Eastern writer has estimated the number of fighting men at 130,000
(Aschbach, Gesch. K. Sigmunds, i, 101, Saad-eddin, Bratutti edition). In his
narrative of the action, Bonfinius (Rer. Hung. Decad. III., ii, 403) repeats
the proud boast of the king of Hungary, that not only should he turn the
Turks out of Europe, but were the sky itself to fall, he was prepared to
support it on the points of his lances.—Ed.
(2.) “Pudem.”—In the middle ages, this city was called Bdin or Bydinum
(Schafarik, Slawische Alterthümer, etc., ii, 217), transformed by
Schiltberger into Pudem, and by Marshal de Boucicault (Petitot Collect., vi,
448) into Baudins. According to Mannert, quoted by Hammer (Hist. de l’E.
O., i, 416), Widdin was situated on the site of the ancient Bononia, now
called by the people Bodon; but he makes no mention of the Βιδύνη of the
Byzantines, which he would have found on consulting Acropolita. Widdin,
the capital of Western Bulgaria, was inherited by J. Sracimir upon the death
of his father, the King John Alexander, in 1365; and Eastern Bulgaria was
bestowed by this sovereign on his younger son, Shishman III. The former
was under the necessity of acknowledging the suzerainty of the Porte, in the
reign of Amurat I; and there is every reason for supposing that it was he
whom Boucicault (448) designates the lord of the country, in saying, that he
was a Greek Christian, forcibly subjected to the Turks.—Bruun.
(3.) “The king took possession of this city also.”—Hammer (328) and Engel
(Gesch. d. U. R., ii, 198) are of opinion, that Schiltberger here refers to the
city of Orsova; but the former allows, that the city believed by Engel to be
Orsova, was the Aristum of Bonfinius (Rer. Hung. Decad. III., ii, 377),
called Raco by the French Marshal (449); it may therefore be conceded that
the city in question was Rahova, on the road taken by the Christian army,

which would have been retracing its steps, had its aim, after the capture of
Widdin, been the siege of Orsova.—Bruun.
(3a.) “Nicopoly.”—In my Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von
Schiltberger (Sitzungsberichte d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 271), I have
endeavoured to shew that, in stating that the Infidels knew the city of
“Schiltaw” by the name of “Nicopoly”, Schiltberger does not call attention
to the city of Nicopolis on the Danube, near the estuary of the Osma, but to
ancient Nicopolis founded by Trajan, the ruins of which are still to be seen
near the village of Nikup, on the Rushita, a tributary of the Yantra. I was
formerly of opinion that the battle which decided the Eastern question at
that period, was fought near the village, and this opinion, adopted by
several authors of merit, has recently been supported by M. Jirecek in his
admirable work, Geschichte der Bulgaren, wherein reference is made to an
ancient Servian Chronicle in which it is recorded, that the battle took place
“na rece Rositê u Nikopolju”. It would appear, however, that the author of
this notice, through some misapprehension, confounded the Rushita with
the Osma; and M. Kanitz (Donau-Bulgarien, ii, 58–70) having lately, on
just grounds, condemned my hypothesis, I am now persuaded that the
Christians were defeated by Bajazet in the neighbourhood of the present
town of Nicopolis, which was in existence at that time, though from what
period is not known; nor are we able to determine when the ancient
Nicopolis “ad Hæmum”, disappeared.
If Schiltberger’s contemporaries sometimes designated the one city by the
name of Great Nicopolis, they did so simply to distinguish it from a fortress
on the opposite, the left bank of the Danube, called Little Nicopolis, that
was taken by the Christians in the preceding campaign (Jirecek, 354). It is,
therefore, just possible, that the sultan, having passed Trnov, or Ternova,
when on his way to the besieged city, had also entered Tchunkatch (see
trans. of the Turkish historiographer, Neshry, in Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl.
Gesellsch., xv, 346), the name possibly given by Neshry to the castle of
Tchuka, the ruins of which are to be seen in the upper part of the city, called
now as it was then, Shvishtov, Shistov, Sistova, situated at a distance of
fifteen miles to the south-east of the field of battle. If such were indeed the
case, I would venture to suggest, until some better explanation is offered,
that our author may, by mistake or through some misconception, have given

to the besieged city the name of Shistov, corrupted by him to “Schiltaw”.—
Bruun.
(3b.) Nicopolis, the city besieged “by water and by land for XVI days”,
must, unquestionably, have been the place of that name on the right bank of
the Danube, and not ancient Nicopolis, “ad Istrum”, as believed by some
authors, the site of which, distant nearly forty miles from the river, has been
satisfactorily determined by M. Kanitz, from an inscription he has been
fortunate enough to disinter out of a mass of its ruins. The present
Nicopolis, built on a limestone cliff, fills a ravine formed by two heights
commanding the town. Sigismund may, or may not, have occupied those
heights; but, when surprised at his dinner, at ten o’clock in the morning on
the day of the battle, by being informed that the Turks were making their
appearance (Froissart, iv, c. 52), he advanced one mile only from his
encampment outside the beleaguered city, for the purpose of encountering
Bajazet; and the French assumed the offensive immediately after the “Duke
of Walachy” had reconnoitred the enemy’s position. If a further advance
was made at all, it could scarcely have covered much ground, seeing that
the 12,000 foot-soldiers routed by Sigismund had advanced to oppose him;
and when the king was about to follow up his victory by attacking a body of
horse, the sultan being on the point of taking to flight, the timely aid of the
latter’s ally, the despot of Servia, changed the fortunes of the day. The
battle, says Froissart, lasted three hours only, and the result, so disastrous to
the Christian army, he attributes to the impetuosity of Philippe d’Artois,
Comte d’Eu, who disregarded the instructions of the king of Hungary.
“Nous perdons hui la journée”, said the latter to the Grand Master of
Rhodes, “par l’orgueil et bobant (vanity) de ces François; et s’ils m’eussent
cru, nous avions gens assez pour combattre nos ennemies.”
The Christian soldiers fled in disorder, and being hard pressed by Bajazet’s
troops, many were killed on the mountain, one of the heights near
Nicopolis, as they hurried to the Danube, many others being drowned in
their unsuccessful efforts to reach the shipping—probably some of the
vessels of the Venetian blockading squadron, under the command of
Giovanni Mocenigo, on board of which, Sigismund, and Philibert de
Noillac, Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, were received;
the latter being conveyed to Rhodes, whence the ships sailed for Dalmatia
to land the king. It seems pretty clear, from Schiltberger’s narrative, that the

battle of Nicopolis was fought in the immediate vicinity of the city on the
Danube, and therefore at a considerable distance from the ancient
Nicopolis, the city of Trajan. Details of the action will be found in Aubert
de Vertot d’Aubeuff’s Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers de St. Jean de
Jerusalem, etc., 1726.
There is no evidence that Schiltberger set foot in Shistova, but the name had
doubtlessly become familiar to him, both before and after his capture, at a
time that he was totally unacquainted with the language of the people
amongst whom he had fallen. If the incidents of his eventful career were
indeed dictated from memory, his statement that the Infidels knew
Nicopolis as “Schiltaw”, for Shvishtov, Shishtovo, may be accounted for,
by the accidental confusion of names.—Ed.
(4.) “Werterwaywod.”—Schiltberger evidently alludes here to John Mirca
(John Mirtcha), prince or voyevoda of Walachia, called John, by Mme. de
Lusson (Engel, Gesch. d. U. R., iv, 160: iii, 5), and Marcus, by the
Byzantines (L. Chalco, 77). He was the son of the voyevoda, J. Radul, and
having succeeded his elder brother, J. Dan, added the Dobroudja to his
domains after the short reign of Ivanko or Iuanchus, “filius bonæ memoriæ
magnifici domini Dobrdize”, as he is styled in the treaty concluded with the
Genoese in 1387 (Not. et Extr., etc., xi, 65; and Mem. de l’Inst. de France,
vii, 292–334). There is no difficulty in recognising the Bulgarian despot,
Dobrotitch, in the person of the father, who, after the death of Alexander,
declared his independance in the Dobroudja, whence, in all probability, its
name. (Bruun, Journ. du Minis. de l’Instruc. Pub., St. Petersburg, Sept.
1877.)—Bruun.
(5.) “he had come a great distance with six thousand men.”—The force
commanded by the Comte de Nevers, son of Philip, Duke of Burgundy,
consisted of 1000 knights, 1000 soldiers, and 6000 mercenaries. The Count
was supported by the flower of the French nobility. Aschbach (Gesch. K.
Sigmund’s, i, 98) places the total at 10,000 men.—Ed.
(6.) “Duke of Iriseh, known as the despot.”—Stephen, prince of Servia, is
here designated the despot of “Iriseh”, because Servia at that time was also
known as Rascia. Thus—“ipsum regnum Rasciæ—regno Hungariæ; ab
antiquo subjectum”, etc. (Engel, Gesch. d. U. R., iii, 370). Windeck, the
contemporary biographer of Sigismund (Aschbach, Gesch. K. Sigmund’s, i,

234), likewise states, that the king advanced “gegen Sirfien und Raizen, und
bedingte mit dem Tischbot”, that is to say, the despot. As the Turks are in
the habit of preceding with an I, all foreign names commencing with a
consonant, so may Schiltberger’s comrades, as Magyars, have converted
Rascia into Iriseh.—Bruun.
(7.) “Duke of Burgony.”—This Duke of Burgundy was the valiant Comte
de Nevers, aged 22 years only, afterwards surnamed Jean sans Peur; he was
uncle to Charles VI. “Hanns Putzokardo” is easily recognised as the John
Boucicault already noticed. As to the lord “Centumaranto”, Fallmerayer
believes this person to have been Saint Omer, without, however, stating any
reason for this belief; it is, therefore, more probable that Châteaumorant
should be substituted for the name given by Schiltberger.
We read in Boucicault, that one Jean Chasteaumorant arrived in Turkey,
with the money for the ransom of the French knights. It is very possible that
a namesake, and even a near relative of this Châteaumorant, was among
them, to whom the marshal afterwards entrusted the defence of
Constantinople against the Turks, upon his own return to France.—Bruun.

CHAPTER II.

(1.) “Hannsen of Bodem. “The Marshal Boucicault (Petitot Collect., 465,
471) confirms Schiltberger’s statement, to the effect that Bajazet consented
to spare the lives of a certain number of great lords, hoping “to receive from
them much treasure and gold”. Henri and Philippe de Bar, cousins-german
of the king, the Constable Count d’Eu, the Count de la Marche, and the
Lord de la Trémouille, were of the number. No clue is given to the correct
name and nationality of Stephen Synüher, but as he and the lord of Bodem
(Widdin) are distinguished from the twelve French nobles whose lives were
spared, it is pretty certain that allusion is made to Stephen Simontornya,
nephew to Stephen Laszkovitz, voyevoda of Transylvania (Hurmuzaki,
Fragm. zur Gesch. der Rum., 225). Aschbach informs us, that the uncle and
nephew, who had both assisted at the battle of Nicopolis, were the first to
take to flight; but it is very possible, that the nephew happened to be among
those who failed to reach the river in time to enable him to embark, and was
thus made a prisoner. John of Bodem was undoubtedly John Sracimir, king
of Western Bulgaria, whose capital was Widdin.—Bruun.

(2.) “Kalipoli.”—Gallipoli, is mentioned (Ducas., Hist. Byz.) as being the
first town occupied by the Turks (1356) on the European continent. By the
treaty of Adrianople, 1204, upon the fall of the Empire, Gallipoli, which
had been strongly fortified by the Byzantine emperors, fell to the Venetians;
but the possession of an important stronghold commanding the entrance to
the Marmora and Black Sea, was continually disputed by the Italians and
Greeks, until the year 1307, when the Genoese and Greeks having, as allies,
vanquished the Catalans in the Sea of Marmora, laid siege to Gallipoli, to
which place those mercenaries of the Empire had been sent, who, after
destroying the town and devastating the country around, withdrew into
Attica and Bœotia. The Turks rebuilt the fortifications, which were greatly
strengthened by Bajazet, who also constructed a port for his galleys. The
Count de Nevers and 24 of his illustrious companions in arms, were
detained in captivity at Gallipoli, and afterwards at Broussa, until ransomed
for the sum of 200,000 golden ducats. (Heyd., Le Colonie Commer., i, 347;
Hammer, Hist. de l’E. O., i, 106.)—Ed.
(3.) “Windischy land.”—According to Froissart (iv, c. 52), Sigismund
embarked at Constantinople on board of a vessel that had just discharged a
cargo of provisions. It is stated in the History of Cyprus, that the king
arrived in Dalmatia by way of Rhodes. Thwrocz (Schwandtnerus, Script.
Rerum Hung., iv, 9) adds, that he afterwards landed in Croatia, the country
alluded to by Schiltberger as “Windischy land”. See “Windische Mark”, in
Cosmographey.—Bruun.

CHAPTER III.

(1.) “and the people he took away, and some he left in Greece.”—Baron
Hammer points out, that Styrian historians have not noticed this fact, with
which, in all probability, is connected the origin of certain Slave settlements
in Asia Minor. M. Lamansky (O Slav. v. Mal. Asii) however, believes, they
are of more ancient date.—Bruun.
(2.) “king-sultan.”—Schiltberger styles the sultan of Egypt, king-sultan,
because, having the caliph at his court, he was considered as being at the
head of all Mahomedan monarchs. The sultan at the period indicated was
Barkok, the first of the dynasty of Circassian Mamelouks, if we except
Bibars II, whose reign, 1309–1310, was of the shortest duration. Twenty

years before his accession (1382), Barkok was carried as a slave into Egypt,
from the Crimea, whither he had gone from his own native country in the
Caucasus.—Bruun.
(3.) “king of Babylony.”—This king of Babylon was Ahmed, son of Oveis,
son of the Jelarid Hassan the Great, the descendant of Abaka, the son of
Houlakou, the son of Tuly, son of Jengiz Khan. Timour drove Ahmed from
Baghdad, but he returned upon several occasions, notably in 1395, and
remained until 1402. Previously to the battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet had
written to tell him that, in his opinion, the expulsion of Timour was of
greater moment than that of the Takfour, that is to say, of the Greek emperor
(Hammer, Hist. de l’E. O., ii, 466, note xv).—Bruun.
(4.) “king of Persia.”—Even before the battle of Nicopolis, nearly the
whole of Persia had been subjugated by Timour, and divided between his
sons, Omar Sheykh and Miran Shah, and other amirs. The Shah Mansour,
who had also appealed to Bajazet for succour, perished in 1393 at the battle
of Sheeraz; the other princes of the house of Mouzzafer had been put to
death, with the exception of Zein Alabin, and Shebel, the two sons of the
shah Shoudia, who ended their days at Samarkand (Weil., Gesch. d.
Chalifen, ii, 40); it is, consequently, somewhat puzzling to determine, to
which sovereign of Persia the Christian captives were sent.—Bruun.
(5.) “White Tartary.”—According to Neumann, Schiltberger here seeks to
distinguish the free Tatars from the Black Tatars, that is to say, the
vanquished and paying tribute. Erdmann (Temud. d. U., 194), on the
authority of Rashid uddin, considers that by White Tatars were meant the
Turk tribes, who were afterwards known as Mongols, the Black Tatars
being the real Mongols. He tells us, that after having subdued the White
Tatars and other Turk people, the Black resumed their ancient name of
Mongols, and extended their sway to Eastern Europe, including under the
name of Tatars even the Turks in the West, with the exception of those by
whom they were opposed in Asia Minor, and who afterwards became
known in Europe as the Ottoman Turks.
This, however, does not explain to us where the White Tatars, repeatedly
mentioned by Schiltberger, dwelt. We learn from him, first, that a powerful
lord from their country was the son-in-law of Kady Bourhan uddin,
sovereign of Sebaste, who was put to death by Kara Yelek or Oulouk, chief

of the Turkomans of the White Sheep: secondly; that, having laid siege to
the city of Angora, which belonged to Bajazet, they were forced to yield to
him; and, thirdly, that at the battle of Angora, 30,000 of them went over to
Timour, and were the cause of his gaining the day.
Taking into consideration these several facts, is it not possible, that the
White Tatars of Schiltberger are to be identified with those of the White
Horde of Eastern writers; the Blue, as they were sometimes alluded to by
Russian annalists, perhaps because of their encampments on the shores of
the Blue Sea, the Lake Aral? This Horde, as the patrimony of the elder
branch of the house of Jujy, whose chief town was Ssaganak, near the upper
Syr Darya, was dependent to a certain extent on the Golden Horde, ruled
over by the descendants of Batou, the second son of Jujy. But this state of
dependence was not of long duration, for towards the close of the 14th
century, the famous Toktamish, a prince of the elder branch, succeeded in
annexing the whole of the Golden Horde to his possessions, after having,
with the assistance of Timour, rid himself of his uncle Ourous Khan.
Having quarrelled with his protector, this ambitious man was under the
necessity of courting the friendship of Bajazet, who was only too pleased to
secure another ally against the threatening domination of the ruler of
Jagatai; there is, therefore, nothing surprising in the fact of the sultan
sending a certain number of Christian captives to Toktamish, were it only to
console him for the unfortunate termination to his war with Timour in 1395.
At all events, the partisans of Toktamish, who effected their escape under
the leadership of Timour Tash, upon the defeat of the former near the banks
of the Terek, were received by the sultan with open arms. Savelieff (Mon.
Joud., 314) gives it as his opinion, that Timour Tash who held the Crimea
under the suzerainty of Toktamish, was himself a member of the Jujy
family; in which case the sovereign of Sebaste might well have given his
daughter in marriage to him, without contracting a misalliance, and the very
nature of this alliance, may have incited Timour Tash to treat his benefactor
with ingratitude in laying siege to Sebaste, his whole household being in his
suite, after the custom of the country. Having necessarily become reconciled
with the sultan, he might easily have treated him with treachery at the battle
of Angora, by passing over to the ranks of his countrymen; in such a case
they would have obtained a victory, in consequence of defection amongst
the Tatars in the service of Bajazet, as we are informed by Arabian authors,

and not, as Persian and Turkish historians have imagined, through defection
among “the Turk princes of Asia Minor”.
It is, nevertheless, no easy matter to reconcile this hypothesis with the
statement made by Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 75). After alluding to the
capture of Sebaste by Timour, the Spanish envoy continues:—“Before he
arrived there, he met with a race called the White Tartars, who always
wander over the plain; and he fought and conquered them, and took their
lord prisoner; and took away as many as fifty thousand men and women
with him. He then marched to Damascus,” etc., etc.
In another passage, he returns to the Tartaros Blancos subdued by
Tamerlane, and says that they were encamped between Turkey (Asia Minor)
and Syria. These White Tatars were evidently identical with the White
Tatars of Schiltberger, who had nothing in common with the Tatars of the
White Horde, frequently designated as being of “Great Tartary”. It may
therefore be assumed that the White Tatars mentioned by both travellers,
were Turkomans, inhabitants of the eastern parts of Asia Minor, whose
descendants have to this day preserved the Mongol type, and the same
mode of living as the White Tatars of Schiltberger and Clavijo (Viv. de
Saint-Martin, Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 429). East Cilicia was at that time
actually divided between two Turkoman dynasties, which had not been
vanquished by the Ottoman arms; small states that had existed from the
year 1378, the date at which the Lusignans, who had succeeded the
Roupenian dynasty of Little Armenia in 1342, were expelled from Cilicia
by the Baharite Mamelouks of Egypt. The one reigned at Marash, the other
at Adana; the latter being known as the Ben Ramazan, the former as the
Soulkadyr or Joulkadyr, the name by which Marash was afterwards known
amongst Turkish geographers. Both dynasties were in existence until 1515,
when they were subjugated by the sultan, Selim, and their territories
incorporated with the empire (Viv. de Saint-Martin, Desc. de l’A. M., i,
529).
It would appear that the rulers of the White Tatars, alluded to by Clavijo,
belonged to the family of the Joulkadyr. It was, at any rate, against that
dynasty, Timour despatched a force after the capture of Sivas, to punish it
for its hostility towards himself, when besieging that city (Weil., Gesch. d.
Chalifen, v, 82); and the Mongols soon afterwards carried off all the herds
belonging to a prince of this house, whose encampment was near Palmyra

(ibid., 91). As was the case with the White Tatars of Clavijo, those
mentioned by Schiltberger drew their rulers, at least in part, from princes of
this house. It was Bajazet’s desire, that his son should marry the daughter of
Nazr uddin Joulkadyr, who would not have been forgotten at the
distribution of prisoners taken at Nicopolis. This Nazr uddin had received
his fugitive relative, the son of Bourhan uddin, the brother-in-law,
according to Schiltberger, of the ruler of the White Tatars. It appears to me
that the seeming diversity in the statements made by various authors, with
regard to the nationality of the troops who went over to Timour at the battle
of Angora, is to be explained by admitting, that the Tatars who betrayed the
cause of Bajazet, were Turkomans who acknowledged the authority of the
Ben Ramazan and the Joulkadyr; that is to say, that their rulers were princes
holding possessions in Asia Minor. Our author’s recital enables us to
understand, why Oriental writers would seem to be at issue as to the
nationality of the “Tatar Regiments” (Weil., Gesch. d. I. V., 437) which
deserted their colours at the battle of Angora.—Bruun.
(6.) “Greater Armenia.”—Armenia proper is here called Greater, to
distinguish it from the Lesser, which was understood to be the eastern part
of Cappadocia, near the Euphrates. In the middle ages, the denomination
Lesser Armenia included the whole of Cappadocia, inasmuch as it was
inhabited by Armenians who had been expelled from their own country by
the Seljouks and Turkomans (11th and 12th centuries). At a subsequent
period, the Armenians occupied nearly the whole of Cilicia and the west of
Syria, anciently called Commagen, and afterwards known as Euphrates. All
these new acquisitions were included under the name of Lesser Armenia.—
Bruun.

CHAPTER IV.

(1.) “Karanda.”—This city, on the site of ancient Laranda, is now known as
Karaman, so named after the son of a certain Sophy, upon whom it was
bestowed (1219–46) by Ala uddin, sultan of Iconium, together with a
portion of Cappadocia and of Cilicia, that is to say, of Lesser Armenia.
Mohammed, the son of Karaman, extended the limits of his states in every
direction, and even took possession of Iconium or Konieh. His son Ali Bek,
surnamed Ala uddin, was married to Nefise, the sister of Bajazet, an

alliance, however, that did not restrain him from invading Ottoman territory,
an act which resulted in war between the brothers-in-law, and he was made
a prisoner by the Turks after the fall of Iconium, in 1392. According to Saad
uddin (Zinkeisen, Gesch. d. O. R., i, 350), Karaman was killed by Timour
Tash, governor of Angora, without the knowledge of Bajazet, who would
have spared his brother-in-law. Ahmed and Mohammed, the sons of
Karaman, were afterwards reinstated by Timour in their possessions, which
included, besides Laranda, evidently the “Karanda” in the text, the cities of
Alaïa, Derendeh, Sis, Veysheher, Konieh, Aksheher, Akseraï, and Anazarba.
—Bruun.

CHAPTER V.

(1.) “Sebast.”—Sebaste, called Sivas by the Turks, and Sepasdia, Sevasdia,
Sevasd, by the Armenians—the capital of Lesser Armenia, after being long
subject to Constantinople, was ceded, in 1021, by the emperor Basil to
Senckharim, king of Armenia, in exchange for Vasbouragan. It was taken in
1080 by the Greeks, who lost it to the Seljouks (J. Saint Martin, Mem. sur
l’Arménie, i, 187).—Ed.

CHAPTER VI.

(1.) “Wirmirsiana.”—According to Chalcocondylas, Orthobulus or
Ertoghrul, the eldest son of Bajazet, was made a captive by Timour at
Sebaste, in 1400, and shortly afterwards put to death; but no Arabian or
Persian chroniclers have asserted this, nor does Shereef uddin allude to the
circumstance. Arabshah (Weil., Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 82) says that
Souleiman, the son of Bajazet, was governor of Sebaste, which he must
have quitted before its conquest by the Mongols.—Bruun.

CHAPTER VII.

(1.) “city of Samson.”—This is the ancient Amisos, still called Samsoun by
the Turks. Fallmerayer (Gesch. d. K. v. T., 56, 289) observes, that the
Byzantines frequently added a prefix to a name, such as εἰς, which, in time,

became contracted to ες and σ, and in this way Ἄμισον was turned into σ'
Ἄμισον—Σάμσον. This city, the chief town of Janyk, was then under the
dominion of another Bajazet, surnamed the Impotent, who perished in his
struggle with Bajazet about 1392.—Bruun.
(1a.) Fallmerayer’s explanation may be further illustrated, by quoting the
names of ancient cities in the Morea and in the island of Crete, that have
undergone change through the probable corruptions of a prefix. Hierapytna
has become Tzerapetra; Itanus is now Tzetana, Tsitana, and even Sitana.
Etea has become Setea, while Stamboul, Istamboul, itself is a corruption of
Εἰς τὴν πόλιν. The modern Greeks would also appear to be in the habit of
thus corrupting words in ordinary use, as, for instance, ampelon, vineyard,
they call tsembela; kampos, a field, tzecampo, etc. (Spratt, Researches in
Crete, i, 55, 200).—Ed.

CHAPTER VIII.

(1.) “Italians of Genoa.”—It is not known when the Genoese founded a
colony at Samsoun, which they called Simisso. Heyd (d. Ital. Handelscolon,
etc., in the Zeitschrift f. d. gesam. Staatswissenschaft., xviii, 710) justly
observes, that they must have been there previously to the year 1317,
because the existence of a Genoese consul at Simisso at that date, is proved
by the records of Gazaria. In the Regulations for Gazaria, 1449 (Zap.
Odess., v, p. 629), no mention whatever is made of a consul being at
Simisso; I cannot therefore agree with M. Heyd that the consulate was
maintained until 1461, when Mahomet II drove the Genoese out of
Samastris (Amastris), their principal port, and took possession of Sinope,
where, to the year 1449, those Italians still had a consul (ibid., 809). The
Genoese were driven out of Samsoun, in all probability in 1419, when that
quarter of the town “occupied by infidels” was taken by Mahomet I
(Hammer, ii, 180, 472, note xiv). At this period Schiltberger was still in
Asia, and he appears to have been aware that the Genoese were obliged to
quit the town. At any rate, in saying that the Italians of Genoa were still in
possession of it, in the reign of Bajazet, he probably wished to intimate that
they had quitted it at a later period.—Bruun.
(2.) “Ternowa.”—Trnovo or Ternov, the capital of Eastern Bulgaria, was
taken and destroyed by the Turks in 1393, at a moment that Shishman

happened to be absent. Turkish authors have recorded, that at Nicopolis he
surrendered at discretion, and died, according to some, in confinement, and
at an advanced age; others, however, state that he was beheaded, which,
judging by the narrative in the text, would appear doubtful. Alexander,
Shishman’s eldest son, having turned Mahomedan, was appointed governor
of Saroukhan, as we are informed by Rehm (Gesch. d. Mittelalt., iv, 2, 584);
and it is possible that he was transferred to Samsoun after the conquest of
the province of Janyk, in the province-general of Trebizond. His younger
brother Fruzin remained a Christian, and died at Kronstadt in 1460.—
Bruun.

CHAPTER IX.

(1.) “Wurchanadin.”—It has already been noticed that Bourhan uddin was
prince of Sebaste or Sivas. The Turkish lord named Otman in this chapter,
was Kara Yelek, chief of the Turkoman Horde of the White Sheep.—Bruun.
(2.) The death of Bourhan uddin.—Oriental writers are at issue as to the
date of the death of Bourhan uddin, and of the incorporation of his domains
with those of Bajazet. Saad uddin (Weil., Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 60, note i)
observes, that various dates are given, from the year 794 to 799 of the
Hegira = 1391–96. In his History of the Ottoman Empire (i, 226), Hammer
expresses himself in favour of the opinion of Nishandi, an Arabian author,
who fixes the date at 795 = 1392. This opinion is supported by Zinkeisen
(Gesch. d. O. R., i, 353), who states he has no doubt that “the course of
events and the most reliable authorities testify in favour of the year 1392”,
although Weil makes it clear, that the death of Bourhan uddin could not
have taken place before the year 800 = 1398. German historians are guided
by the statements of Oriental writers, who have apparently confounded two
wars between Bajazet and the sovereign of Sebaste, the one having taken
place before, and the other after the battle of Nicopolis. Indeed we learn
from Schiltberger, that previously to the war in which he himself was
engaged (see page 17), the younger son of Bajazet had driven Bourhan
uddin out of “Marsüany”, a city which, from being situated on the borders
of Karaman, must have been identical with Marsivan (Viv. de Saint-Martin,
Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 448) or Merzyfoun, as it was called by Hadjy Khalpha
(Jihan-Numa, etc., ii, 407), and was perhaps the village of Morivazou, the

birth-place of St. Stephen of Sougdaia (Zap. Odess., v, 625). In the
introduction to his edition of 1859, Neumann submits that Amasia is here
intended; but he is in error, because that place had already been taken by
Bajazet, not from Bourhan uddin, but from Bajazet the “Impotent”, together
with Samsoun, Kastamouny, and Osmandjyk (Hammer, i, 312–315).
Neumann is certainly not justified in supposing that Schiltberger would
have alluded upon two occasions to the campaign in which he took part—
first, in chap. 5, casually; again in chap. 9, wherein we have all the details
as they are related by an eye-witness; for, in reference to this, the second
campaign, we are informed that it was conducted by the eldest son of
Bajazet, and that this son was not Mouhammed; indeed, we are previously
told by Schiltberger, that Mouhammed was appointed by the sultan to
command the forces sent to “Marsüany”, it being the first expedition of that
prince, who was aged 14 in 1392, for he died in 1421, in his 43rd year.—
Bruun.

CHAPTER X.

(1.) “Malathea.”—Malatia, the ancient Melitene, on the Euphrates, was the
station of the xiith Legion. Marcus Aurelius surnamed it “Fulminatrix”, in
consequence of a miracle that was there operated (Ritter, Die Erdkunde,
etc., x, 860). Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., 345), and Zinkeisen (Gesch. d. O.
R., 356), assert, on the authority of Saad uddin, that the Ottomans took this
and other cities subject to the sultans of Egypt, between the years 798 and
800 of the Mahommedan era. Weil (Gesch. d. Chalifen, 70–73), however,
does not think that this occupation could have taken place earlier than 801,
founding his opinion on the authority of Arabian writers, who have
recorded Turkish aggression as having occurred after the advent to the
throne, of Faradj, who succeeded his father in 801 = 1399 (June 20). In
support of this argument, Weil quotes the testimony of one of those writers
who had himself seen the letter, in which was announced to Itmish, the
atabek of the new sultan, the capture of Malatia; but it is also possible that
the great dignitary had received this same letter in the time of Barkok, by
whom he must have been highly esteemed, for, when on his death-bed, the
sultan nominated him his executor. This view of the case agrees with
Schiltberger’s recital, whilst his observations, towards the end of this

chapter, on the taking of Adalia, will serve to explain the strange passage
that occurs in the Italian translation of the book of Saad uddin. “Et havendo
spedito al Conquisto di Chianchria” (Kiankary the ancient Gangra)
“Timurtas-Bassa” (Bajazet’s general) “però tutto quel Paese insieme con la
Città d’Atena (la qual’ è patria de’ Filosofi) col suo Distretto pervenne in
poter del Rè; il quale prese anco dalle mani de’ Turcomani la Città di
Bechsenia” (Behesna) “e di Mallatie”, etc. “There is clearly a mistake in the
text or in the translation”, says Weil (70), after showing that Hammer and
Zinkeisen are greatly in error in supposing, upon the authority of this
defective passage, that the city of Socrates could have been taken by the
Turks in the course of the same campaign as that in which Malatia fell into
their hands; but there would have been nothing extraordinary in the fact of
their attacking Angora after the fall of this city, and then Satalia, near the
ruins of the ancient Attalia in Pamphylia, in which Neumann fancies that he
recognises the Adalia of Schiltberger, because it was situated on the sea-
shore opposite to the island of Cyprus. In support of this, the esteemed
editor of the edition of 1859 might have quoted another passage, from the
Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani (Zap. Odess., v, 966), wherein we
find it asserted, that the city of Satalia, having been occupied by the Infidels
in 1400, the bishop of that city took his departure for Aenos.
Notwithstanding these arguments, it appears to me that the Adalia of
Schiltberger could not have been Satalia, but rather Adana in Cicilia, for the
following reasons.
This city of Adana, Adena, or Adan, is nearer to the island of Cyprus than is
Satalia, although not actually on the sea-shore, a situation not attributed to
his Adalia by Schiltberger. It belonged to the sultans of Egypt, which was
not the case with Satalia, a city that from the year 1207 had been subject to
the sultans of Iconium, to the Seljouk principality of Tekke, and to the
kingdom of Cyprus, and was already incorporated in the Ottoman Empire
(Weil, i, 505; Heyd, xviii, 714). Finally, Schiltberger’s notice that the people
about Adalia were exclusively employed in the rearing of camels, is
applicable to Adana rather than to Satalia; for in those days it was one of the
chief centres of commerce in the East, and was encircled by the superb
gardens for which it is so celebrated in our own times. It may, I think, be
conceded that Saad uddin, or Bratutti his translator, have possibly
confounded Athens with Attalia or Adana, and that this very city might have

been subjugated by Timour Tash, soon after his reduction of Behesna,
Malatia, and other cities in Cilicia.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XI.

(1.) “Thus Joseph expelled his rival, and became a powerful king.”—Upon
the death of the Sultan Barkok, his son Al-Melyk Al-Nazr Abou-Saadat
Faradj, aged thirteen, ascended the throne. Schiltberger pronounces one of
the names of this monarch after his own fashion, and calls him Joseph, and
elsewhere Jusuphda, evidently in place of Abou-Saadat. This prince, soon
after his accession, was under the necessity of contending in arms with
Itmish (who has already been noticed), one of his father’s dependants, as
Schiltberger represents Joseph to have done. Faradj perished, as did
Jusuphda, for he was made a prisoner and beheaded in 1412 (Weil, Gesch.
d. Chalifen, ii, 124).
Eastern writers make no mention of the assistance rendered to Faradj by
Bajazet, upon the occasion of his struggle with his father’s vassal at the
commencement of his reign; but their silence on this point is by no means
conclusive as throwing doubt on the statement, twice repeated, of
Schiltberger, who was himself serving in the force despatched by Bajazet to
the support of the sultan, in whom he hoped to secure an ally against
Timour, whose power menaced the safety of both. Had the two sultans been
indeed of one accord, the conqueror might have received a check.
According to Aboul-Mahazin (Weil, ii, 71), Timour is reported to have said,
on hearing of the death of Barkok: “Bajazet is an excellent general, but his
troops are not worth much; the Egyptians and Syrians, however, are good
soldiers, but they are badly handled”. It is very certain that Bajazet, in his
turn, soon afterwards (1400) appealed for assistance to the sultan of Egypt,
who refused to grant it, because the former’s venture against Malatia was
not forgotten (Weil, 81, note 42); but the necessity he was under of keeping
his troops for protection at home, was the truer cause.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XII.

(1.) “took the city by force, although there were in it five thousand
horsemen sent by Weyasit.”—The walls of Sebaste, originally constructed
by Aladin Kekobady, a Seljouk king, were of extraordinary strength, being
twenty cubits in height, and ten cubits in thickness at the base, narrowing to
six cubits at the top. The place was stubbornly defended, the besieged being
well supplied with munitions of war; but the besiegers constructed towers
of greater height than the town, and planted upon them machines for hurling
huge stones, so that, at the expiration of 18 days (the text says 21 days), the
besieged sued for quarter. Timour spared all the Mussulmans, but the
Christians were sent into slavery. The 4000 horsemen (5000 horsemen in
the text) being Armenians, were flung alive into pits and covered with earth
(Petis de la Croix, Histoire de Timur Bec, liv. v, 268).—Ed.
(2.) “There were also nine thousand virgins taken into captivity by Tämerlin
to his own country.”—The contemporary historians, Aboul-Mahazin and
Arabshah (Weil, 81), describe in like manner the cruelties practised on the
inhabitants of Sebaste in 1400, by Timour, whose admirer even, Shereef
uddin, differs but slightly in the horrible details (Hammer, Hist. de l’E. O.,
ii, 59).—Bruun.

CHAPTER XIII.

(1.) “Scarcely had Tämerlin returned to his own country.”—After the fall of
Sebaste, Timour proceeded to Syria, where he took several cities, Damascus
being of the number; and having recrossed the Euphrates, he entered
Baghdad. Bajazet had in the meantime seized upon Erzingan, which
belonged to Taharten, who had already acknowledged the supremacy of
Timour; an act on the part of the sultan which accelerated the struggle
between himself and Timour, and to which Schiltberger alludes in this
chapter. In chapters 14–19, he depicts the above-mentioned campaigns and
other expeditions of Timour, imagining that they were conducted after the
battle of Angora; but as he reports from hearsay only, he was not in a
position to form a correct idea of the chronological order in which they
occurred.—Bruun.
(2.) “Tarathan.”—It is by the name of Tabarten that Eastern writers know
this prince, who, at that time, possessed the city of Erzingan; whilst
Clavigo, who enters into numerous details on the private affairs of the “gran

Caballero”, calls him Zaratan. The residence of this ruler was near the Kara-
sou, at that time the great western arm of the Euphrates, at a place called by
the Turks, Erznga or Eznga, a name derived from the Armenian, Eriza, as I
am informed by Bishop Aïvazoffsky of the Armenian church at Theodosia.
According to Marco Polo, who called it Arzinga (Yule, 2nd edit., i, 47), it
was the capital of Greater Armenia, Sis being that of Lesser Armenia. The
apparent contradiction in our author’s statements arises from the fact that, in
another chapter, he represents Sis, Erzingan, and Tiflis, as being the chief
towns of the three divisions of Armenia. The first belonged to the sultan of
Egypt; the others to the Timourides, actually to Shah Rokh, the son of
Timour. In ancient times, Erzingan was celebrated for the temple of Anaïtis
(Strabo, xi, 14, 16), destroyed by St. Gregory the Enlightener. Procopius
calls the place, Aurea Comana, and tells us that it contained a temple of
Artemis, founded, according to tradition, by Orestes and Iphigenia; a temple
already transformed into a Christian church at the time he wrote (De Bell.
Pers., i, 177; Ritter, Die Erdkunde, etc., x, 774).
In quoting, together with Arzes and Erzingan, the fortress of Chliat and
Percri, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp., 44, 8) referred to
Akhlat or Gelath, and the modern town of Pergri on the Bandoumaky, and
not, as supposed by Ritter, to the village of Bagaran or Pacaran, near the
ruins of Ani, the ancient capital of Armenia, close to the river Arpa-tchaï.
Erzingan was destroyed by the Mongols in 1242; in 1387, Taharten
acknowledged the suzerainty of Timour, and in 1400 he was expelled by
Bajazet, who, in his turn, lost the city to the Tatars. It had not risen out of its
ruins in the time of Barbaro, and now they are scarcely to be traced. Etiam
periere ruinæ!—Bruun.
(3.) “but he died on the way.”—Schiltberger’s silence with regard to the
cage in which Timour confined his captive, agrees, says Neumann, with the
result of the researches of Hammer, who seeks to prove that the tale is the
invention of a sworn enemy of Timour. The Baron’s opinion is supported by
the Russian Academician Sresneffsky, in his quotation from a Russian
chronicler (Nikitin, in Hojdenye za try Mory’a), a contemporary of Timour,
who, in alluding to the fate of Ilderim, has not thought it necessary to speak
of the cage in which he was made to follow his conqueror. Hammer’s
argument does not appear to have satisfied Weil (ii, 96), on the grounds that
the story of the iron cage does not emanate from Arabshah only, but also

from other Arabian chroniclers. Weil equally disputes the assertion that the
term cage was intended to signify a litter, and disagrees with Rehm (iv, 3,
151) in his interpretation of the word kafass, that it implied a litter as well
as a cage, the Arabian word for the former being handedj, mahaffah, and
kubbet; and concludes by saying, that if Bajazet was not really carried about
in a cage, his litter must have been of most peculiar construction.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XIV.

(1.) “The cities I have named are chief cities in Syria.”—These cities in
Syria fell into Timour’s hands in the year 1400, but the order of their
conquest, as given in the text, differs from the records of Eastern writers.
Aboul-Mahazin and Arabshah (Weil, Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 82) state, that
the first to surrender was Behesna, “Wehessum”; then the tower of Aïntab,
“Anthap”, whence Timour proceeded to Haleb, “Hallapp”, now Aleppo,
which was taken and dealt with as described by Schiltberger. According to
Shereef uddin, Timour Tash, the Egyptian amir and commander of the
place, met with the same fate as did the garrison; but Arabshah says, that his
life was not only spared, but he also received a robe of honour. Finally, the
conqueror seized upon the fortress of Kalat Erroum—Fortress of the
Romans—called “Hrumkula” in the text.—Bruun.
(1a.) Hrhomgla, for “Hrumkula”, is the Armenian, as Ourroum Kaleh is the
Turkish, name of a now miserable village, situated on the western bank of
the Euphrates, at the confluence of the river Marzeban. It is surmounted by
a castellated building on a high hill. It was a place of some importance from
1150 to 1298, as being the residence of the patriarchs of Armenia. Quoting
from Arabshah, Petis de la Croix (Histoire de Timur Bec, liv. v, 285) inserts
a note to the effect that Timour left Calat Erroum without attacking it,
which he dared not do, because the place was very strong.
Having regard to the geographical position of the places in this part of
Mesopotamia, taken by Timour in 1400, his road to conquest must have lain
thus—Behesna, Aïntab, Aleppo, Ourroum Kaleh.—Ed.
(2.) “And the city was pillaged.”—The Arabian authors, Aboul-Mahazin
and Ibn Khaldoun (Rashid-eddin, Hist. des Mongols, etc.; by Quatremère,
286), the latter being an eye-witness, are agreed that Timour himself

ordered the incendiarism of the mosque at Damascus, but they make no
mention of the cruelties imputed to him by Schiltberger; they assert, on the
contrary, that he very graciously received the deputation headed by the
kady, Taky uddin ibn Mouflyk. Other writers have recorded, that Timour
was even anxious to save the mosque from the fire which had broken out
accidentally and destroyed the entire city. The magnificence of the great
“temple” at Damascus, as shown in the text, is confirmed on the testimony
of Eastern writers (Quatremère, ii, 262) who state, that this edifice,
considered as one of the wonders of the world, had four gates. In saying
that there were as many as forty outer gates, Schiltberger no doubt included
those of the annexes which, together with the main building, were
surrounded by a wall having several entrances; this appears conclusive on
consulting an Arabian record quoted by Quatremère (283), which represents
that in front of the mosque were many spacious porches, each of which
conducted to a large gate, etc. “The view of the buildings, of the domes, of
the three minarets, and water courses, as seen from the court, is admirable,
and a sight to startle the imagination.” There can be little doubt that the
gates were numerous, and that Schiltberger should have estimated their
number at forty is not to be wondered at, when we consider the practice
among Orientals of designating any large number by the numeral forty, as,
for instance, Kyrkyer, Kyrkeklesy, etc.—Bruun.
(2a.) In Ibn Haukal’s time (10th century), the mosque at Damascus was
considered one of the largest and most ancient in the land of the
Mussulmans. Walid ben Abd-el-Melyk (the sixth Omniade caliph, 705–715)
had beautified it with pavements of marble, and pillars of variegated marble
the tops of which were ornamented with gold and studded with precious
stones. The ceiling was covered with gold, and so great was the cost that the
revenues of Syria were expended on the work. Porter (Five Years in
Damascus, ii, 62) describes the quadrangle as being 163 yards in length,
108 yards wide, and surrounded by a lofty wall of fine masonry. The three
sides of the cloister, in an adjoining court, are supported by arches resting
on pillars of limestone, marble, and granite, and on the south side of the
court is the harem (sacred place), whose interior dimensions are 431 ft. by
125 ft. Two rows of columns, 22 ft. in height, extend the whole length of
the building and support the triple roof. A transept across the middle, is
supported by eight massive piers of solid masonry, each 12 ft. square, and a
splendid dome, nearly 50 ft. in diameter and about 120 ft. in height, stands

in the centre. The interior of the mosque has a tesselated pavement of
marble, and the walls of the transept and the piers are coated with marble in
beautiful patterns. According to Arabshah (Vattier edition, v, 169), it was
the Raphadites or Shyites (see chap. xxxiii, note 3, for this sect) of
Khorasan who set fire to this noble mosque, Timour being credited by
various authors, as stated in the preceding paragraph, with having wished
rather to save the edifice from destruction. Much as records may differ,
Schiltberger’s relation, so graphic and detailed, merits the fullest
consideration.—Ed.
(3.) “Scherch.”—On March 19, 1400, Timour proceeded from Damascus by
way of Roha (the ancient Edessa near Orfa), Mardin, and Mosoul to
Baghdad (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 91), after having despatched flying
columns hither and thither to forage, some of his people reaching even to
the neighbourhood of Antioch. A portion of his forces must therefore have
crossed the Antilibanus, called Jabal—mountain—also Shurky, which may
have been the “Scherch” mentioned in the text.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XV.

(1.) “and the king kept his treasure there.”—This, in all probability, is the
fortress of Alinjy or Alindsha, some miles to the south of Nahitchevan. In
1394, Ahmed ben Oweis sent thither his family and treasure, and it was not
until the year 1401 that this fortress was taken by Timour’s troops, whilst he
himself was laying siege to Baghdad with the bulk of his army. Faradj, who
had been left in command by Ahmed, was forced to surrender, after a
valorous defence of forty days. All the inhabitants were massacred, and the
place was completely destroyed with the exception of the schools, mosques,
and hospitals (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., 93). After taking Baghdad, July 9,
1401, Timour passed through Tabreez, on his way to Karabagh, where he
purposed spending the winter, occupying the cities of Roha, Mardin, and
Mosoul on his march. It would appear that it is to these places Schiltberger
refers, but he has fallen into error in saying that they were taken after the
capture of Baghdad—a mistake to be accounted for, from his not having
served in the expedition.1—Bruun.
1See chapter xxxiii, note 12.—Ed.

CHAPTER XVI.

(1.) “Lesser India.”—Under this name Schiltberger includes the northern
portion of the peninsula on this side of the Ganges, giving to the southern
part the designation of Greater India. Marco Polo (Yule, ii, 416, 417)
employs the same names, but in another sense. His Lesser India included
Kesmacoran (Kij-Makrau, i.e., Makran), to the whole Coromandel coast
inclusive. Greater India extended from the Coromandel coast to Cochin
China—Middle India being Abyssinia. Timour’s expedition into India
(1398) was conducted to the banks of the Indus from Samarkand, by way of
Inderab and Cabul. On crossing the river near Kalabagh, he passed by way
of Mooltan to Delhi, which he occupied, conducting himself as was his
custom on such occasions; but Schiltberger makes no allusion to the
cruelties he practised. Perhaps because the details of the expedition were
related to him by the Mongols themselves, and not by their enemies, the
Arabs and Persians.—Bruun.
(2.) “and it is of half a day’s journey.”—We are evidently given to
understand here, that the narrow defile through which Timour had to pass,
was the famous Iron Gate, at all times considered the frontier limit of India
and Turania. In the year 328 B.C., Alexander of Macedon made his way
through this passage, described by his historians in language identical to
that of Schiltberger ... “sed aditus specus accipit lucem, interiora obscura
sunt”.... (Curtius, viii, 8, 19). Very similar is the testimony of the several
Oriental writers quoted in the Centralasiatische Studien (Sitzungsberichte d.
Kais. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, lxxxvii, 1, 67, 184) by M. Tomaschek, who
has availed himself of the results of the Russian expedition to Hissar
(Ysvest. Imp. Geog. Obshtchest., xii, 70, 1876, 349–363) to determine the
exact locality of the Iron Gate. There may have been near the Iron Gate, in
Schiltberger’s time, as there is now, a “Winterdorf” (Tomaschek, l. c.)
called Darbend or Derbent, but it is not of this “kishlak”, but rather of the
city of Derbent, in the Caucasus, that Clavijo observes, after stating that the
possessions of Timour extended from the Iron Gates situated near Derbent,
to those in the land of Samarkand:—“E Darbante es una muy gran ciudad
que se cuenta su señorio con una grande tierra, é las primeras destas
puertas, que son mas cerca de nos, se llaman las puertas del Fierro de cerca
Darbante, é las otras postrimeras se llaman las puertas del Fierro cerca

Termit, que confinan con il terreno de la India menor.” I prefer giving this
extract in the original.—Bruun.
(3.) “the lord Tämerlin is come.” The correct rendering of this passage is
“Amir Timour gheldy.”—The Amir Timour is come.—Ed.
(4.) “and of the elephants many were killed.”—This incident is
corroborated by Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 153), who places at fifty the
number of armed elephants opposed to Timour in the battle near Delhi. The
contest being renewed on the second day, “Timour took many camels, and
loaded them with dry grass, placing them in front of the elephants. When
the battle began, he caused the grass to be set on fire, and when the
elephants saw the burning straw upon the camels, they fled. They say that
the elephants are much afraid of fire because they have small eyes.”—Ed.

CHAPTER XVII.

(1.) “Soltania.”—Or Soultanyà—Royal city—so named by Oljaïtou, son of
Arghoun Khan, the founder (1305), once the metropolis and largest city in
the kingdom. Chardin (Langlès edition, ii, 377) tells us that there were not
many cities in the world where vaster ruins were to be seen; and in
Kinnear’s time (Geog. Mem. of the Persian Emp., 123) the place was
reduced to a few wretched hovels. Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, ii, 478)
reproduces from Fergusson an illustration of the tomb built for himself by
Oljaïtu, or as his Moslem name ran, Mahomed Khodabandah, at Soultaniah,
“the finest work of architecture that the ‘Tartars of the Levant’ have left
behind them.” Kinnear describes it as being a large and beautiful structure
ninety feet in height, built of brick, and covered with a cupola—an edifice
that would do honour to the most scientific architect in Europe.
This tomb of Oljaïtou was still magnificent, and especially noted for its
colossal gates of damasked steel, even so late as the seventeenth century.
“The city was reoccupied by some of the Persian kings in the sixteenth
century, till Shah Abbas transferred the seat of government to Ispahan. John
XXII set up an archbishopric at Sultaniah in 1318, in favour of Francis of
Perugia, a Dominican, and the series of archbishops is traced down to
1425.” (Cathay, and the Way Thither, Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 49, note 3.)—Ed.

CHAPTER XVIII.

(1.) “and they were all trampled upon.”—This atrocious conduct on the part
of Timour, is not the creation of Schiltberger’s brain, but it cannot have
reference to the capture of Ispahan in 1387, although it is possible that the
evolutions of Timour’s horsemen against children, was repeated after the
fall of Ephesus in 1403; this act of cruelty being imputed to him by several
Oriental authors. His return to Samarkand from Ephesus, actually took
place after an absence of at least seven, if not twelve years (Rehm, Gesch.
d. Mittelalt., iv, 3, 78); and he went there immediately after taking Ispahan
in 1387. Schiltberger’s details on the revolt of that city under the farrier, Aly
Koutchava, and on the construction of the tower of human heads by order
of Timour, agree with similar accounts from other sources.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XIX.

(1.) “because it was very cold in that country.”—Timour was desirous of
adding China to the rest of his conquests, and had even embarked on an
expedition, placing himself at the head of a large army; but he fell ill of
fever upon reaching Otrar, and died February 19, 1405.—Bruun.
(1a.) Other authorities state Timour’s death to have occurred the 17
Shabran, 807 (February 17, 1405).—Ed.

CHAPTER XXI.

(1.) “with whom I also remained.”—Pir Mohammed, son of Jehangir, the
eldest son of Timour, died in 1375. Shah Rokh was the youngest of the two
sons mentioned by Schiltberger. After the death, in 1410, of Khoulyl son of
Miran Shah, the successor of Pir Mohammed who died in 1407, Shah Rokh
annexed Transoxana and Samarkand to his possessions, and reigned until
1446. After saying that he had remained with this sovereign at Herat,
Schiltberger adds that it was under Miran Shah he served; but he afterwards
tells us that he only went over to the latter after Shah Kokh had vanquished
Kara Youssouf, ruler of the Turkomans of the Black Sheep.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXII.

(1.) “Scharabach.”—According to Bishop Aïvazoffsky, this plain of
“Scharabach” is to be identified with the plain of Karabagh, near the town
of Bajazid, in Asiatic Turkey. Neumann is of a different opinion, and points
to the district of Karabagh, which extends to the east of Shirwan, as far as
the junction of the Kour with the Araxes, anciently called Arzah by the
Armenians. Whether the battle of “Scharabach” was fought in Georgia or in
Turkey, there is every probability that Schiltberger was made a prisoner
upon the occasion, as was also his “lord”. It would never otherwise have
occurred to him to say, that he was turned over to Aboubekr after the
execution of Miran Shah.—Bruun.
(2.) “so that Mirenschach also was put to death.”—Miran Shah actually
succumbed in his struggle with Youssouf or Joseph (Dorn, Versuch. einer
Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., VI, iv, 579). His eldest brother, Miszr Khodja
(Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 46) had defended the city of Van against Timour
in 1394, but contemporary authors do not say whether it was he who put
Jehangir to death in 1375. Miszr Khodja may have caused the death of
another son of Timour, whom Schiltberger has confounded with Jehangir.
Perhaps that of Omar Sheykh, upon the nature of whose death authors are
not agreed; Rehm (Tab. gen. des Timurides, v. iv) stating that he died in
1427 only, and Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., ii, 37) alluding to his sudden
death, as having taken place at about the time of the conquest of Van, by
Timour, circa 1394.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXIII.

(1.) “Achtum.”—The author says nothing of the neighbourhood of
Nahitchevan, for which Neumann gives him credit, nor of that of Erzeroum,
which Bishop Aïvazoffsky believes to be the site of the battle of “Achtum”,
upon which occasion the Ilkhan Ahmed was defeated by Kara Youssouf. In
the plain of “Achtum” we recognise the environs of Aktam, where Timour
halted when returning from his last expedition against Toktamish (Dorn,
Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., 567; Price, Chron. Retros., iii, 206,
who says of Acataem or Actem, that it is a station to the eastward of
Moghaun). Neumann agrees with Hammer that Ahmed ben Oweïs was

beheaded in 1410, and this is also the opinion of Weil (Gesch. der Chal., v,
141); but Dorn (ibid., 573) has it, that his conflict with Kara Youssouf did
not take place until the year 815 = 1412.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXIV.

(1.) “Abubachir had also a brother called Mansur.”—Besides this Mansour,
for whose name I have searched in vain in the various works I have been
able to consult, Aboubekr had another brother named Mirza Omar, upon
whom Timour bestowed the throne of Houlakou, and who fell out with his
elder brother, the said Aboubekr, and had him confined in a fortress (Dorn,
Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., 570). Aboubekr afterwards
obtained his freedom, and succeeded in ridding himself of “Mansur”, to
punish him, in all probability, for making common cause with Omar.—
Bruun.

CHAPTER XXV.

(1.) “Samabram.”—Ibn Haukal describes Shabran as being, in his time, a
small place, but “pleasant, and well supplied with provisions”. This town
appears as Sabran, in Castaldo’s map, 1584, and De Wit’s atlas, 1688, and is
called Schabran by Olearius (Voyages, etc., 1038). It has now totally
disappeared, its ruins being on the Shabran-tchaï, a small river flowing into
the lake Ak-Sibir on the Caspian shore.
Schiltberger states that the prince passed through “Strana”, “Gursey”,
“Lochinschan”, “Schurban”, “Samabram”, and “Temurtapit”; but as the
king’s son was sent for, to return forthwith to his own country, it is more
probable that he selected a short route, in which case he would have
travelled, if the names are here correctly interpreted, through Astara,
Shirwan, Shabran, Georgia, Lezghistan, and the Iron Gate, undoubtedly
Derbent, which divided Persia from Tatary.
“Strana” I take to be intended for Astara, for the following reasons. It is
stated in the last chapter, that Aboubekr took a country called “Kray”;
probably Kars, which had been occupied by Timour in 1393, after laying
siege to the fortress of Alindsha. Aboubekr than proceeded to “Erban”,

Erivan, where he seized upon his brother “Mansur”, and strangled him.
“Zegra”, being with Aboubekr, was therefore apparently in Armenia, and
must have travelled northwards by keeping close to the Caspian, instead of
traversing the heart of the Christian kingdom of Georgia.—Ed.
(2.) “Temurtapit.”—According to Sprengel (Gesch. der wichtigsten Geog.
Entd., etc., 362, 99), the Iron Gate through which the author passed when
on his way from Persia into Tatary, was not the Iron Gate at Derbent, in the
Caucasus, but the Caspian Gate in Khorasan. Malte Brun (Précis de la
Géog. Univ., i, 188) and Sreznevsky (Hojdenye za try mory’a, etc., 241) are
of similar opinion, while Neumann has no doubt that the Gate of Derbent,
called Demyr kapou, Iron Gate, by the Turks, is the “ysen tor” of the text,
which, had it been other than that at Derbent, would hardly have been
described as being near Georgia and Shabran.—Bruun.
(3.) “a river called Edil.”—Neumann attempts, but in vain, to identify the
city of “Origens”, described as being in the middle of the river “Edil”, with
Astrahan, although it is clear that the author was not ignorant of the real
name of the latter place, Hadjy-tarkhan being included among the cities he
visited in Tatary (“Haitzicherchen”, see Chapter 36). It is not even
necessary to conclude that “Origens”, like Astrahan, was bathed by the
waters of the Volga, though the Turk name of that river is actually Etel, or
Edil, a designation that may have been applied to some other river, because
Schiltberger states elsewhere (Chap. 36) that “Orden”, Ourjenj, the chief
town of “Horosaman”, Khwarezm, was situated near the “Edil”, and it
cannot be doubted that he there alludes to the Jyhoun, or Oxus, and not to
the Volga.
The first large river the author got to after leaving Derbent, was the Terek;
we are, therefore, at liberty to suppose that “Origens” was in the delta of
that river. Güldenstadt (Reisen durch Russl., i, 166) informs us that the
vestiges of the ancient cities of Terki and Kopaï-Kala—now known as
Guen-kala, the Burnt Fortress, were close to that locality, and that near the
mouth of the river were other ruins, which he took to be those of the cities
of Tumen and Bortchala, or “the town of the three walls”. It is certain that
in these parts must have been the residence of the Khozar kings, called
Semender, or Saraï-Banou—the lady’s palace—Hammer, Gesch. d. G. H.,
8) distant a four days’ journey only from Derbent, but a seven days’ journey
from the Itil (Dorn, Géog. Cauc. in Mém. de l’Ac. de St. P., vi, ser. vii, 527),

which is equal to the twenty farsangs that separated this city from the great
river Varshan, or Orshan, alluded to in the celebrated letter of the king of
the Khozars to the minister of Abdor-Rahmen III. (D’Ohsson, Des Peup. du
Cauc., Par. 828, p. 208.) In these same parts, also, should be placed the
residence of the Tchamkal, known to the natives by a name that it was
found impossible to pronounce. This name, so difficult of pronunciation,
may have been transformed by Schiltberger into “Origens”, seeing that
Russian annalists have construed it into Ornatch or Arnatch, evidently to be
identified with Tenex or Ornacia (Ornatia, Oruntia, Cornax, Tornax). The
monk Alberic (Rel. de Jean du Plan de Carpin, 114) tells us that this city
was taken by the Mongols in 1221, upon the occasion of their irruption into
the territory of the Comans and Russians, a city apparently identical with
Ornas, “civitas Ornarum”, inhabited by Russians, Alans, and other
Christians, but belonging to the Saracens. It was completely destroyed by
the hordes of Batou, before their invasion of the country of the Russians
and Turks (Turcorum, Taycorum, and Tortorum), as we learn from Giovanni
dal Piano di Carpine and his travelling companion.
It is to be regretted that, whilst admitting the identity of this city under its
various denominations, authors are unable to agree as to its site. Karamsin,
D’Avezac, and Kunik are in support of Thunmann’s theory, that it was Tana,
the modern Azoff. Others, Leontief (Propilei, iv), for instance, are in favour
of Frachn’s (Ibn Foszlan, 162) opinion that the Oruntia of Alberic, the
Ornas of Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine, and the Arnatch of the Russian
chroniclers, were all identical with the Ourjenj of Khorasan. I did at one
time support these views, but have since sought to prove (Sitzungsberichte
d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 276 et seq.) that the city in question was
equidistant from Azoff and Ourjenj, or, in other words, that it coincided
with “Origens”, situated, as we read in the text, on the “Edil”, a great river,
viz., the Terek. It is pretty clear that “Origens”, and Ornatch or Arnatch of
the Russians, are corruptions of Anjadz or Anjak, which, according to
Khanikoff (Mémoire sur Khâcâni, vi, v) was a port in the Caspian Sea near
Astrahan, of which the people of the eastern provinces near the Caspian
might have availed themselves for the purpose of penetrating into Southern
Russia.
There can scarcely, however, be a doubt that the city of “Origens” must be
looked for near the Caucasus, seeing that Schiltberger quitted it just before

entering the mountains of “Setzulet”, manifestly the “Zulat”, which we are
told in Chapter 36 was the chief city of the mountainous country of
“Bestan”. We cannot fail to recognise in this “Setzulet”, or “Zulat”, the city
of Joulad, where Timour, in 1395, gained a signal victory over Toktamish,
after having annihilated a body of Kaitaks near Terky or Tarkou. Little
enough is left to attest to the ancient splendour of Joulad, situated on the
Terek, at no great distance from Yekaterynograd; but Güldenstadt found in
its neighbourhood numerous remains, including Christian monuments,
chiefly at a place called Tatar Toup—Hill of Tatars. Klaproth (Voy. au
Caucase et en Géorgie, ii, 161) saw three minarets standing, that greatly
resembled others at Joulad; also the ruins of two churches, which he
attributes, as does Güldenstadt, to the 16th century, and to the Greek faith,
whilst admitting the assertion of the Circassians, that those edifices were
constructed by Franks, that is to say, by Europeans from the West, who had
taken up their residence among the Tatars. This is confirmed by Barbaro
(Ramusio edition, 109). “Caitacchi i quali sono circa il monte Caspio ...
parlano idioma separate da gli altri. sono christiani molti di loro: dei quali
parte fanno alla Greca, parte all’Armena, et alcuni alla Catholica.” In the
face of such evidence, it is not strange that Schiltberger should have met, to
the north of the great range of the Caucasus, a Christian bishop and
Carmelites who worshipped in the Tatar tongue, although the Carmelites, an
order of friars originated at Mount Carmel, were not introduced into Europe
by St. Louis until the year 1328; and in alluding to the mountainous country
of “Bestan”, in which was the city of Joulad, the Bishtag—Five mountains
—where Ibn Batouta (Lee edition, 76) met the Khan Uzbek, Schiltberger
must have had in view the environs of Yekaterynograd, still called
Beshtamak, because the country is watered by five tributaries to the Terek
(Klaproth, i, 327).—Bruun.
(4.) “Zegre.”—This “Zegre” or “Zeggra”, was in all probability Tchekre,
coins of whose reign, struck in 1414–1416, at casual encampments—at
Bolgar, Astrahan, and Saraï, are preserved (Savelieff, Mon. Joud., ii, 337).
—Bruun.
(5.) “savages, that had been taken in the mountain.”—This couple may have
been brought from northern Siberia, where the rigorous nature of the
climate compelled the natives to wear, by night and by day, as they do now,
clothing made of the skins of animals. Schiltberger somewhat assimilates

them to monkeys, which reminds us of Herodotus, who described the
Neurians as being transformed into wolves, during six months of the year,
because they were in all probability clothed in wolf-skins, so long as winter
lasted.—Bruun.

(6.) “Ugine.”—One is liable at first sight to identify the “Ugine” with the
Ung of Marco Polo (Yule, i, 276), whom he distinguishes from the Mongols
proper; “two races of people that existed in that province (Tenduc) before
the migration of the Tartars. Ung was the title of the people of the country,
and Mungul a name sometimes applied to the Tartars.” Pauthier (Marco
Polo, i, 218) explains, that by Ung are meant the Keraits, or subjects of
Prester John, so named because, like them, he was a Nestorian. A
descendant of this Prester John, named George, mentioned by Marco Polo,
was converted to Catholicism by Giovanni di Montecorvino, who had
numerous partisans in China during the stay in that country of Giovanni de
Marignolli (Reis. in das Morgenl., 41); Pauthier is therefore of opinion that,
in Schiltberger’s time, there were Christian Ung in Northern Asia, who, if
not Catholics, were perhaps Nestorians. There could scarcely, however,
have been anything in common between the Ung and the “Ugine”, for the
author says that, although they worshipped the infant Jesus, they were not
Christians; and this he makes more explicit in Chap. 45, where he includes
them among the five classes of infidels known to him, being those who
confessed the three kings before receiving baptism. None of the three kings
became the founder of any religion whatsoever. Neumann’s views may,
therefore, be accepted, viz., that Schiltberger alludes to Buddhism,
introduced among the Mongols by Jengiz from Thibet. I should
consequently prefer to associate the “Ugine”, not with the Keraits, but with
the great Turk tribe, the Ung-kut, in whom Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i,
285) recognises the real Ung of Marco Polo.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXVI.

(1.) “but he was killed in a battle.”—Tchadibek Khan was raised to the
throne by Ydegou or Edekou in 1399, upon the death of his brother, Timour
Koutlouh. The coins struck during his reign and Russian chronicles show,
that his rule lasted until 1407, in the early part of which year Toktamish
died near Tioumen, in Siberia, whither he had retired after his defeat by
Ydegou and Timour Koutlouh in 1399. Clavijo says that he had effected a
reconciliation with Timour, who desired to oppose him to Ydegou, the latter
having refused to acknowledge his suzerainty. Upon his return from Siberia,
Ydegou quarrelled with Tchadibek, who did not lose his life, but fled to the

Caucasus, never again to return to the Horde—a statement which, though at
variance with Schiltberger’s narrative, is based on a coin of the reign of
Tchadibek, struck at Shemahà. Of this coin, Savelieff (Mon. Joud., ii, 225)
says, “It certifies that although Tchadibek’s influence in the Horde was lost
to him, he contrived to enjoy an appanage in the Caucasus.” But this unique
coin might have been struck when Tchadibek was still at Saraï, for we learn
from Dorn (Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., 572) that prayers were
offered at Shirwan in the name of Tchadibek, and in the presence of Ydegou
so late as the year 1406, and nothing can force us to admit that the same
honours would have been paid to the khan after his expulsion by that same
amir, or that an appanage would have been bestowed upon him in the
Caucasus.—Bruun.
(2.) “Polet, who reigned one year and a half.”—Schiltberger may have
slightly shortened the duration of the reign of this khan, who was the son of
Timour Koutlouh, and was placed on the throne by Ydegou, as successor to
Tchadibek. His coins, struck at Saraï, Bolgar, and Astrahan, prove that he
must have reigned in Kiptchak from 1407 to 1410, when he was expelled
by Jalal uddin, the “Segelalladin” of the text, who was the son of
Toktamish.—Bruun.
(3.) “Thebachk, who fought with him for the kingdom and killed him.”—It
is stated in Penzel’s Edition (1814) of Schiltberger, that Tamir, the brother
of Polet, reigned fourteen months and was then expelled by Jalal uddin,
who occupied the throne for a like period, fourteen months, and was then
deposed by his brother, “Thebachk”. Coins and annals establish the fact of
the existence of a brother of Poulad, named Timour, who, having ruled in
the Crimea in 1407, forcibly seized upon the throne of the Golden Horde in
1411, and was dethroned the following year by Jalal uddin, the Zelenii
Soultann of the Russian annalists (Savelieff, Mon. Joud., ii, 329), who
would not be entitled to reproach Schiltberger for the free and easy manner
in which he deals with the names of the suzerain lords. The brother and
murderer of Jalal uddin, named “Thebachk” in the text, was probably no
other than Kepak, some of whose coins, struck at Bolgar and Astrahan, are
preserved, but the year is unfortunately wanting. Chroniclers make no
mention of this prince, attributing the death of Jalal uddin to another
brother, Kerym byrdy, who, according to our author, must in his turn have
been expelled by “Thebachk”; yet Russian annalists have asserted that

Kerym byrdy was killed by another brother, whose name was Yerym ferdyn
or Yarym ferden. From the resemblance of the name Jebbar or Tchebbar, by
which he was known to Mussulman authors, to that of his elder brother
Kepek, Schiltberger may have mistaken the former for the latter, calling
him also “Thebachk”.—Bruun.
(4.) “and he fought with Machmet and was killed.”—It is not determined
when and where Tchekre’s career terminated, because Eastern and other
authors are silent on the disastrous attempt made by this prince to recover
the throne from which he had been overthrown by Oulou Mohammed, the
great Mohammed, whose origin is uncertain. The author informs us that the
death of Tchekre occurred subsequently to the struggle Mohammed had to
sustain, first, in his conflict with “Waroch”, and afterwards with
“Doblabardi”. It is evident that in the latter name we have Devlett byrdy,
son of Timour Tash, and grandson of Oulou Mohammed, whilst “Waroch”
stands for Borrak, son of Ourous Khan, who fled to Oulouk Bek, the son of
Shah Rokh in 1424, the same year in which he expelled Oulou Mohammed,
that is to say about three years before Schiltberger’s return to his own
country. It is certain that all the author relates, having reference to the
Golden Horde, took place during his captivity, so that the proof of Tchekre’s
death having taken place between the years 1424 and 1427 is
unquestionable; and it is not in the last, but in one of the two preceding
years that Devlett byrdy’s reign of three days should be determined,
notwithstanding that coins of this prince, struck in 1427, have been
recovered, for there is little enough likelihood of the opportunity having
been afforded him for issuing a fresh coinage during a three days’ reign,
especially as anarchy pervaded the Horde. There would have been nothing
extraordinary in his again dethroning his grandfather after the death of
Tchekre, and retaining the sovereignty for a longer period.
The author’s relation of his own lot, after Tchekre’s first defeat by Oulou
Mohammed, is by no means clear, for it is not easy to determine whether he
accompanied Tchekre on his flight, or followed the fortunes of Ydegou,
upon his being made a prisoner. As to the ultimate fate of this king-maker,
opinions are divided. Hammer (Gesch. d. G. H., 382) writes that in 1423 he
was still the sovereign of an independent state on the shores of the Black
Sea, and must have perished either in the war with Kadyr byrdy, son of
Toktamish, or he may have been drowned in the Jaxartes. According to

another source (Berezin, Yarlik Toktamysha, 61), he was killed by a Tatar of
the Barin tribe, from whom his head was stolen by a friend, who, having
presented it to Oulou Mohammed, received in recompense that prince’s
daughter in marriage.
That Schiltberger and Ydegou both actually fell into the hands of Oulou
Mohammed, seems more probable, because the author speaks of the latter
as his master, “min herr Machmet”; but it is not easy to understand why he
should have stated in another place (chap. 67), that after Tchekre’s escape
he had for his master one of the old councillors of that prince, a certain
“Manstzusch”, whose name at least reminds us of one of the chief princes
of the Golden Horde (Hammer, Gesch. d. G. H., 391), the Manshuk killed
in 1440 by Koutchouk Mohammed, Mohammed the Less, the vanquisher of
Mohammed the Great.
When, at a later period, Tchekre again sought to dispute the throne with
Mohammed, he probably entered into negotiations with this ex-councillor,
who would have quitted the country for the express purpose upon the fall of
the Pretender. In any case “Manstzusch” left Kiptchak a short time only
before Schiltberger’s escape, because the latter was never separated from
his master until after his return from Egypt, where he had assisted at the
marriage of the daughter of Sultan Boursbaï—a sovereign who ascended
the throne in 1422 only. If, as I have endeavoured to show, Schiltberger was
at that time in “Manstzusch’s” service, it is very possible that the latter took
him to Egypt, whither he may have been sent by Oulou Mohammed,
perhaps to congratulate Boursbaï upon his accession, or for some other
purpose.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXVII.

(1.) “Sadurmelickh.”—Sadra, in Arabic, is the feminine of Sadyr—first,
foremost. Melyka is queen, and here we have Sadra Melyka, the first of
queens; the queen who is prudent above all others. But Sadry is a woman’s
name in Persia, and amongst Tatars, and malachya signifies literally, in
Persian, an angel, so that the heroine in question may have been one
distinguished for her exceptional qualities—Sadry, the angel.—Ed.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

(1.) “kocken.”—The koggen was a vessel with rounded bow and stern,
perhaps similar to the γαῦλος alluded to by Epicharmus and Herodotus. The
kind of vessel actually in question is mentioned in a statute of Genoa, dated
15th February 1340, entitled De securitatibus super factis naviganti. “Et de
navibus, Cochis, galeis et aliis lignis navigabilibusque vendentur in
callegam accipiunt, tot asperos qui valeant perperos tres auri ad sagium
Constantinopolim....” Cogge, the Anglo-Saxon word for cock-boat, is a
name that occurs in Morte Arthure.
“Then he covers his cogge, and caches one ankere.”

In the time of Richard II, a coggo was a vessel employed in the transport of
troops, and coggle is a name still given to small fishing-boats on the coast
of Yorkshire and in the rivers Muse and Humber (Campe, Wörterbuch; Jal.,
Gloss. Naut.; Smyth, Sailor’s Word-book).—Ed.
(2.) “Bassaw.”—This is the Slave name for the city of Kronstadt in
Transylvania, the chief city in Burzelland. It is situated near the river
Burtzel or Burzel, a name given, according to some geographers (Vosgien,
Dict. Géog., i, 157), to the territory through which it flows. This name may,
however, owe its origin to Bortz, a Coman chief, who is mentioned in a
Brief of Pope Gregory IX., dated 1227, addressed to the archbishop of
Gran: “Nuper siquidem per litteras tuas nobis transmissas accepimus quod
I. Ch. d. ac d. n. super gentem Cumanorum clementer respiciens, eis
salvationis ostium aperuit his diebus. Aliqui enim nobiles gentis illius cum
omnibus suis per te ad baptismi gratiam pervenerunt, et quidem princeps
Bortz nomine de terra illorum cum omnibus sibi subditis per ministerium
tuum fidem desiderat suspicere Christianam.” (Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hist.
Hung., i, 86.) This prince did certainly seek a refuge in Transylvania, as did
many of his countrymen, upon the irruption of the Mongols into Kiptchak.
We have it upon the authority of Mussulman writers, that among the eleven
Coman tribes settled in this country, were the Bourtch-oglon; evidently
subject to the princes Bourtchevitch mentioned in Russian annals (Berezin,
Nashestvye Mongolov, ix, 240).—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXIX.

(1.) “Kallacercka.”—The author does not here allude either to Galata, as
Jirecek (Gesch. d. Bulgaren, 324) supposes, or to Callatis, as believed by
Fallmerayer, but rather to the castle of Kaliakra, the ruins of which are still
visible on the headland of that name. It is the Τιριστρία ἄκρα of the
ancients, marked Caliacra in the charts of the 14th century, and known as
Γαλιάγρα in the Acta Patriarch. Constant., i, 52, 272. Evliya Effendi
(Travels, etc., 70–72) having been shipwrecked near the coast of Kilghra,
when on his voyage from Balaklava to Constantinople, in 1643, was
hospitably entertained by the dervishes of the monastery, near the castle
which was then in existence. In 1406, this territory belonged to Mirtcha
(Jirecek, 346); but ten years later he ceded his possessions south of the
Danube to his suzerain lord, the Sultan Mahomet I.—Bruun.
(2.) “Salonikch.”—Schiltberger may have touched at Salonica when upon
his voyage to Egypt, referred to in chap, xxvi, note 4—performed, in all
probability, on board of an Italian vessel from Caffa, upon which occasion
he passed the island of Imbros, described in chap. 58. There is no evidence
whatever that he went to Salonica after his return from Asia to
Constantinople, nor is it at all probable that he stopped there when being
carried away into slavery after the battle of Nicopolis, notwithstanding that
the town belonged to the Turks and not to the Greeks (Zinkeisen, Gesch. d.
O. R., i, 287). Bajazet would scarcely have selected so circuitous a route for
sending captives to Broussa.
There are good reasons for surmising that the voyage was performed in a
Venetian vessel which touched at Salonica. This town, given up in 1403 by
Souleiman, son of Bajazet, to the Greeks, was by them sold, in 1423, to the
Venetians, who would undoubtedly have taken all necessary measures for
putting it into a state of defence and supplying it with provisions, including
salted fish from the Sea of Azoff. Another reason for the supposition that
Schiltberger’s journey into Egypt could not have taken place earlier than
1423, is to be found in the fact that, from Egypt he passed over into Arabia,
on a pilgrimage to the holy places of the Mahomedans, having, as it would
seem, turned Mussulman through compulsion; and if he has avoided all
reference to the journey, it was out of a natural desire not to be reminded of
the painful circumstance of his apostacy.—Bruun.
(3.) “from whose grave oil flows.”—Hammer observes that Schiltberger
confirms the story told of St. Demetrius, and not of St. Theodora, as

erroneously related in Anagnosta’s De Thessalonicensi excidio narratio, the
fact being, that the tomb of St. Theodora was close to that of St. Demetrius,
from whose foot flowed the oil which was collected annually, and
distributed to all believers (Pout. Rouss. loud., 47). Professor Grigorovitch
tells us that the well is still shewn beneath the floor of the church, but he
was unable to certify that the miracle continued to be operated!—Bruun.
(4.) “Asia.”—Fallmerayer and Hammer maintain that Schiltberger was
mistaken in saying that the city in which was the tomb of St. John, was
called Asia, the correct name being Ephesus, known to the Turks as
Aisulugh, and as Ἅγιος Θεολόγος to the Byzantines, who thus styled St.
John. The author’s learned countrymen might, however, have admitted in
his justification the evidence of Codinus (Urb. nom. imm., 316), to the
effect that the ancient name of the eparchiate of Ephesus was Ἀσία ἡ
Ἔφεσος. Schiltberger may have learnt the ancient name from the monks,
who would have employed it in those days.—Bruun.
(4a.) The church at Ephesus, erected over the tomb of St. John the
Evangelist, was enlarged by Justinian, and afterwards turned into a mosque
(Ibn Batouta). Here, also, as at the grave of St. Demetrius at Salonica, the
mortal remains were invested with miraculous powders, for a peculiar kind
of dust, in substance like flour, and compared by St. George of Tours to
manna, worked its way out of the sepulchre, and being taken about, effected
many marvellous cures (Baillet, Vie des Saints, viii, 624).—Ed.
(5.) “Saint Nicholas was bishop there.”—St. Nicholas, the patron of Russia,
was bishop of Myra in Lycia, which the author confounds with Ismir, the
Turkish name for Smyrna. De Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass., 4) commits a
similar error in quoting Lisemiere, together with Feule la vielle for
Fogliavecchia, and Porspic for porto di Spiga.
Smyrna, a possession of the knights of Rhodes, was taken by Timour
towards the close of the year 1402 (Hammer, Hist. de l’E. O., ii, 116), upon
which occasion Schiltberger must have visited it, without, however, having
been afforded the opportunity of seeing the picturesque valley where
Fellows, in 1838 (Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, etc.), discovered
the imposing ruins of Myra, or Demir, so called by the Turks. It is recorded
that in 1087, the relics of St. Nicholas were removed to Bari, and the church
in which they were originally laid having fallen to ruins, a small chapel was

erected on the site. The restoration of the sacred edifice, completed in 1874
at a cost of 10,000 roubles, was commenced on the initiative of M.
Mouravieff.—Bruun.
(6.) “Maganasa”.—Magnesia was styled “ad Sipylum”, to distinguish it
from Magnesia “ad Mæandrum”, the remains of which have been
discovered near a village called Aïneh-bazar, distant sixteen miles from
Ephesus. The former, the Manissa of the Turks, near the Hermus at the foot
of Mount Sipylus, has ever been a city noted for its extent, commerce, and
population.—Bruun.
(7.) “Donguslu”.—Denizly, a densely populated town in the time of Hadjy
Khalpha, was no longer included in the district of Saroukhan, but was
added to that of Koutahieh. Near this place, pleasantly situated in a rich and
well-watered plain, are the ruins of Laodicea, one of the Seven Churches to
which St. John addressed his Revelations.—Bruun.
(8.) “Wegureisari.”—This town, which occupies the site of the ancient
Gangra, is the principal in the district. In the days of Hadjy Khalpha, it
contained a fortress and an imperial residence, which must have been in
existence in Schiltberger’s time, and accounts for his addition of the word
saraï—palace—to Kiankary, and thus converting the name to
“Wegureisari”.—Bruun.
(9.) “In this country Saint Basil was bishop.”—It was generally believed
that the remains of St. Basil, interred at Cæsarea, were never disturbed; the
Abbey of St. Philibert at Tournes in Burgundy, the cities of Bruges, St.
Armand in Flanders, and Rome, each claim the possession, but how they
came by them is not satisfactorily explained (Baillet, Vie des Saints, iv,
710).—Ed.
(10.) “Kureson.”—Near this city, commonly called Kerasous, Keresoun,
situated between Samsoun and Trebizond, are still to be seen the ruins of
ancient Κερασοῦς or Parthenium. There was at one time, on the coast near
Trebizond, another even more ancient Kerasous, that of Xenophon, of
which a lovely valley still retains the name, being known as Kerasoun-derè;
but of the city itself, there are no traces.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXXI.

(1.) “Then he left her.”—Virgin’s towers are by no means uncommon in the
East. Rich (Residence in Kourdistan, i, 172) mentions a Kiz-Kalesi—girl’s
castle—as being on a hill above the Kizzeljee in Kourdistan. Hear a place
called Ak-boulak, about twenty-five miles to north-east of Shousha in
Transcaucasia, are the ruins of Kiz Kaleh—Virgin’s castle—situated on a
hill in a perfectly impregnable position. Another Virgin’s castle in that part
of Asia, is at Bakou; an inscription on its walls, in Cufic characters,
deciphered by Khanikoff (Ysvest. Geog. Obshtchest., ix), records its
construction by Masoudi, the son of Daud, one of the “Samiardi fratres”
mentioned in the history of Otto, bishop of Freising. Again, there is a tower,
erected on the highest pinnacle of the rocky mount upon which stand the
fortifications of Soldaya, now Soudagh, in the Crimea, called Kiz-Koula by
the Tatars (The Crimea and Transc., ii, 158). The ruins of another fortress,
Kaleh Dokhter, are described by Abbott (Southern Cities of Persia, MS.) as
crowning the height above the city of Kirman; and visitors to
Constantinople are familiar with the construction on the rock off Scutari,
unaccountably called by Europeans the Tower of Leander, but known, more
legitimately, as the Maiden’s Tower, ever since it became the burial-place of
Damalis, wife of the Athenian general Chares, who was sent to the
assistance of the Byzantines against Philip of Macedon.
The author says, that on quitting the neighbourhood of the mysterious
castle, he proceeded to Kerasoun; it is, therefore, just possible that the
legend of the sparrow-hawk was attached to an ancient Kiz-Kalesi seen by
Ainsworth (Travels in Asia Minor, etc., i, 87) near Tash Kupri, close to the
road that leads from Kastamuni to Boiabad, both to the south-west of
Sinope. I am unable to discover why the name was so frequently given in
the East, to such peculiarly situated strongholds, and would suggest that it
was owing to their unassailable position.Ed.

CHAPTER XXXII.

(1.) “Lasia.”—The territory of the Lazi was part of Colchis, and lay
between the Phasis and Armenia. The mountainous country belonged at that
time to the empire of Trebizond.—Bruun.
(2.) “Kayburt.”—Neumann is persuaded that Schiltberger alludes to
Baïbourt (or Païpourt), a very ancient fortress to the north-west of

Erzeroum, that was restored by Justinian I. Procopius (De Bell. Pers., iii,
253) calls it Baerberdon. Bishop Aïvazoffsky is of opinion that “Kayburt”
stands for Kaïpourt, called Kharpert by the natives, situated in a far more
fertile country than is Baïbourt. In Marco Polo’s time, Paipurth was a castle
on the road from Trebizond to Tabrecz; and we learn from Barbaro that the
fortress of Carpurth, distant a five days’ journey from Erzingan, was the
residence of Despina Caton, a princess of Trebizond, the consort of Hassan
Bey.—Bruun.
(2a.) “Kayburt”, in a fertile country, is doubtlessly Kharput, distant seventy
miles, in a direct line, from Erzingan. The Special Correspondent of The
Times (January 20th, 1879), has lately described this place as being situated
on the edge of a cliff at the top of a mountain in a very picturesque
situation; but very difficult to get at, for it takes an hour to ride from the
level of the plain to the town. The plain of Kharput is twenty miles long and
twelve miles wide, presenting 153,600 acres of splendid land, well
irrigated, and in a high state of cultivation.—Ed.
(3.) “Kamach.”—Kemakh is on the site of the ancient city of Ani, thirty
miles from Erzingan and close to the Euphrates, and not to be confounded
with the Ani referred to in Chapter xiii, note 2. Near Kemakh was the
temple of Jupiter, constructed by Tigranes, and the city afterwards became
the principal seat of the worship of Hormuzd; it was also a state prison, and
the burial-place of the Arsacidæ (Ritter, Die Erdkunde etc., x, 782–789).
Constantine Porphyrogenitus called this stronghold of the Byzantines,
Κάμαχα. Kemakh was celebrated among the Turks for its fine linen, as
Erzingan was noted for its good breed of sheep, and Baïbourt for the beauty
of its women. “Kamahoum besy—Erdshenshan kousy—Baibourdin
kysy.”—Bruun.
(4.) “nobody knows where it goes.”—This observation on the peculiarities
of the Upper Euphrates, is confirmed by other authors (Procopius, De Bell.
Pers., i, 17; and Ritter, Die Erdkunde etc., x, 736). On emerging from a
narrow valley, the river completely disappears amongst reeds, which,
though annually taken and burnt, again grow very fast, and so thickly, that
carts might be driven over them to cross the river.—Bruun.
(4a.) The recent survey of the Euphrates shows that the river really
disappears in the Lamloun marshes, its width diminishing to 120 yards

towards the town of Lamloun. It again widens at Karayem, where the
Serayah branch on the western side, and the Nahr Lamloun branch on the
eastern side, reunite with the main stream. Colonel Chesney makes no
allusion whatever to an overgrowth of reeds, and adds (Exped. to the Euphr.
and Tigris, i, 58, 59): “Being thus reunited to its former waters, and at the
same time free from those marshes in which it had been supposed to be lost,
the Euphrates suddenly reappears on its former scale, enclosed between
high banks covered with jungle.”—Ed.
(5.) “Karasser; it is fertile in vineyards.”—Several travellers and authors,
such as Aboulfeda, Tavernier, Otter, Golius, Ritter, etc., have represented,
that the best wines of the country were to be obtained at Amadia, fifteen
miles from Kohrasar—“Karasser”—which Hammer (Denkschr. d. Kön.
Akad. d. Wissensch., ix) fancifully transfers to Kara-hissar in Armenia.
Kohrasar is quite uninhabited and deserted, but the ruins of what were at
one time magnificent churches and other edifices, excited the admiration of
Tavernier (Six Voy. en Turquie, etc., en 1642) and Ainsworth (Trav. in Asia
Minor, etc., 1842). They indicate the site of the ancient city of Constantine.
It is to be deplored that those travellers could not afford the time to explore
the locality.—Bruun.
(6.) “the people are warlike”.—The warlike inhabitants of Black Turkey
were the Turkomans of the White Sheep, who, under Kara Yelek, their
chief, seized upon Amid (Amed, Hamith, Karamid), the capital of Dyarbekr,
in Mesopotamia, after the death of Timour; it is now known by the same
name as the province, but was called Kara Amid—Amid the black—from
the colour of its walls. Many traces of its grandeur are left. The
academician, Baïer (De numo Amid., 545), shows that it was constructed by
Severus Alexander, and fortified by Justinian.—Bruun.
(7.) “Bestan.”—This name is probably intended for Bistan, near the eastern
frontier of the pashalik of Soulimanieh. It is now a village of no importance,
but near it are the ruins of an ancient castle, also the tumuli known as the
Roustan tepe and Shah tepe, in which many objects of antiquity have been
found. Judging by its style of architecture, the castle, constructed of bricks,
is believed to be of the Sassanian period; but it may have been occupied at a
later date, even to the time of Schiltberger, when it was, perhaps, the capital
of Kourdistan. The pasha’s residence at Soulimanieh is a modern edifice,

having been built towards the end of the 18th century (Ritter, Die Erdkunde
etc., xi, 566).—Bruun.
(8.) “Zuchtun.”—The noxious nature of the climate on the eastern sea-
board of the Black Sea, has been fully proved by Russian garrisons to their
cost, and especially at “Zuchtun” or Soukhoum Kaleh. Near this place stood
the ancient Dioscurias, subsequently called Sevastopolis, after an old
Roman fortress in the neighbourhood. It was of great strategic importance
to the Empire in the reign of Justinian (Novell. constit., 28; and Procopius,
De Bell. Goth., iv, 4), and became a prosperous commercial port after the
Black Sea was opened to the Italians. The Genoese established a consulate
at Savastopoli, which was maintained until the year 1449 (Zap. Odess.
Obstschest., v, 809).—Bruun.
(8a.) “Zuchtun”, intended, as shown above, for Soukhoum, and named
Soukhoum Kaleh in the year 1578, when Amurat III., as suzerain of
Abhase, Mingrelia, Imeritia, and Gouria, arrogated to himself the right to
fortify and occupy it as one of two points on the coast (Poti being the
other), is the chief town of Abhase, and distant about sixty miles to the
north of Poti. The yearly mortality, according to late official returns (1874),
was reported as being at the rate of 3 per centum.
The small, square, flat cap seen by Schiltberger, is now in great measure
substituted in Abhase by the g’h’tapt or bashlyk, a pointed head-covering of
great antiquity, adopted in winter by the troops in Russia, and in fashion
among the ladies in that country; but it is still extensively worn by the
Imeritians and Mingrelians, who call it papanaky, and consider it sufficient
covering for their heads of bushy hair, of which they are very proud, and
which they periodically shave to improve the growth. The flat cap, or
papanaky, is a small lozenge-shaped piece of leather, cloth, or silk, laid over
the fore part of the head, and fastened with strings under the chin. When
worn by nobles, the papanaky of velvet is made very ornamental, with gold
and silver embroidery. Their Mussulman conquerors used to call the
Imeritians, bashashyk—bare-heads (The Crimea and Transc., i, 120; ii, 35,
135).—Ed.
(9.) “Kathon.”—There can be little doubt that Batoum is here intended, a
place which appears as Vati or Lovati, in the charts of the 14th century.—
Bruun.

(9a.) In the present chapter, the capital of Mingrelia is called “Kathon”; in
chapter 67, it is named “Bothan”. Neumann suggests that for “Kathon” we
should read Gori; Professor Bruun is of opinion that Batoum is intended,
and Hammer (Denkschr. d. Kön. Akad. d. Wissensch., ix) thinks that
“Kathon” should be Kargwel or Karduel, and “Bothan”, Cotaïs; but it may
fairly be inferred from Schiltberger’s account, that this “Kathon” or
“Bothan”, as it also appears in the editions of 1475 (?), 1549, and 1814,
stands for Poti. In both chapters, the author speaks of the chief town of
“Megral”, “Magrill”—Mingrelia—as being situated on the Black Sea, and
says that on leaving it, he rode along the sea-shore until he reached a
mountainous country. Poti, the ancient Phasis, a place of importance from
the most remote times, lays in an unexceptionably flat country, from which
it would have been necessary for Schiltberger, who was effecting his escape
and must therefore have been travelling south, to ride fully ten miles by the
sea-side, before he could have reached a highland. Gori and Koutaïs, being
inland towns, are quite out of the question, and had the author got to
Batoum, he would already have been in a mountainous country, and need
not have described his ride before attaining it. I cannot find any record that
Batoum, situated in Lazistan, formerly included in Colchis, ever formed
part of the principality of Mingrelia.—Ed.
(10.) “Merdin”.—With the exception of the citadel, which remained in the
hands of a prince of the Ortok dynasty, this place, formerly a chief town of
Mesopotamia, had to submit, with many others, to the yoke of Timour.
Upon the death of the conqueror, his heir, afterwards assassinated by Kara
Yelek, called to his assistance Kara Youssouf, chief of the Turkomans of the
Black Sheep, and gave to him Mardin, in exchange for Mosoul, where he
was poisoned. His son transferred the royal residence to Sindjar, and died of
the plague in the year 814 of the Hegira. These were the last members of the
Ortok dynasty, which reigned three hundred years.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

(1.) “Thaures.”—Tabreez, founded by Zobeide the wife of Haroun-al-
Rashid, was long distinguished for the extent of its commercial relations, in
which the Genoese and Venetians took part. Although frequently pillaged at
the hands of enemies, notably by Janibek in 1357, and by Toktamish in

1387, Tabreez soon recovered from its misfortunes. This capital even
became the principal depôt for merchandise from India and China, after the
destruction of the cities of Ourjenj and Astrahan by Timour, who
established a commodious route between Tabreez and Samarkand by way of
Kashin and Soultanyà. Schiltberger’s statement as to the custom’s revenue
at Tabreez, will not seem exaggerated in presence of the fact, that in 1460 it
amounted to 60,000 ducats. Ramusio observes that Tabreez, the great depôt,
rivalled Paris in its magnificence, and in the number of its inhabitants.—
Bruun.
(1a.) Writing in 1868, Abbott (Persian Azerbaijan, MS.) says that Tabreez
was the principal seat of commerce in all Persia, and the mart from which
nearly all the northern and midland countries were supplied with the
produce and manufactures of Europe, conveyed to it chiefly by land
transport from the Black Sea; the yearly value was estimated at £1,750,000,
the value of goods imported from England being probably three-fourths of
that sum. The city contained about 3100 shops of all descriptions; thirty
karavansaraïs, occupied by merchants and traders; and about forty others
devoted to the accommodation of muleteers and their cattle. Abbott adds,
that the commerce of Tabreez had made great advances since 1830, having
increased eight-fold in 1860.—Ed.
(2.) “Rei.”—After passing Teheran, upon the occasion of his journey from
Soultanyà to Samarkand, Clavijo perceived, at a distance of two leagues, a
great city in ruins ... “but there appeared towers and mosques, and the name
of the place was Xahariprey”—Shehri-Rei, the city of Rei, “at one time the
largest city in all the land”, says Khanikoff, “though it is now uninhabited”.
But Rey did not remain long thus unpeopled, because the Russian merchant
Nikitin (who visited India thirty years before Vasco de Gama), though
leaving Teheran unnoticed, as does Schiltberger, speaks of his stay at Rey,
where he witnessed the celebration of the famous Persian festival, instituted
in commemoration of the death of Hussein, the son of Ali and grandson of
the prophet. (Poln. Sobr., etc., vi, 332.)—Bruun.
(2a.) To the above might be added the evidence of Ibn Haukal, that there
was not in the eastern regions any city more flourishing. Rey was celebrated
for its gates, for its many remarkable quarters and streets, its numerous
bazaars, karavansaraïs, and market-places. The fine linen, camelot, and
cotton manufactured at Rey, was sent to all parts of the world. Late

travellers have found its site marked by hollows and mounds; mouldering
towers, tombs, and wells, constructed of burnt and sun-dried materials (Ker
Porter, Travels in Georgia, Persia, etc., 1822; Mounsey, Journey through
the Caucasus, etc., 1872). In the 3rd century of Mahomedanism, Rey was
specially noted for its wealth, and was styled, The First of Cities—The
Spouse of the World—The Market of the Universe. (Chardin, Langlès
edition, ii, 411.)—Ed.
(3.) “Raphak.”—If Schiltberger’s companions, when on his journey to Rey
or Rhe, were Sunnites, they probably looked upon the people of that city as
apostates from the faith; for “Raphak”, therefore, we should read
Raphadzhy—abjurer—a term applied to renegades. These disciples admit
themselves to be Shey—partisans—whence the term Shyites, and in the
present instance they were evidently called by the opprobrious name of
Raphadzy, as being apostates, by those of a different sect. Ibn Batouta met
at Kotaïf (Katiff of Benjamin of Tudela), on the Persian Gulf, some Arabs
of the Rafiza sect, who were most enthusiastic, publishing their sentiments
everywhere, and fearing no one.
There are Shyite Tatars in Transcaucasia, chiefly in the valley of the Araxes,
also in the richly cultivated province of Ouroumyeh, the seat of the
Christian Nestorians, where they people eight villages. These Shyites call
themselves Ali Allahy—Worshippers of Ali—and are not averse to drinking
wine.—Ed.
(4.) “Nachson.”—Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 80) sojourned for a time in a
city which he calls Calmarin, and attributes its foundation to a son of Noah.
This place was probably Sourmalou on the Araxes, taken by Timour in
1385. Tutan, the Turkoman who resided here, might have been the “Tetani,
Emperor of Tartary”, who, according to Clavijo, had conquered the place,
though only a viceroy. There was a Titanus, Vicarius Canlucorum, of the
Genoese, in 1449; the Tautaun, Taudoun, of the Avares and Khozars. Two
days before reaching Calmarin, Clavijo passed the night in a town called
Naujua, where there were many Armenians, which must have been the
“Nachson” of Schiltberger, now known as Nahitchevan.—Bruun.
(5.) “Maragara.”—There are numerous remains of ancient fortifications on
the heights around Meragha. In a westerly direction, at a distance of thirteen
miles to the south-west of Tabreez, are the foundations of a round tower,

believed to have been the celebrated observatory of Khodja Nazr uddin—
defensor fidei—the friend of Houlakon, who transferred his residence to
Meragha after the capture of Baghdad in 1258. To this day is shown his
tomb,1 and that of his wife Dogous or Dokouz Khatoun, the protectress of
Christians, but especially of Nestorians, in whose doctrines she had great
faith (Hammer, Gesch. der Ilchane, etc., i, 82). Shortly after her death, the
patriarch, Iabellasa, agreed to recognise the supremacy of the Pope, the act
having been presented to Benedict II. by a Dominican friar named Jacob.
Mosheim (Hist. Tartarorum Eccles., 92) pronounces against the authenticity
of this document, an opinion shared by Heyd (Die Colon. der Römisch.
Kirche, etc., 322), on the grounds that it was signed at Meragha. It may,
however, be contended that the patriarch might have resided for a time at
Meragha, after the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols, considering that his
successors had no fixed residence to 1559, in which year the patriarch Elias
definitively established the seat at Mosoul; and that a tradition is preserved
amongst the Nestorians or Chaldæans of Kourdistan, to the effect that their
ancestors, who had resisted Timour, were domiciled between the lakes Van
and Ouroumyeh.
In the early part of the 14th century, another brother preacher, Jordanus
Catalani, recorded in his Mirabilia (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 9), that those
schismatics had adopted the Catholic faith in several cities of Persia, to wit,
at Tabreez, Soultanyà, and at “Ur of the Chaldees, where Abraham was
born, which is a very opulent city, distant about two days from Tabriz”.
Heyd says that this Ur cannot be Orfa, a town in central Mesopotamia,
which has been identified with the Ur-Khasdim of the Arabians (Ritter, Die
Erdkunde etc., x, 333); but is more probably the ancient city of Maranda,
not far from the lake Ouroumyeh and fifty miles only from Tabreez. But
Meragha was, in like manner, at no great distance from the said lake, and
only twenty-four miles, or, according to Hadjy Khalpha, seven farsangs
from Tabreez; we are, therefore, justified in concluding, that it was this
place the friar designated as Ur of the Chaldees, especially as it was a large
city and a bishop’s see in 1320 (Galanus, Concil. Eccl. Arm. cum Rom., i,
508; quoted by Heyd, 324). The same cannot be said of Maranda.
Bartholomew of Bologna has given evidence of his zeal, in the fact that
many of the Armenian clergy went over to the Church of Rome, and with
the view of cementing this union, a new Order, “Fratres prædicatores

Uniti”, was founded and affiliated to the Dominicans, whose head-centre
was at Meragha. But the theory propounded by Bishop Aïvazoffsky is
worthy of consideration, viz., that Ur is no other than Urmi or Ormi, a town
of some size, hitherto largely inhabited by Nestorian Chaldæans, and that
has given its name to the lake Ourmiah, Ormi, or Ouroumyeh. It is believed
to be the birth-place of Zoroaster, who might have been mistaken for
Abraham as easily as he has been for Moses.—Bruun.
1Abbott says (Persian Azerbaijan, MS.) that the tomb of Houlakou, or its
reputed site, is pointed out near the town of Meragha.—Ed.

(6.) “Gelat.”—Khelat was taken in 1229 by the sultan, Jalaluddin, after a
three days’ siege. Aboulfeda quotes Abou Said, who says that it rivalled
Damascus. Bakui (Not. et Extr., ii, 513) extols Khelat for its good water,
fruit, and the fish taken from the lake, especially the tamrin, possibly the
dorakine found in the Kour, as related by Ystachry (Mordtmann edition,
1845). The numerous ruins in the neighbourhood are of the time when
Akhlat was the residence of the Shahy Armen—kings of Armenia; they
include those of a superb palace, of gorgeous tombs, artificial grottoes, and
of a fortress on the shore of Lake Van. Khelat is now a miserable hamlet
occupied by Kurds.—Bruun.
(6a.) Khelat, Ghelath, Ashlath, was long the residence of a suffragan bishop
of the Armenian Church.—Ed.
(7.) “Kirna.”—On the Gharny-tchaï, a tributary of the Zenga, east of
Erivan, is Gharny or Bash Gharny, now an insignificant village, but at one
time a place of considerable importance. According to the old Armenian
chroniclers, Kharny was founded 2000 B.C. by a prince Keghamè, who
named it after himself; but the name was afterwards changed by Kharnig,
the grandson of Keghamè, to Kharny. It was here that Tiridates, 286–314,
constructed for his favourite sister a superb residence, to which Moses
Chorensis (Whiston edition, 1736), the Armenian chronicler of the 5th
century, thus refers: “Per id tempus Tiridates castelli Garnii ædificationem
absolvit, quod quadratis et cæsis lapidibus, ferro et plumbo coagmentatis
construxit, atque ibi umbraculum statuit et monumentum mirifica arte
cælatum, pro sorore sua Chosroiduchta, in eoque memoriam sui græcis
literis inscripsit.” This remarkable edifice is alluded to by Kiracos of
Gantzac, also an Armenian chronicler, of the 13th century, as “the
marvellous throne of Tiridates”, in front of the cemetery of Kharny (Hist.

d’Arménie trans. by M. Brosset, St. Petersburg, 1870). It is now a heap of
ruins, known to the natives as Takht Dertad—Throne of Tiridates.
At a short distance above Gharny, also on the Gharny-tchaï in the Goktcha
valley, is the venerable monastery of Aïrits vank, Ghergarr or Keghart,
noted for its memorial inscriptions of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries
(The Crimea and Transc., i, 211, 221).—Ed.
(8.) “the priests are of the Order of Preachers, and sing in the Armenian
tongue.”—What Schiltberger says with regard to “Meya”—Magou—is
confirmed by Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 83). “On Sunday, the first of
June, at the hour of vespers, they came to a castle called Maca, belonging to
a Catholic Christian called Noradin, and the people who lived in it were
Catholic Christians, though they were by birth and language Armenians,
and they also knew the Tartar and Persian tongues. In this place there was a
monastery of Dominican friars. The castle was in a valley, at the foot of a
very high rock, and there was a village on a hill above, and on the top of the
hill there was a wall of stone and mortar, with towers, and against the wall
there were houses. There was also another wall with towers, and the
entrance to it was by a great tower, built to guard it, along steps cut in the
rocks. Near the second wall there were houses cut in the rock, and in the
centre were some towers and houses, where the lord lived, and here all the
people in the village kept their provisions. The rock was very high, and rose
above the walls and houses; and from the rocks an overhanging part
stretched out, which covers the castle, walls, and houses, like the heaven
that is above them.”—Bruun.
(8a.) Tradition asserts that Makou, Makouyeh, in the Armenian province of
Artazo-Tasht, to the east of Ararat and south of the Araxes, is built over the
place where St. Thaddeus suffered martyrdom. The fortress is situated in a
gorge above the village (J. Saint Martin, Mém. sur l’Arménie, i, 135).—Ed.
(9.) “Ress.”—Resht, the chief town of Ghilan, a place of great commercial
importance in Schiltberger’s time, is distant six miles from the Caspian Sea.
The Genoese and Venetians secured the rich produce of this province,
especially the silken stuffs made there or imported from Yezd and Kashan.
Marco Polo (Yule, i, 54) speaks of silk called Ghellè, after the name of the
country on the Sea of Ghel or Ghelan—the Caspian.—Bruun.

(10.) “Strawba.”—Schiltberger changes Astrabad to “Strawba”, just as his
Italian contemporaries have called the place Strava, Strevi, and Istarba. Its
commerce was not considerable, but Astrabad was of some importance as
being the depôt for merchandise in transit across the Caspian, from India
and Bokhara.—Bruun.
(11.) “Antioch.”—Several cities of Asia were in ancient times called
Antiochia. Stephen of Byzantium knew of eight, two of which, Edessa and
Nisibis, were in Migdonia; and as each, in its turn, had become the foremost
bulwark of Christianity, their possession was frequently disputed by the
Infidels. Allusion is made in the text to Nisibis, with its ramparts of brick,
rather than to Edessa, which was encircled by whitewashed walls.—Bruun.
(12.) “Aluitza.”—If the author here alludes to the same fortress (Alindsha ?)
as is mentioned in chapter 16, of which there can scarcely be a doubt, that is
to say, the fortress in which Ahmed ben Oweis kept his treasure; then the
story of its siege by Timour for the space of sixteen years, was a gross
exaggeration on the part of his informants, because we know from
contemporary authors that the siege of Alindsha lasted eight years only.—
Bruun.
(13.) “There is a city called Scheckhy; it is in a fertile country near the
White Sea.”—It will be generally admitted that this White Sea is no other
than the Caspian. Hammer (note, p. 45) says it was so called to distinguish
it from the Black Sea; but Wahl (Allg. Beschr. d. persischen Reichs, ii, 679)
attributes the distinctive name to the petrified shells, white and gray sand,
with which the bed of the sea is overspread. It is pretty certain that White
Sea is not a name invented by the author, but that he supplies us with the
literal translation of the Georgian words—Tetrysea and Sywa, which have a
similar signification, and are even now employed to designate the Caspian
Sea. Hammer is mistaken in saying that Schiltberger called the eastern
shore of the Caspian by the name of Scherky, as the word appears in Penzel,
and which is simply a corruption of “Scheckhy”, now known as Sheky, on
the left bank of the river Kour, between Georgia, the districts of Gandja,
Shirwan and Daghestan. It is said that this part of the country was occupied
as early as the 10th century by the Shekis or Shekines, a Christian people
given to commerce and industrial pursuits (D’Ohsson, Des Peup. du Cauc.
18, and note xiv).—Bruun.

(14.) “the kingdom Horoson, and its capital is called Hore.”—As stated by
Neumann, these places are intended for Khorasan and Herat. According to
Masoudi (Ritter, Die Erdkunde etc., x. 65), there existed at the time of the
conquest of Hira near the Euphrates, circa a.d. 637, the negotiator Abd-el-
Mesy, a man greatly revered by the Arabs in consequence of his wisdom
and great age. He had attained his 350th year, and enjoyed the distinction of
being considered, if not a saint, at least a servant of God, that is to say, an
Ibadite or Jacobite Christian.
Ibn Haukal states that the city of Hira, which was still in existence in the
time of Edrisi (Recueil des Voy. et des Mém., iii, 366), was distant one
farsang from Koufa, which with Basra was called Basraten—dualis of
Basra—or the two Basras, the metropolis of the Nestorians at Basra being
known as Euphrates Pherat Mesene or Perat Meissan, a name it had borne
since a.d. 310. We are informed by Eastern writers, that at Konfa was the
tomb of the saint, Adam (Ritter, Die Erdkunde etc., x, 179–184), a name
that reminds us of “Phiradamschyech”, whose age coincided with that of
Abd-el-Mesy.
Schiltberger may perhaps have applied to Herat, which he visited, the
legend of Hira, a Shyite place of pilgrimage.—Bruun.
(15.) “Phiradamschyech.”—This is one of the few names in Schiltberger’s
narrative that appears somewhat difficult to determine. Pir, in Persian,
signifies an old, a venerable man; also, a chief. Sheykh has a similar
meaning in Arabic. Adam is the Persian, Turkish, and Arabic for man; so
that “Phiradamschyech” consists of three substantives, and being
interpreted, reads thus: A chief—a man—a chief.
A very similar story is related by Ibn Batouta, Schiltberger’s predecessor by
about fifty years. After passing the Hindu Kush, he got to a mountain called
Bashai where he saw in a cell an old man named Ata Evlia—Father of the
Saints—said to be 350 years old, but who appeared to be about fifty. Every
hundred years he had a new growth of teeth and hair. There is no doubt
whatever of Ibn Batouta’s own incredulity as to the reputed history of this
man, to whom he put several questions, which, being unsatisfactorily
answered, caused him to apprehend that there was no truth in the wonderful
statements made about him.—Ed.

(16.) “Schiras.”—“Kerman.”—Sheeraz, the birth place of Saadi and Hafiz,
two of the most celebrated and popular poets of Persia, was so called, says a
rare Persian manuscript, after a word in the old Persick language signifying
—Lion’s paunch—because all the wealth of every town in the same region
was transported thither not to return elsewhere (Ouseley, Travels, etc., ii,
23). Edrisi’s definition (Jaubert edition, 392) is somewhat clearer, for he
says that the name was given because the place consumed without
producing anything. This city is said to have been founded in the earliest
years of Islam; the walls, which measured 12,500 paces in circumference,
being constructed in the 10th century. Kazvini (quoted by Ouseley)
observed nine gates, and in 1811 Ouseley saw six only. Ibn Haukal
(Ouseley edition, 101) wrote of Sheeraz as being a modern city.
In 1627, Sir Thomas Herbert (Travels into Divers Parts, etc., 127) found
some of the old walls of “the pleasantest of Asiatick cities” still standing,
but in Chardin’s time (Langlès edition, viii, 414) they had disappeared. The
present fortifications, erected by Kerim Khan in the middle of the 18th
century, were ruined by Aga Mohammed Shah after the struggle between
the Zund and Kujjar families. They are of the extent of about three and a
half miles, and were originally of such massive construction, that it was
said three horsemen might have ridden abreast on them. The population in
1850 was estimated at 35,000 to 40,000; but the general want of
employment begat amongst the people that disposition for mischief, brawls
and insurrections, for which the place was remarkable beyond any other
town in Persia (Abbott, Southern Cities of Persia, MS.).
Kirman, also visited by Abbott, is encircled by walls of two and a half miles
to three miles in circumference, and had a population (1850) not exceeding
25,000. The appearance of this town and the scenery around, are extremely
unpromising and dreary, from the scarcity of trees, the little cultivation, and
the few villages about. A vastly different condition to the “good country”
noted by Schiltberger, and the statement of Marco Polo (Yule, i, 92), that on
quitting the city of Kerman “you ride on for seven days, always finding
towns, villages, and handsome dwelling-houses, so that it is very pleasant
travelling”.
Abbott says further, that Kirman was not of much commercial importance,
being so far removed from the direct lines of communication between other
chief places, and being adjacent to vast and unproductive regions.

It is by no means clear that Schiltberger was ever at Kirman; but if his
account of that town and of the islands in the Persian Gulf is given from
personal observation, which is very doubtful, it is possible that he followed
the same route as traced by Colonel Yule in Marco Polo’s Itineraries, No. ii.
—Ed.
(17.) “Keschon”, “Hognus”, “Kaff”.—Kishm, Hormuz, and Kais, are three
islands in the Persian Gulf, which, however, Schiltberger does not
particularise as such. Kishm, the largest of the three, is called by the
Persians, Draz Jazyra—Long Island—the more familiar name being Harkh.
An excellent harbour is formed on the south side by the island of Angar.
Kishm was occupied in 1622 by an English force, which destroyed a fort
the Portuguese had erected the previous year, one of the few Englishmen
killed upon the occasion being William Baffin who in 1616 sailed round
Baffin’s Bay.
Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 113) has clearly established the site of ancient
Hormuz on the main land, a city that was abandoned for the island of
Zarun, afterwards Hormuz, in 1315 (Ouseley, Travels, etc., i, 157), as a
protection, says Aboulfeda, from the repeated incursions of the Tatars.
Already, in the days of Ibn Batouta, who mentions both Old and New
Hormuz (Lee edition, 63), was Harauna, the new city and residence of the
king, a large and beautiful place; and Friar Oderic, his contemporary,
remarks on the efficient fortifications of Ormes, and its great store of
merchandise and treasure; so that its reputation as a great commercial depôt
was well established in Schiltberger’s time. Of the many travellers who
have described the island, Varthema, 1503–1508 (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 94),
reported, that as many as three hundred vessels belonging to different
countries were sometimes assembled at the noble city of Ormus, which was
extremely beautiful; and some years later, 1563, Cesare Federici (Hakluyt
Voyages, ii, 342) noticed a great trade there in all sorts of spice, drugs, silk,
cloth of silk, brocardo, and other merchandise. Hormuz, like Kishm, was
also recovered from the Portuguese by the English for Shah Abbas in 1623,
until which period it was a stately and rich place, of which the inhabitants
made the boast that “if the world were a ring, Ormus must be considered as
the diamond”.
The city has now completely disappeared, and over the space of about one
square mile of its site may be seen, here and there, the foundations of

houses, those near the sea being the most visible. In the neighbourhood are
several hundred reservoirs, and many Mussulman tombs, some of which are
enclosed within domed buildings that had some pretensions to architecture
(Persian Gulf Pilot, 1870, 148).
Kais is mentioned by many authors as being a place of considerable
importance. It was the ancient Καταία (Nearchi Paraplus ex Arriano, 31;
Hudson edition, i), is called Keis by the Arabs, is named Ken by Kinnear
(Memoirs of the Persian Empire, 17), and appears in the Admiralty chart as
Kais or Gais, inhabited by pearl fishers. Yagout (Barbier de Meynard, Dict.
Géog., etc., 499) in the 13th century says of Kisch, that it was the residence
of the sovereigns of Oman, whose authority extended over all the sea, on
which they were very powerful; it was the place of call for vessels trading
between Fars and India, and a celebrated pearl fishery. Kazvini
(Kosmographie, 235) speaks of Kis as the resort of merchants who went
there to trade; and Benjamin of Tudela, a century earlier, describes it as
being a port of transit.
The ancient town of Harira is now represented by tottering masses of
masonry; a portion of a minaret of well cut stone, and many fallen pillars of
the mosque to which the minaret belonged, being the only architectural
remains. Great quantities of broken pottery, some of fine quality, lie
scattered among the débris. At a distance of a quarter of a mile are large
reservoirs for water, all faced with masonry, but in a sad state of decay;
some measure 120 ft. in length, by 24 ft., and are 24 ft. in depth.
Admitting the authority of a Persian manuscript, says Ouseley (l. c., i, 170),
the name of the island may be assigned to the 10th century, when one Keis,
the son of a poor widow in Siraf, embarked for India with his sole property,
a cat. There he arrived at a fortunate time, for the king’s palace was infested
with mice. Keis produced his cat, the noxious animals disappeared, and the
adventurer of Siraf was magnificently rewarded. He returned to his home,
but afterwards settled with his mother and brothers on the island, which was
named Keis, or, according to the Persians, Keish. Modern attempts to
rationalise Whittington may surely be given up, observes Colonel Yule with
reference to this story related by Wassaf.—Ed.
(18.) “Walaschoen.”—This name, employed also by Orientals, is now
Badakshan, called Badashan by Marco Polo, who says that rubies were

found in the province. Ibn Haukal was also aware that Badakshan yielded
rubies and lapis-lazuli, and Ibn Batouta asserts that the rubies (balas rubies)
from the mountains of Badakshan were commonly called Ak Balaksh. A
river flowed from these mountains, the water of which was as white as that
of the sea. He adds that Jengiz, king of the Tatars, ruined the country, so that
it never flourished afterwards. Judging, however, from Schiltberger’s
account, it is probable that its condition had improved.
The unicorns may have been horses of a good breed, as alluded to by Marco
Polo (Yule, i, 166), who states that, “not long ago they possessed in that
province a breed of horses from the strain of Alexander’s horse,
Bucephalus, all of which had from their birth a particular mark on the
forehead”. If we consider that in the time of Timour, the nationality of the
inhabitants, the military administration, and the breed of horses in this
country, were the same as in the days of Kublai, the ruler had, no doubt,
ever been a “None”, Nono, which Marco Polo (idem, i, 183) gives as the
equivalent for Count. Whatever the origin and primitive significations of
this term, I may, perhaps, not be far out in asserting, that in the present
instance it designated a noyon or myriarch, such as was Jebe, the
vanquisher of the Russians at the battle of the Kalka in 1223 (Berezin,
Nashestvye Mongolov, 226), and Noë, Duke of Sousdal, who, at about the
same period, gave to Julian the missionary, letters of recommendation to
Bela IV., King of Hungary (Kunik, Outch. Zap., etc., iii, 739), and Tolak
Timour the cruel governor of Soudak (Zap. Odess. Obstschest., v, 507).—
Bruun.
(18a.) When Captain Wood was in Badakshan, he was told that the valley of
Meshid was extremely populous in former times, and a legend was current
to the effect that it used to be greatly infested with scorpions (Journey to the
Source of the River Oxus, 1872). Colonel Yule thinks, that if the existence
of unicorns was not a mere fable, the animal referred to was probably the
rhinoceros, at that time common in the country near Peshawur—not very
far from Badakshan.—Ed.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

(1.) “Marburtirudt.”—These measurements agree so exactly with the
dimensions to be found in Herodotus, who gives the height of the walls of

Babylon at 200 cubits and their thickness at 50 cubits, that the extent of the
city, 480 stadia, was probably obtained from the same source. But four
stadia do not make one Italian mile. The Italian mile is equal to eight stadia,
480 stadia are, therefore, 60 Italian, or 55-1/5 English miles, no great
difference from the 75 miles or 25 leagues noted in the text as being the
extent of the wall of Babylon.
The Tower of Babel, represented as being 54 stadia from the city, must have
been distant 6.75 Italian, or 6.21 English miles, precisely the position of
Birs Nimroud—Prison of Nimrod—called “Marburtirudt”, for Marbout
Nimroud. It was to these ruins that Benjamin of Tudela (Ritter, Die
Erdkunde etc., x, 263) referred when describing the tower constructed
before the dispersion of the people, situated on the right bank of the
Euphrates, and one and a half hour’s journey from Hillah; it measured 240
yards in diameter, and was about 100 canna in height; a gallery conducted
to the summit, whence the view around extended over the plain to a
distance of eight leagues. Schiltberger expresses himself to the same effect
when he says, “in several places it is x leagues in length and in breadth”. In
adding that the tower stood on the Chaldæan side of the Arabian desert, he
has no intention of directing us to Arabia proper, but to Irak Araby, the
country of the ancient Chaldæans.—Bruun.
(2.) “And one inch is the first member of the thumb.”—Schiltberger fails to
distinguish the Italian from the Lombard mile; we are therefore at liberty to
conclude that he here alludes to the ancient Roman mile, .75 of a degree,
which consists of 59,800 untz or zoll, the zoll being equal to the English
inch. In saying that the Italian or Lombard mile consists of 45,000 inches
only, Schiltberger gives us to understand that the “schuch” was one-fourth
shorter than the foot; in other words, he refers to the palma, an Italian
measure of his day. It follows, therefore, that the pace of five palmas must
have measured 3 ft. 9 in.—Bruun.
(3.) “Schatt.”—The Tigris is still known as the Schat (Ritter, Die Erdkunde
etc., xi, 4), not only from its junction with the Euphrates, but also along the
whole of its upper course (Rachid-Eddin by Quatremère, xxix), which
justified Barbaro in having said that Hassanchiph was near the Set.—
Bruun.

(3a.) This is confirmed by Colonel Chesney (Exped. to the Euphr. and
Tigris, i, 60), who writes that Shatt, or more correctly Shatt-el-Arab, is the
name given to the rivers Euphrates and Tigris after their junction at the
walled town of Kournah; but that the designation belongs properly to the
Tigris. This river is clearly called Schot by Olearius.—Ed.
(4.) “Kinna.”—This fruit, called “kurnia” in Penzel’s edition, is probably
the khourmà, date-plum—Diospyros lotus—an ebanaceous tree growing
plentifully in Persia and Transcaucasia, and perhaps the kheilan of Ibn
Batouta. The berry is largely imported into Russia, and a favourite spirit
distilled from it. It is totally distinct from the date-palm—Phœnix
dactylifera—called in the East, taltal. Marco Polo (Yule, i, 110) speaks of a
very good wine made from dates, mixed with spices.—Ed.
(5.) “In this kingdom the people are not warlike.”—It is not surprising that
Schiltberger should have been struck by the pacific disposition of the
people of Baghdad, a city that owed its opulence to industry and commerce.
Baghdad was reconstructed by Ahmen ben Oweis after its destruction by
Timour (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 98). The inhabitants were Arabs and
Persians, as they are now. That a large park and menagerie should have
existed is in the highest degree probable, for we read in Zosimus (Hist.
Rom., iii, 23), that the troops of the emperor Julian discovered a royal
garden in Mesopotamia, in which wild beasts were kept: εἰς περίβολον ὃν
Βασιλέως θήραν ἐκάλον. The Greeks of Heraclius’s expedition, a.d. 627,
found a large park close to the residence of Chosroes (Ritter, Die Erdkunde
etc., ix, 503), in which were many ostriches, wild boar, peacocks, pheasants,
lions, tigers, etc. Another instance was the residence, near Baghdad, of the
caliph El-Harim, which stood within grounds wherein were wild beasts of
every description (ibid., x, 258).—Bruun.
(6.) “It has long fore-legs, and the hinder are short.”—Soon after the battle
of Angora, the sultan Faradj sent two ambassadors with rich presents to
Timour, one being a giraffe (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 97), which Clavijo,
who met the Egyptian envoys at Khoi, designated a gornufa. Schiltberger
must have originally written surnofa, rather than “surnasa”. The giraffe he
saw in Timour’s possession was probably one of the finest of its species, so
that allowance should be made for his ascribing to its neck a length of four
fathoms; indeed, we learn from Clavijo that this very animal was able to
extend its neck so as to reach herbage at a height of 30 feet to 36 feet.

Schiltberger was under the impression, as was his contemporary De Lannoy
(Voy. et Ambass., 88), that the Nile traversed India before entering Egypt,1
which accounts for his supposition that the giraffe was indigenous to the
former country.—Bruun.
1That Ethiopia was called India, and thus confounded with real India, is fully set
forth by Colonel Yule in a note to Marco Polo, ii, 426.—Ed.

(6a.) Zerypha—yellow-coloured—is the Persian for giraffe, from zerd—
yellow—and fam—colour; a name corrupted by the Turks and Arabs to
zerafè, whence “surnasa”. The giraffe at the British Museum could have
reached food at a height of at least twenty feet, as Dr. Günther, Keeper of
Zoology, has been good enough to inform me. The finest specimen at the
Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, at Paris, is even inferior in size, according to
the measurements kindly supplied by Professor Milne-Edward of that
institution. Schiltberger must have greatly miscalculated the proportions of
the animal he saw, allowing even for probable degeneration; large giraffes
having now become very scarce.—Ed.
(7.) “Zekatay.”—Jagatai owes its name to the second son of Jengiz Khan,
who received in appanage the countries to the east and south-east of the
Oulons of Jujy, that is to say, from the limits of Khorasan (until taken from
the Jujy by Timour) on both sides of the Amu-Darya, to Turkestan. All those
territories were included under the name of Jagatai, as were also the dialects
of the inhabitants. The last princes of the house, and in whose name Timour
ruled, were Suurgatmysh and Mahmoud; their coinage was struck at
Bokhara, Samarkand, Termed, Kesh, Badakshan, and Otrar; but their
residence was at Besh balyk—Five Cities—until transferred by Timour to
Samarkand, which the despot sought to place at the head of all cities in
Asia, by means of the vigorous measures to which Clavijo bears witness.—
Bruun.

CHAPTER XXXV.

(1.) “Great Tartaria.”—The details entered into by Schiltberger in this
chapter, demonstrate that he includes in Great Tatary the possessions of the
three branches of the Jujy. First, the Ordou Itchen or the White Horde, who
were the successors of the eldest son of Jujy. Secondly, those of the Golden
Horde, the successors of Batou, the second son; and, Thirdly, those of

Shaïban, the fifth son, who, in recompense for his brilliant services during
Batou’s campaign in Russia, received from the Ordou Itchen some
territories near the Ural for his summer encampment; and for his winter use,
those near the Syr Darya, that is to say, the actual steppe of the Kirghis, so
that the domains of the Shaïbani separated the Golden Horde from the
White Horde. Their dominions afterwards extended northwards, when they
nominated khans to Siberia.—Bruun.
(1a.) “Tartaria” and “Tartaren”, as the names are spelled throughout the
text, are substituted in these Notes by Tatary and Tatars, it is hoped on fair
grounds. Professor Nève asserts (Exposé des Guerres de Tamerlan, etc.:
d’après la Chronique Arménienne inédite de Thomas de Medzoph, 24) that
Tatar is the term employed by Armenian chroniclers, and he names no
exceptions; and is not her ancient literature one of the several excellencies
of which Armenia may be justly proud? A note by Dr. Smith in Gibbon
(Rise and Fall, etc., iii, 294) shows how the Tatars became accidentally
named Tartars, through an exclamation of St. Louis of France, although it
must be admitted that according to other authors, the use of the word Tartar,
in Western Europe, is of earlier date; and Genebrard states (Lib. Heb. Chro.
Bib., i, 158) that Tatar, which in the Hebrew and Syriac signifies
abandoned, deserted, should more correctly be written without an r. The
Russians, whose pronunciation of these words is, for obvious reasons,
entitled to every consideration, speak of Tatáry’ya-Tatary—and Tatáry—
Tatars—unquestionably the sound uttered by the various people themselves,
claiming the distinctive appellation, whether on the banks of the Volga, in
South Russia, the Crimea, or in the steppes and lowlands of Transcaucasia,
as the writer of this note is prepared to testify. The Russian word Tatarui, or
Tatars, says Ralston (Early Russian History, 198, wherein is cited F. Porter
Smith’s Vocab., etc., 52), modified in Western Europe by a reference to
Tartarus into Tartars, is now generally applied by Russian writers to what
used to be the Turkish subjects of the Mongol Empire. It is said to be a
corruption of Tah-tan, the name under which the Mongols were anciently
known to the Chinese. Morrison writes Tătă as Chinese for Tartars.
Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 12) calls attention to an article in the Journal
Asiatique, ser. v, tom. xi, 203, to show that the name Tartar is of Armenian
rather than of European origin, whilst admitting that Tatar was used by
Oriental writers of Polo’s age, exactly as Tartar was then, and is still, used

in Western Europe as a generic title for the Turanian hosts who followed
Chingis and his successors; but he believes that the name in this sense was
not known in Western Europe before the time of Chingis.
In Howorth’s History of the Mongols, 1877 (the one volume as yet
published), a ponderous book of 743 pages, replete with the most erudite
information, but unhappily unprovided with any guide to its contents, will
be found at page 700, a long note, in which admission is made that the word
Tartar has given rise to much discussion; and whilst the Russian and
Byzantine authors, the Bohemian chronicler Dalemil, Ivo of Narbonne, and
Thomas of Spalatro, are cited in favour of the use of Tatar, other authorities
are quoted to establish a respectable pedigree for Tartar.—Ed.
(2.) “Seat him on white felt, and raise him in it three times.”—The raising
to the White Felt is similarly described by Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine
(Recueil de Voy. et de Mém., etc.). Vambery (Trav. in Central Asia, 356)
says that the being raised to the White Felt is still the exclusive privilege of
the gray-beards of the tribe of Jagatai, and that the custom is kept up at the
investiture of the khans of Khokand.—Ed.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

(1.) “Edil, which is a great river.”—The large river here called “Edil”, the
Turkish for river, could have been no other than the Oxus or Amu-Darya.
Orden cannot in any manner be identified with “Origens”, mentioned in
chapter 25, where the author stayed when on his journey from Derbent to
Joulad. That city of “Origens”, however, was also at an “Edil”, so that
Schiltberger may possibly have confounded its name of Ornas, Arnatch, or
Andjaz, with Ourjenj, equally situated on an “Edil” (in this instance not the
Terek but the Oxus); the possessions of his iron lord extending from the
neighbourhood of one river to that of the other.—Bruun.
(2.) “A city called Haitzicherchen, which is a large city.”—Hadjy-tarkhan
was situated on the right bank of the Volga, a few miles above the modern
Astrahan, and near Itil, capital of the kingdom of the Khozars, an ancient
city that had already disappeared in the time of Rubruquis, 1253, when
Hadjy-tarkhan itself, it would appear, had scarcely begun to exist. Ibn
Batouta (1331) notes having sojourned at the last-named place upon the

occasion of his journey from Soudagh to Saraï; and Pegolotti says that
travellers tarried there when on their way to China. The name appears as
Azitarcan in the Catalan atlas, 1375, in which work, and in the splendid
map of the brothers Pizzigani, we also find “Civitat de ssara”, or “Civitas
Regio d’Sara”, the city of New Sarai, destroyed by Timour, and mentioned
by Schiltberger. Its ruins are still to be seen near the town of Tzaref on the
Akhtouba, an arm of the Volga. There was, however, the other Saraï, spoken
of by Aboulfeda, Ibn Batouta, and Pegolotti, the remains of which are
visible, also on the Akhtouba, but at a distance of two hundred miles to the
south of Tzaref, and near Seliterny-gorodok, where numerous coins of the
khan Uzbek have lately been found by a professor of the University of
Kazan. No such coins have ever been picked up at Tzaref, which is not
surprising, seeing that it was Janibek, the son of Uzbek, who transferred his
residence from Saraï to the new city of that name, as Colonel Yule has
already shown in one of his notes to Marco Polo (i, 6), and as I have since
sought to prove in an article that was published at Kieff in 1876 (Troudy
3go. Archeo. Syezda).
Although old Saraï was depopulated by the plague in 1347–48, and new
Saraï was destroyed by Timour, both cities recovered from those calamities,
and in the later map of the world, by Fra Mauro, they appear near a
tributary on the left bank of the Volga, but at a considerable distance from
each other. The northernmost is known to the Russians as Great Saraï.
Previously to selecting old Saraï for his residence, the khan Barka was at
Bolgar, the ancient capital of the kingdom of the Bolgars on the Volga,
which had been subdued in 1236 by his brother and predecessor Batou, the
“terrible Batou” of the Russians, surnamed by the Tatars, Saïn—The Good.
An indigent Russian village stands on the site of the city, in the midst of
ruins which impress the traveller by their extent; an impression I received
when engaged in the Fourth Archæological Congress (1877), the members
of which started upon their excursion from Kazan, and descending the river
to Spassky-zaton, visited the locality distant seven miles in a direct line
from the river. Considering the importance of these ruins, the large extent of
ground they cover, the prodigious quantity of ancient oriental coins and
other antiquities that are being continually recovered; considering, also, the
testimony of Arabian authors and travellers on the commercial relations of
the ancient Bolgars of the Volga, the question has frequently arisen—Why

should that people have preferred to establish themselves at so great a
distance from the river, after the manner of the inhabitants of the “city of
the blind”, instead of selecting a more advantageous site? The enigma has
been solved by Professor Golovkinsky (Sur la formation permienne du
bassin Kama-Volgien, etc., in the Mém. de la Soc. Minér. de St.
Pétersbourg, tom. i; and Anciens débris de l’homme au Gouvt. de Cazan, in
the Travaux de la réunion des Natur. de Russie, St. Pétersbourg, 1868),
formerly of the University of Kazan, now Rector of that at Odessa. The
distinguished geologist shows, that the Volga and the Kama have been
subjected to great changes in their course above their junction; that to a
comparatively recent period, the eastern bank of the bed where the two
rivers united, was close to the height upon which is the village of Bolgar,
and that this ancient bed is to be traced to an arm of the Kazanka called the
Boulak, and to the lake Kaban, both of which flow through the city of
Kazan, and through a partly dried up marsh near the said village.—Bruun.
(3.) “a city called Bolar, in which are different kinds of beasts.”—These
were probably furred animals, furs having been from all time the staple of
commerce at Bolgar (whose locality is now established), at Saraï and
Astrahan. Schiltberger leads us to the supposition that those cities had
recovered from the state of desolation in which they were left by Timour.—
Bruun.
(4.) “Ibissibur.”—In chapter 25, Schiltberger describes a country called
“Ibissibur”. That there was a city of the name is clearly established by the
Catalan atlas and Pizzigani map, in which we find Sebur, near a chain of
mountains called “los montes de Sebur”, evidently the South Ural, styled
Sibirsky kamian in a Russian work on ancient hydrography (Knyga
bolshem. Tchertejou, 151, St. P., 1838).
The Sibir of the Russians, known also as Isker, was situated on the Irtysh,
ten miles from Tobolsk; it was the residence of the Shaïbani khans, and was
taken in 1581 by a handful of Cossacks under their ataman Yermak, who, in
his turn, was besieged by the Tatars, and lost his life in the river during a
sortie (1584). His countrymen have erected a monument at Tobolsk in
honour of this Russian Cortez.—Bruun.
(5.) “Alathena.”—Alla Tana for Tana, which stood where is now Azoff, was
a place of great importance in the 14th and 15th centuries. It was

completely destroyed by Timour in 1395, but the Venetians returned soon
afterwards, as would appear by the statement of Clavijo, that “six Venetian
galleys arrived at the great city of Constantinople to meet the ships which
were coming from Tana”. They maintained commercial intercourse with
Tana even after its destruction by the Tatars in 1410, by the Turks in 1415,
and later again by the Tatars; and there is the evidence of De Lannoy (Voy.
et Ambass., 43) that in 1421, four Venetian vessels arrived at Caffa from
that port. Schiltberger, who visited Tana at this period or shortly afterwards,
proves that it had recovered its commercial prosperity, at all events so far as
regards the fisheries, a fact supported by Barbaro.—Bruun.
(6.) “Vulchat.”—In saying that “Vulchat”, intended for Solkhat, was the
capital of “Ephepstzach” or Kiptchak, Schiltberger may not have been
aware that this latter name included the whole of South Russia and the
Crimea, of which, Solkhat, afterwards Esky Crim, actually became the chief
town. Neumann believes the author to have made a mistake, which may
have arisen from the fact that in his time there were many princes, as has
already been shown, who disputed the sovereignty; and a large portion of
Kiptchak may have recognised the authority of one or the other of those
princes who had taken up his residence at Solkhat, as for instance, the “viel
empereur” to whom De Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass., 42) was accredited as the
ambassador of Vithold in 1421, and who died at an unfortunate moment,
because the knight leaves us in ignorance of his name. I believe that ruler to
have been Ydegou, in the absence of any proof of Hammer’s statement
(Gesch. d. G. H., 352), that Vithold’s old ally was the chief of an
independent state on the shores of the Black Sea so late as the year 1423.—
Bruun.
(7.) “Four thousand houses are in the suburbs.”—The importance attached
to Caffa and the description of that city, is confirmed from other sources,
except with regard to the estimated number of houses within the walls, and
in the suburbs. That there were “two kinds of Jews” (the Talmudists and the
Karaïms) is a well-authenticated fact. The four towns at the sea-side,
dependant on Caffa, must have been Lusce, Gorzuni, Partenice, and Ialita,
now known as Aloushta, Gourzouff, Partenite, and Yalta, all on the south
coast of the peninsula, and the only places, besides Caffa, at which Genoese
consuls were stationed.—Bruun.

(8.) “Karckeri.”—Kyrkyer, now Tchyfout Kaleh—Jew’s Fortress—at one
time the residence of the Crimean khans, is at present occupied by three or
four Karaïm families only. It is situated in the hilly part of the Crimea,
which was called Gothia in the 15th century, a name carelessly transcribed
in the text as “Sudi”, where the people were derisively called by the Tatars
“That” or “Tatt”, a Turkish designation for a conquered race.—Bruun.
(9.) “That.”—Mourtadd is the Turkish for renegade. Pallas (Voy. d. les gouv.
méridionaux de l’emp. de Russie, ii, 150) found that the Crimean Tatars
applied the contemptuous term of Tadd to the Tatars on the south coast,
because they did not consider them of pure descent, in consequence of the
intercourse of their ancestors with the Greeks and Genoese during the
occupation by those Christian people of that part of the peninsula.—Ed.
(10.) “Serucherman.”—The author was well informed in saying that the
martyrdom of St. Clement took place here, the Saroukerman of Aboulfeda
who had never been in those parts; the “Kersona civitas Clementis” of
Rubruquis (Recueil de Voy. et de Mém., etc., iv) and which had been
constituted a bishop’s see in 1333.—Bruun.
(10a.) Sary kerman—Yellow Castle—was the name by which Cherson,
near modern Sevastópol, was known to Eastern writers. Pope Clement I.
was exiled by the Emperor Trajan to that part of the Tauric Chersonesus,
and suffered martyrdom by being thrown into the sea. According to the
legend, the sea receded upon every anniversary of the saint’s death, leaving
the body exposed on the shore during the space of seven days, until in the
9th century, Cyril and Methodius the Apostles of the Slaves (the originators
of the Slave alphabet), caused it to be interred at Cherson, whence the
remains were subsequently removed to Kieff by the grand-prince Vladimir
upon his conversion to Christianity.
The Church of Rome gives a different version of this legend, and maintains
that the relics of the pontiff are preserved in the church of St. Clement on
the Esquiline (The Crimea and Transc., i, 22, 98).—Ed.
(11.) “they suppose that a man struck by lightning is a saint.”—The
“Starchas” or Tcherkess—Circassians—were known to Giovanni dal Piano
di Carpine, Aboulfeda, Barbaro and others, and were more generally called
Zikhes and Cossacks, two branches of that people. The proof of the identity
of the Zikhes with the Cossacks or Tcherkess is to be found in Interiano

(Ramusio edition, 196), who visited the country in 1502: “Zychi in lingua
vulgare, greca et latina cosi chiamati, et da Tartari et Turchi dimandati
Ciarcassi”. Their identity, however, is established in the present work, and
therefore before the Italian’s travels; it being stated in chapter 56 that the
Turks designate the “Sygun”—Zikhes—by the name of “Ischerkas”—
Tcherkess. In the days of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp., c.
42), their territory extended along the Black Sea shore over a distance of
three hundred miles, from the river Oukroukh (Kouban), which separated
them from Tamatarcha (Taman), to the river Nicopsis at the frontier of
Abhase, a country that reached to Soteriopolis situated in all probability
where is now Pytzounda the ancient Pityus, to the north west of Soukhoum
Kaleh, for it is stated by Codinus (Hieroclis Synecdemus, etc., 315) that
Pityus was at one time called Soteropolis.
The Abhases and the Tcherkess speak different dialects of the same tongue
(Güldenstädt, Reisen durch Russl., i, 463). The former were converted to
Christianity through the exertions of the emperor Justinian, about a.d. 550;
but Christianity was spread among the Zikhes previously to this, and if
many adopted the Mahomedan faith, proofs are not wanting that they did so
from political motives and to please the Turks (Marigny, Voy. dans le pays
des Tcherkesses, in Potocki, ii, 308). Their conversion to Christianity has
never kept them from a love of pillage and the sale of their own children, as
is reported of them by Schiltberger and confirmed by Marigny, who is
unable to conceive how a people to whom freedom is the greatest boon
could think of thus disposing of their own offspring.
Marigny also confirms the statement that thunder was held in great
veneration by the Tcherkess. “They have no god of lightning”, says this
author, “but we should deceive ourselves in supposing that they never had
one. They hold thunder in great veneration, for they say it is an angel who
strikes the elect of God. The remains of one killed by lightning are buried
with the greatest solemnity, and whilst mourning his loss, relatives
congratulate each other upon the distinction by which their family has been
visited. When the angel is on his aerial flight, these people hurry out of their
dwellings at the noise he makes; and should he not be heard for any length
of time, they pray aloud entreating him to come to them.”—Bruun.
(11a.) The Tcherkess, which include the Natouhaïtz, Shapsoughy,
Abadzehy, Abhase and other tribes, were known to Strabo and Procopius as

persistent slave dealers and pirates, occupations which, according to the
records of every age, they pursued unceasingly until the complete
subjugation and annexation of their country by Russia in 1863. Dubois de
Montpéreux (Voy. autour du Caucase, etc., i, 258) says, writing in 1839,
that even under the suzerainty of Russia the Abhases would not give up the
nefarious traffic which embraced, under certain circumstances, the sale of a
son or daughter or sister; and so lately as 1856, Oliphant (Trans.-Cauc.
Campaign, 125) found that the Abhases indulged chiefly in the plunder of
human beings. “Seizing the handsomest boys and the prettiest girls, they
would tear them shrieking from their agonised parents, and swinging them
on their saddle-bow, gallop away with them through the forest, followed by
the cries and execrations of the whole population.”
The custom of placing the dead upon trees is practised at the present time in
Abhase, where they are suspended in coffins to the branches, which creak
as they are swayed by the wind, and produce melancholy noises (The
Crimea and Transc., ii, 136).—Ed.
(12.) “One is called Kayat, the other Inbu, the third Mugal.”—Considering
the little care taken by Schiltberger and his transcribers to hand down to us
proper and geographical names with sufficient exactness to enable us to
prove their identity, it is no easy task to determine what were the “Kayat”
and “Inbu” who, with the Mongols, formed the population of Great Tatary.
Whatever the correct names, they were probably communicated to
Schiltberger by the natives or their Mongol chiefs. The latter were able to
distinguish from their own people, those who had retained for a longer
period than others their hereditary chiefs under the suzerainty of the
descendants of Jengiz Khan. The principal tribes were undoubtedly the
Keraït and Uïgour, whose rulers, named Edekout, a name reminding us of
the celebrated “Edigi” whom Schiltberger accompanied to Siberia,
preserved their independence until the year 1328 (Erdmann, Temud. d. U.
R., 245). Neumann asserts that two of the tribes named were the Kajat or
Kerait, and the Uighur, a statement he leaves unsupported; we are therefore
justified in assuming that reference is made rather to the Kaïtak and
Jambolouk, two tribes the author must have had frequent opportunities of
meeting.
In Masoudi’s time, the Kaïtak or Kaïdak inhabited the northern slopes of the
Caucasus towards the Caspian Sea. There, also, Aboulfeda placed them, and

there they are to this day. We have seen how futile were their endeavours to
oppose Timour upon his last expedition against Toktamish, and that
Romanists and Christians of other denominations soon afterwards
introduced themselves amongst them; but that they had not discontinued
their evil practices is proved by the bitter experience of the Russian
merchant Nikitin, who was plundered when shipwrecked on their coast in
1468. It was in vain that he sought to recover his property, even though he
appealed to Shirvan Shah, brother-in-law to Ali Bek their prince (Dorn,
Versuch einer Gesch. der Schirwan-Sch., 582). The Kaïtak were a people of
sufficient importance to have attracted the notice of Schiltberger, when he
passed through their territory on his way from Persia to Great Tatary.
Whilst in those parts, the author must have spent some time amongst the
Nogaï of the tribes of Jambolouk or Yembolouk, as they are designated by
Thunmann (Büsching, Gr. Erdbeschr., iv, 387), and who were so named
because their earliest settlements were near the Jem or Yemba which flows
into the Caspian. It was only towards the close of the 18th century that they
moved to the western shores of the Sea of Azoff, where they met with other
Nogaï, at a time that the territory was being annexed to the Russian empire.
The wandering life of these Tatars, and their frequent internecine divisions,
justify us in assuming that in Schiltberger’s time the greater number, if not
the whole of the Jambolouks, had moved their encampments in a westerly
direction, and this explains why the Tatar duke met by De Lannoy (Voy. et
Ambass., 40) in 1421, who lived on the ground with all his people, was
named Jambo. It was in the power of the descendants of that duke to
remove to any other more convenient site; it is, therefore, very possible, that
the fortress and town of Yabou, ceded in 1517 by the Crimean Khan to
Sigismund of Poland, together with other places on the Dnieper, may have
belonged to him (Sbornyk by Prince Obolensky, i, 88). I feel that we are at
liberty to infer from these several facts that the “Inbu” were Tatars of the
Jambolouk Horde.—Bruun.
(13.) “and has daily twenty thousand men at his court.”—In writing after
his own fashion the native name of Fostat as “Missir”, erroneously called
Old Cairo by Europeans (Abd-Allatif, S. de Sacy edition, 424), Schiltberger
imagined that the name was equally applicable to Cairo, because at that
period the two towns had largely extended towards each other, so as to form
one city. De Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass., 80) distinguishes Cairo from Fostat

or Misr, which he calls Babylon, a name it had received in consequence of
the settlement there of a Babylonian colony in the reign of Cambyses
(Noroff, Pout. po Yeghyptou, i, 154). Even now the Copts include a part of
Cairo and of Fostat under the name of Boblien—Little Babylon—the new
Babylon of the writers of the middle ages, who took it upon themselves to
bestow on the sovereigns of Egypt the title of Sultan of Babylon, and some
of whom, Arnold of Lubeck for instance (Geschichtschr. der Deutsch.
Vorzeit., etc., xiii Jahrhund. iii, 283), have even confounded the Euphrates
with the Nile. De Lannoy assists us in a measure to discern the error into
which Schiltberger has fallen ... “est à-sçavoir que le Kaire, Babillonne et
Boulacq furent jadis chascune ville à par lui, mais à présent s’est tellement
édiffiée, que ce n’est que une mesme chose, et y a aucune manière de fossez
entre deux plas sans eaue, combien qu’il y a moult de maisons et chemins
entre deux, et peut avoir du Kaire à Babillonne trois milles et de Boulacq au
Kaire trois mille.” Noroff considered Boulak to be the Egyptian
Manchester, because of the manufactories established there by Mehemet
Ali. The population of the three towns was quite in proportion to their
extent, and certainly so continued until about twenty years before De
Lannoy’s arrival, when it decreased; indeed it is stated by Aboul-Mahazin,
that Egypt and Syria had fallen preys to every sort of calamity during the
reign of Faradj, 1399–1412. Apart from the Mongol invasion and incessant
civil war, those countries were assailed by the European maritime powers,
and visited by plague and famine, so that the population was reduced by
one-third.
There was a time when it was generally believed that the people in Cairo
could not be numbered, because it was considered the most populous city in
the world, with more inhabitants than all Italy contained, the vagabonds it
sheltered sufficing to fill Venice! In saying this, Breidenbach (Webb, A
Survey of Egypt and Syria, etc.) does not fail to observe: “Audita refero—
neque enim ipso numeravi.” Schiltberger may have thought the same, when
he computed the streets in “Missir” to be as numerous as were the houses in
Caffa; and this he did that his readers might be the better able to judge of
the difference between the two cities.
That the sultan’s suite consisted of twenty thousand men is most probable,
allusion being made to the dwellers in the citadel. Thus, De Lanuoy:—“est
ledit chastel moult grant comme une ville fermée, et y habite dedens avecq

le soudan grant quantité de gens, en espécial bien le nombre de deux mille
esclaves de cheval qu’il paye à ses souldées comme ses meilleurs gens
d’armes à garder son corps, femmes et enffans, et autres gens grant
nombre.”
In 1778, thirty thousand people lived in the citadel, one half of that number
being troops (Parsons, Travels in Asia and Africa, etc., 382).—Bruun.
(14.) “no person can be made king-sultan unless he has been sold.”—The
Mamelouk militia, formed, as the name indicates, of old slaves, arrogated to
themselves the right of elevating to the throne one of their own number,
upon the death of the sultan. See De Lannoy (83).—Bruun.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

(1.) “and on the spike he must rot.”—Among those who had reigned or
assumed the supreme power in Egypt, appear the names of “Marochloch”
and “Jusuphda”, intended for Barkok and Faradj; also “Mathas”, whose
reign intervened between that of “Marochloch” and “Jusuphda”. The
successors of the latter were “Zechem”, “Schyachin”, and
“Malleckchafcharff” also known as “Balmander”, who was no other than
Boursbaï, 1422–1438; he assumed upon his accession, according to custom,
the title of Ak Melyk, and the distinctive prefix of Alashraf Seif uddin
Aboul-Nazr—The most Noble Sword of the Faith, and Father of Victory
(Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 167). “Mathas” was Mintash or Mantash,
governor of Malatia, who, after having for a time replaced Barkok, perished
in 1393 by being broken on the wheel. It is possible, however, that Arabian
authors have otherwise described the mode of Mantash’s execution, through
misapprehension, because the sawing in two parts was a punishment of
antiquity, practised in eastern countries other than Egypt. Dion Cassius
(lxviii, 32) relates that the Jews in Cyrene and Egypt, under Trajan, having
revolted, sawed in two the Romans and Greeks who fell into their hands,
staining their faces with the blood of their victims, and adorning themselves
with the skin. In one of the admirable notes to his translation of Makrizi,
Quatremère (i, 72, note 103) cites numerous instances of this kind of
punishment in Schiltberger’s day, not in Egypt only, but also in Persia and
among the Mongols. The Russian princes captured after the battle of the
Kalka, in 1223, were thus tortured (Karamsin, Hist. de Russie, iii, 291).

“Zechem” is to be identified with Jakam, governor of Syria, who revolted
against Faradj. He was acknowledged as sultan in Syria, but succumbed in a
war with Kara Yelek in 1405–06.
“Schyachin” is a name that slightly recalls to mind Sheykh Mahmoud,
sultan in 1421; he was successor to the caliph Abbas al-mustein Billahy
who reigned for a few months after the death of Faradj in 1412; but Sheykh
Mahmoud died a natural death at an advanced age, and could not therefore
have been the ruler whose execution Schiltberger describes so minutely,
that he must have been a witness to his torments. None of Boursbaï’s
predecessors—Ahmed, the eldest son of Mahmoud—Tater, an old
Mamelouk—or Mohammed, the youngest son of Mahmoud, deposed by
Boursbaï, met with the fate of “Schyachin”, a name intended perhaps for
Azahiri, governor of Safad, who raised the standard of revolt at the very
commencement of Boursbaï’s reign. He was deserted by his followers, and
having surrendered was put to torture, 1422, perhaps enduring the
sufferings to which “Schyachin” was subjected.—Bruun.
(2.) “his title and superscription.”—Neumann believes that this letter, with
the titles it confers on the sultan, was the invention of the Armenians who
communicated it to the author; but there is nothing very extraordinary or
improbable in the statement, that Boursbaï had sent letters to various
Christian potentates upon the occasion of his daughter’s marriage, because
that sovereign entertained diplomatic and commercial relations with the
maritime republics of Italy, with the kings of Aragon and Cyprus, and the
emperor of Byzantium, to each of whom, and not to the Pope, was
addressed the letter to “Rom”, a word allowably substituted for Roum, a
name which included Greece and the Turkish possessions in Europe.—
Bruun.
(3.) “the all-powerful of Carthago.”—Boursbaï certainly committed an
anachronism in styling himself the autocrat of Carthage, for he could only
have possessed the ruins of that city. As the successor of the Fatimites, or
protector of the Abbasside caliphate, the sultan may have claimed Tunis,
built partly at his own expense, near the remains of Rome’s ancient rival,
whose renown in Africa must have survived, and whose name may
therefore have been preferred to that of Tunis. But I am more inclined to
substitute for Carthage that noted sanctuary of Islam, Kairvan, called by

Aboulfeda, Cayroan, and which was considered the most beautiful city in
Magreb.—Bruun.
(4.) “Lord of Zuspillen, Lord of the highest God in
Jherusalem.”—“Zuspillen” is applicable either to Sicily, which at one time
belonged to the Aghlabites, or still more so to Seville, called Ishbilia by the
Persians.
In a letter to Shah Rokh the son of Timour, in 833 of the Hegira, the sultan
Boursbaï styles himself Lord of Jerusalem; possibly the sense of the
passage turned by Schiltberger into “ain herr des obristen gots,” which,
being an imitation of the Hebrew, was Hebrew to him.—Bruun.
(5.) “Capadocie.”—It is doubtful whether Boursbaï, or the inventor of his
titles, would have mentioned any one place for the second time, yet the
name “Capadocie” appears twice. In his letter to Shah Rokh, Boursbaï
entitles Jerusalem, the Venerable; so that this “Capadocie” may have been
similarly intended for an appellation, since the region of that name would
be quite out of place between Jerusalem and the Jordan. It is possible,
however, that for “Capadocie” we should read Capernaum, now known as
Tell-Hum, where are many ruins which comprise those of an edifice
surpassing in grandeur and magnificence anything Robinson (Biblical
Researches, etc.) saw in Palestine.—Bruun.
(6.) “her son our nephew of Nazareth.”—It may fairly be doubted whether
this passage was really included amongst the sultan’s titles, its appearance
in the MS. being due to some misconception on the part of the author, from
his being but indifferently initiated in the mysteries of Mahomedanism;
how, otherwise, could he have supposed that his protector had entitled Jesus
his “neff”—nephew. With regard to Bethlehem and Nazareth, names
conceivably included in the list, Schiltberger may have been informed that
Mahomedans revere our Saviour as being one of their own Neby or chief
prophets; or he may have been told that Christ was designated Neffs, Neps
—spirit, soul. Jesus is also called Rouh—the Spirit of God.
Through some similar misconception, Boursbaï is made to boast of his
relationship to the Virgin Mary, which could not have been the case either,
seeing that she, in like manner, is venerated by Mussulmans.—Bruun.

(7.) “seventy-two towers all embellished with marble.”—That the number
seventy-two was employed by Asiatics to designate a large number, is
demonstrated by numerous examples, other than the following. Seventy-
two was the number of tribes in Syria; of the Mahomedan sects; of the
disciples of our Saviour; of the Persian Mushids; of the towers of Jeziret-
ibn-Omer, etc., etc. As to the seventy-two towers of “Germoni”, Robinson
(Biblical Researches, etc.) has noted that Hermon is surrounded as if by a
belt of temples.
“Talapharum” is the well-known Tell-el-Faras at the termination of Jabal-el-
Heis, a spur of Jabal-el-Sheykh or Hermon.—Bruun.
(8.) “inhabited by seventy-two languages.”—This “great forest” is the
Caucasus, the extent of the great mountain range in a direct line from sea to
sea, agreeing exactly with the length given. The seventy-two languages are
the seventy-two nationalities (Dorn, Geog. Cauc., 221), each of which
spoke a different tongue; they were the seventy-two nations confined by
Alexander beyond the Caspian Gates.
There exists a tradition, that when upon his death-bed Mahomet
recommended to the faithful the conquest of the Caucasus, a country he had
ever held in special veneration, so that several Shyite sects place it, in point
of sanctity, above the cities of Arabia (D’Ohsson, Des Peup. du Cauc., ii,
182). It is therefore not at all strange that the sovereignty over a region so
specially blessed and in which the sultan himself was born, should have
been included amongst his dignities, since he was entitled, in a measure, to
consider the power of the founder of Alexandria to be his heritage.
Claiming the monarchy, as he did, over the forests of the Caucasus, the
sultan naturally added thereunto his possession of Cappadocia, a portion of
which did indeed belong to him, and wherein he had every right to situate
Paradise. Mahomedans believe, as do Christians and Jews, that the Garden
was in a beautiful land called Adn, watered by a marvellous river which
was the source of the Euphrates, of the Tigris, the Jihoun (Pyramus of the
ancients) and the Syhoun (Sarus), all in Cappadocia or in its immediate
neighbourhood. Really, Boursbaï was no farther out in his calculations, than
were those learned men who recognised the two last-named rivers in the
Oxus and Jaxartes (Hammer), in the Araxes and Phasis (Brugsch), and even
in the Volga and Indus (Raumer)—Bruun.

(9.) “the guardian of the caves.”—The disappearance, a.d. 873, at the age of
twelve, of Mohammed the descendant of Ali and the twelfth and last Imam,
in a cave near Sermen Rey, distant thirty-two miles from Baghdad, gave
rise to numerous conjectures, all of equal absurdity. The Shyites believe that
this Mehdy, or celestial judge, is still in the unknown cave, and they await
his return as impatiently as do the Jews that of the Messiah. The Sunnites
are satisfied that when the world comes to an end, he will make his
appearance accompanied by three hundred and sixty celestial spirits, and
prevail upon the people of the earth to embrace Islamism (D’Ohsson,
Tableau. général de l’E. O., i, 152).
The sultan of Egypt is said to have styled himself “the guardian of the
caves” (ein vogt der hellen), perhaps because the cavern was under his
protection; but it is also possible that for “hellen” we should read Helle or
Halle, the German for Hillah, on the site of ancient Babylon, and celebrated
for such holy places in its neighbourhood as Kerbela and Mesjyd Ali, the
Campo Santo to which the Shyites perform pilgrimages (Ritter, Die
Erdkunde etc., ix, 842, 869, 955).—Bruun.
(10.) “Destructor of the Gods.”—It is impossible to agree with Penzel, that
Schiltberger entertained the strange notion of having seen a protector of hell
in that Boursbaï, whom Penzel himself admits had glorified himself as
being the friend of all gods (aller Götter Freund), because the last title on
the list is “Destructor of the Gods” (Ain mäg der götter). But here Penzel is
again at fault in his interpretation of Schiltberger’s meaning, because the
monarch who claimed to be the Light of the true Faith (S. de Sacy,
Chrestom. Arabe, 322), rather than boast of his friendship for the gods,
would have declared himself to be, in keeping with the tenets of his
religion, the implacable enemy to idolatry, a destructor of gods, a Mahhy,
transformed in the text into “mäg”.
There is some difficulty in accounting for the sultan’s usurpation of the title
of “the mighty emperor of Constantinoppel”. In his letter to Shah Rokh,
alluded to in note 4, page 184, he wrote as follows: “The kings of the earth
have come from all parts as the bearers of their homage. The King of
Hormuz, the Sultan of Hisn, the son of Karaman; these princes, sovereigns
of their countries, the Sultan of the revered city of Mecca, the Sultans of
Yemen, of Magreb, and of Tekrour, the King of Cyprus, since dead, all have
presented themselves at my Court”. This king of Cyprus, who was named

John and died in 1432, was captured by the Egyptians on their expedition to
the island in 1426, and being forced to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
sultan, agreed to pay annual tribute to the amount of twenty thousand
dinars, to enable him to obtain his freedom (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 177).
John II., emperor of Byzantium, sought, but in vain, to intercede for the
king by entering into negociations with the sultan (ibid., 173), upon which
occasion he may possibly have stooped to pay homage as others did, for he
was not ashamed at another time to prostrate himself and kiss the Pope’s
slipper. It is likely enough that he presented himself under the name of
Tekrour, a country Silvester de Sacy is at a loss to determine. Tekrour,
however, need not have been the name of a country at all, but a corruption
of Takfour, a designation in the East for the emperor of Constantinople.
The homage of the ruling powers on earth, did not suffice to satisfy the
despot Boursbaï, for his ambition wafted him to the skies (“the lord [of the
places] where Enoch and Helyas are buried”), the place of sepulture, say the
Mahomedans, of their prophets Enoch, and Elias the protector of travellers,
and who is believed by the Jews to have been borne away to heaven
(D’Ohsson, l. c., i, 51, 111).
Another title, though less bombastic, is still more puzzling, unless
“Kaylamer” is to be identified with the fortress of Kalamil visited in 1221
by Willbrand of Oldenburg (Viv. de Saint-Martin, Desc. de l’A. M., i, 488),
after leaving Mamistra (Mopsvesta of the ancients, Mimistra of the
Byzantines, the actual Missis). When upon this journey, Willbrand left on
his right hand a place called the King’s Black Castle, an indication that
conducts us with Saint-Martin to the defile known to the ancients as the
Pylæ Armeniæ or Pylæ Ciliciæ, now called Demyr Kapou by the Turks;
evidently the same locality as that noticed by Marino Sanudo (Liber Secret.
Fidel., etc., 221—Pauthier, Marco Polo, cxxxii, 1). “Tartari autem sequenti
anno (1260) violenter irrumpentes, ceperunt Alapiam, Harem, Hamam,
Calamelam et Damascum.” The fortress of Calamela being included among
the chief cities in Syria, it is to be inferred that its strategical and
commercial importance had greatly increased during the half century that
transpired after Willbrand’s visit. Nor does Calamila seem to have escaped
the notice of Italian navigators, for the name, slightly varied, appears in the
hydrographic charts of the 14th century. In the Catalan atlas, 1375, for
instance, Caramila is evidently the same as the Cramela spoken of by the

author of Liber Secretorum Fidelium, etc., who observes that it stood on the
site of ancient Issus, the gulf of this city being marked on the chart, “golfo
de Cramela”. At that time, Cramela divided the possessions of the sultan of
Egypt from those of the king of Armenia; and considering its importance,
the sultan may not have disdained to style himself amir of Calamila,
transformed by Schiltberger into “Amorach of Kaylamer”.
The next name, “Galgarien”, is undoubtedly intended for Khozary or
Gazary, described by Marino Sanudo (Kunstmann, Stud. über M. S. 105) as
Galgaria, a dependancy of the Tatars, inhabited by “Gothi et aliqui Alani”.
It was a Genoese possession in the Crimea, whence was carried on a large
export trade, chiefly in slaves to Alexandria, where many afterwards
became men of note; but Khozary was a dependancy of Kiptchak, a name
that signifies—hollow tree—the distinctive title immediately following that
of “the mighty emperor of Galgarien” as “the Lord of the withered tree”.
The rulers of Kiptchak, or khans of the Golden Horde, were long bound by
the strictest ties of friendship to the sultans of Egypt, and as zealous
followers of Mahomet, were not likely to question their right to hold the
first place among the monarchs of Islam.
That the high position attained by those sultans did not influence them
against according their protection to Christian potentates, is evident from
the intimate relations that existed between themselves and the kings or
emperors of Abyssinia, among whom should certainly be included “Prester
John, in enclosed Rumany”.
It is now generally admitted that Marco Polo, with his usual good faith,
stated the precise truth in affirming that in his time, one George, a
descendent of Prester John, became the governor of a province as a vassal
of China. This prince professed the Roman Catholic faith, instead of
Nestorianism as did his grandfather Ovang Khan, chief of the Keraits, and
not, as Oppert has sought to prove (Der Presb. Johannes in Sage und
Gesch., etc., Berlin, 1864) of the Gour Khan of the Karakhitaians
mentioned by Rubruquis. In either case it is pretty certain that so soon as
European intercourse with the interior of Asia decreased, the existence of a
Christian state on the Nile, to the south of Egypt, became more generally
known; a state to which Haythoun, the Armenian historian, had already
directed the Pope’s attention (De Tartaria, c. 57, apud Webb, A Survey of
Egypt and Syria, etc., 394), and it thereafter became the custom to

metamorphose the Christian monarch of the Nubians and Abyssinians into
Prester John. Like Schiltberger, De Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass., 93) knew of
no other Prester John, and far from admitting his dependance on the sultan,
a condition to be inferred by the title of protector attributed to the latter by
Schiltberger, the knight implies that it was rather the sultan who was in a
state of dependance on Prester John, in whose power it lay to “destourber le
cruschon” of the Nile, which he certainly would have done, but for the fear
of victimising the many Christians in Egypt.
In another chapter, De Lannoy terms these Christians “Christians of the
girdle”, a name that was applied, says his commentator (Webb), in
consequence of a law promulgated a.d. 856 by the caliph Motonakek,
which prescribed that Jews and Christians should wear a broad leathern
girdle. It appears, however, that in course of time the Nestorians and
Jacobites also became subject to the same law, and this accounts for the
expression, “Prester John, in enclosed Rumany”, which, if intended for
Abyssinia, a country mistaken by Marco Polo and De Lannoy for that of the
Brahmins, would indicate that the former was inhabited by the Christians of
the girdle. (De Lannoy styles the primate of the Copts, the primate of
India.) That they were believed to be in Abyssinia is proved in the following
lines from Juan de la Encina’s narrative of his journey to Jerusalem in the
year 1500.
“Hay muchas naciones alli de Christianos,
De Griegos, Latinos, y de Jacobitas,
Y de los Armenios, y mas Maronistas
Y de la cintura, que son Gorgianos:
Y de estos parecen los mas Indianos,
De habito y gesto mas feo, que pulcro:
Mas quanto al gozar del Santo Sepulcro
Son prógimos todos en Christo y hermanos.”

This author evidently confounds the Georgians with the Abhases and the
latter with the Abyssinians, as had frequently been done before him. In
quoting from documents preserved among the archives at Königsberg, a
letter from Conrad of Jungingen, Grand-Master of the Teutonic Order, dated
January 20, 1407, and addressed to Prester John, “regi Abassiæ”, Karamsin
(Hist. de Russie, iii, 388), observes, that the superscription applies to the
king of Abhase in the region of the Caucasus, and not to the king of
Abyssinia. We read, likewise, in the chronicle of Alberic (Rel. de Jean du

Plan de Carpin, 161) that the legate Pelagius “misit nuntios suos in
Abyssiniam terram et Georgianorum, qui sunt viri catholici”.
The friendship that existed between the “negus christianissimus” and the
sultan was certainly but rarely interrupted, probably because they
sympathised in each other’s apprehensions; but the sentiments entertained
by Boursbaï towards the caliph, must have been of a different nature, so that
he may have taken upon himself to borrow the title of “guardian of
Wadach”, or Baghdad.—Bruun.
(11.) “This is done on all the roads of the king-sultan.”—It would appear
that during the author’s stay in Egypt, the ladies of that country exceeded all
bounds in the abuse of the freedom they were permitted to enjoy during the
Baïram festivities, judging by the severe measures adopted by the sultan, to
their prejudice, in 1432 (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., v, 208). It was forbidden to
every woman, and there were no exceptions, to leave her house, so that the
unmarried even incurred the risk of dying of starvation. This law was
subsequently modified in favour of coloured slaves and old women, and the
young were only permitted to leave their home for the bath, on the express
understanding that they returned immediately afterwards.
By another decree, promulgated in the early part of his reign, the sultan
Boursbaï abolished the ancient custom which required that the ground
should be kissed by all who were admitted to his presence; and it was
thenceforth ordained, that according to the rank of the person introduced, so
his hand or the hem of his garment should be kissed. But he was soon
persuaded to resort to the old usage, except that instead of kissing the
ground with the mouth, those presented were to touch the ground with the
hand, which was then to be kissed. Schiltberger could not have been in
Egypt before the abolition of the above ridiculous and barbarous custom, in
the first year of Boursbaï’s reign; but there were no doubt numerous
instances in his day of obsequious courtiers and other parasites who did
actually kiss the ground. The ceremonial and etiquette observed at the
presentation and reception of ambassadors, was in accordance with the
customs of the Turks and Tatars upon such occasions.
The little bell for post-horses was introduced by the Mongols into Russia,
and having been in use on post-roads ever since the time of their

domination, has substituted the horn of the French and German postillion.
—Bruun.
(12.) “and they send it to whosoever it belongs.”—Pigeons were employed
in Asia as earners, in very remote times. It was pigeon service of which the
daughter of the governor of Atra, Hatra, or al Hadr, availed herself, that
enabled Sapor, king of Persia, 240–271, to capture the city which the
emperor Severus had failed to take. It is recorded by numerous European
and Eastern writers, that the pigeon-post was in general use in Syria and
Egypt during the Crusades. In his story of the Crusade under Henry VI., in
1196, Arnold, bishop of Lubeck, describes the training of pigeons, which
was similar to what we read in the text, and observes that “the Infidels are
more highly gifted than the children of light”, the training of pigeons being
the invention of the Infidels, whose practice was imitated by their enemies.
After the fall of Baïrouth in 1197, Boemund, prince of Antioch, announced
the good tidings to his subjects by despatching a pigeon.
Khalil Daheri (Quatremère, i, 55, note 77), an Arabian writer of the 15th
century, reports that Belbeis, Salehieh, Katia, and Varradeh or Barideh,
were the pigeon-post stations on the road to Syria. According to Makrizi
(ibid., 56), Varradeh was distant eighteen miles from Alarih. Query? Fort
Arich or el-Arich in Lower Egypt, where the French capitulation was
signed in 1800. Aboul-Mahazin declares that Bir al-Kady—The Kady’s
well—must have marked the limits of Syria and Egypt.
Another Arabian writer (Abd-Allatif, S. de Sacy edition, 43) calls Alarich,
Alaris—changed by the bishop of Lubeck, as his German editors believe,
into Ahir, a name almost to be identified with “Archey”, one of the principal
pigeon stations.—Bruun.
(13.) “sacka.”—Literally, in Turkish, a water-carrier. A pelican is sákà
koútchou.—Ed.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

(1.) “The Infidels call the mountain Muntagi.”—Hushan dagh, the correct
name given by the Arabs, is here handed down to us as “Muntagi”, which
differs so widely from the native appellation of Sinaï, that it may have been
derived from the word Montagna, possibly the generic name by which the

mount was known to pilgrims. In such a case, Schiltberger’s companions
would have been Italians, who, on the supposition that they were mariners,
supplied him with the details he gives on the Red Sea—its breadth, which is
represented at double its actual extent—and the information that it had to be
crossed to attain Sinai; although we know from De Lannoy that the journey
from Egypt was performed “en costiant la mer”. The knight makes no
mention of the wonderful supply of oil at the monastery of St. Catherine,
nor of the other miracles performed by the saint; but he explains why the
Infidels went to Sinai. At the foot of the mount was a church of St.
Catherine, “à manière d’un chastel, forte et quarrée, où les trois lois de
Jhésu-Crist, de Moyse et de Mahommet sont en trois églises représentées”.
—Bruun.
(1a.) This somewhat confused description of St. Catherine’s mount and of
Mount Sinaï, is to be accounted for by Schiltberger’s statement that he had
not ascended the latter, and that he described the sites from hearsay only. He
distinguishes, however, St. Catherine from what he calls “Muntagi, the
mountain of the apparition”, upon which, as he was informed, God
appeared to Moses in a burning bush; where flows the spring from the rock
that Moses struck with his staff; the site where our Lord delivered to him
the tables with the ten Commandments, etc., etc. “Muntagi” may therefore
have been intended for Musa dagh, the Turkish, as Jabal Musa is the Arabic
for Mountain of Moses, about which, in the words of Dean Stanley (Sinai
and Palestine, 39) the traditions of Israel have lingered, certainly since the
6th century, and perhaps from a still earlier date. Mount Sinaï is called Tur
Sina by Ibn Haukal, and Jabal Tur and Et Tur by Edrisi and Aboulfeda.—
Ed.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

(1.) “the village of Mambertal.”—“Mambertal” for Mamre, by which name
Hebron also was known (Gen. xii, 18; xxxv, 27), and was probably so
called after Mamre the Amorite, the friend of Abraham (Gen. xiv, 13). Sir
John Mandevile’s tradition of the Dry Tree (Voyages and Travels, etc.) as it
was related to him, agrees almost word for word with the tale in the text,
except that Sir John saw an oak, whereas Schiltberger’s tree was called by
the Infidels “carpe” (Sir John writes Dirpe), and selvy is the Turkish for
cypress. Commentators on the Holy Scriptures have said that plains of
Mamre (Gen. xiii, 18; xviii, 1) is a mis-translation for oaks of Mamre, but
the Turkish for oak is meyshe. The great tree seen by Robinson in 1838
(Biblical Researches, etc., ii, 81) was an oak; it measured 22-1/2 feet in
circumference in the lower part, the branches extending over a diameter of
89 feet. It stood solitarily near a well in the midst of a field, and was sound
and in a thriving state. A long and comprehensive note on the Arbre Sec or
Arbre Sol, will be found in Yule’s Marco Polo, i, 132.—Ed.
(2.) “it is well taken care of.”—The distance from Hebron to Jerusalem, as
given in chapter 40, is correct (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 201); so is the
statement that Hebron was the chief city of the Philistines, for Josephus
(Wars, etc., xii, 10) says that it was a royal city of the Canaanites.
“Carpe” may have indicated the caroub or locust tree (Die charube von
Kufin; see Rosen, Die Patriarchengruft zu Hebron, in Zeitschrift f. allg.
Erdk., neue Folge, xiv, 426), or the turpentine tree, which Josephus and
others have stated grew in those parts, where a small and sterile valley still
bears the significant name of Sallet-el-Boutmeh—Place of the Turpentine
tree. In course of time, the turpentine tree of Josephus became confounded
with Abraham’s oak, mentioned in the Bible, which the Russian pilgrim
Daniel (Noroff, Péler. en T. S., 77) says he found in leaf, and might have
been a huge tree of the sort noticed by Robinson. The tree seen by
Schiltberger must have been of another kind, because it was withered; he
could not otherwise have transmitted to us the prophecy so encouraging to
our own desires, and in accordance with the presentiments of the Infidels
themselves, that the day will come when they shall be expelled from the
holy places.
No person is allowed to enter the mosque wherein the holy patriarchs lie
(see page 60), as was the case in the 15th century, unless provided with the

sultan’s firman. We are told by Novairi and other authors (Makrizi by
Quatremère, ii, 249), that when the sultan Bibars, 1260–1264, visited Khalil
(Hebron), and learnt that Christians and Jews were permitted to enter upon
payment of a fee, he at once put a stop to the practice. Hammer (Gesch. der
Ilchane, etc., 129) states that Mussulmans have held Hebron in great
estimation since the reign of the caliph Mostershid (stabbed to death by an
assassin in 1120), when the remains of several bodies found in the caves,
were passed off as being those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, although,
according to Moses, they were interred at Hebron, where their places of
sepulture are pointed out by Christians.
The author of Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum (Parthey et Pinder, Itiner. Ant.
Aug., etc., 283) thus writes with reference to the beautiful church
constructed by Constantine the Great near the turpentine tree of Abraham:
“Inde Terebinth Cebron mil. ii, ubi est memoria per quadrum ex lapidibus
miræ pulchritudinis, in qua positi sunt Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarra,
Rebecca et Lea.”
About the year 600, there was already a cathedral in the quadrum, and
twelve months later Bishop Arnulphus found the monolith cenotaphs of the
three patriarchs, one being that of Adam; other smaller ones were assigned
to their wives. At that period Hebron belonged to the Arabs, who gloried in
their descent from Abraham, which accounts for the erection by them of a
mosque over the remains of their ancestor. It was only after the conquest of
Jerusalem by the Crusaders that the place was made over to the Christians
for religious purposes; this we learn from Sœwulf (Recueil de Voy. et de
Mém., etc., 817–854) who went to Palestine in 1102, and the Russian
pilgrim Daniel (Noroff, Péler. en T. S., 95), who in 1115 saw a superb
edifice at Hebron, in the crypt of which was the sepulchre of the patriarch
within a chapel of circular form. Rosen says that the presence of Jews
within this sanctuary was tolerated by the Crusaders, a privilege, however,
for which they had to pay, according to the evidence of Benjamin of Tudela,
and of his co-religionist Petachy of Ratisbon, who travelled in Palestine
twelve years later. Hebron passed into the hands of the Mussulmans long
before the fall of Acre, after which event the Christians in their turn were
taxed for the liberty of entering.
Among those of Schiltberger’s predecessors who have left an account of
what they saw and learnt during their sojourn in Palestine, are the German

monk, Brocardus, towards the close of the 13th century—Sir John
Mandevile, 1372—and the German pilgrim, Ludolph von Suchem, whose
work, Libellus de Itinere ad T. S., is considered the best itinerary for the
Holy Land in the 14th century.
De Lannoy was in Palestine at about the same time as the author, but does
not report having been at Hebron; he however supplies a list of the holy
places, that was compiled, as he states, by Pope Sylvester at the request of
the emperor Constantine and of “Sainte Helaine”, his mother. Three cities
of “Ebron” are included: “La neufve et la moienne, de laquelle est l’esglise
où sont ensepvelis Adam, Abraham, Isaac et Jacob et leurs femmes”....
“Item, Ebron, la vielle, en laquelle David regna sept ans et six mois.” It is
desirable that these two passages should be quoted, because in the works I
have cited, such as Noroff’s, Raumer’s, Rosen’s, and in others which dwell
largely on Hebron, one city only of the name is mentioned.—Bruun.
(3.) “but now there is only a pillar.”—If tradition is to be relied on, it was
the mother of Constantine who built the Church of the Annunciation, which
had already ceased to exist in Schiltberger’s time. In 1620 a handsome
church was erected on the same site (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 136), and a
column at the foot of seventeen steps indicated the spot where the angel
Gabriel appeared to the Virgin; it was possibly the pillar referred to in the
text. The pilgrim Daniel describes the earliest church, situated in the centre
of the city, as being large and handsome, and enclosing three altars. It was
destroyed by the sultan Bibars in 1263 (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., iv, 46;
Makrizi by Quatremère, I, i, 200).—Bruun.

CHAPTER XL.

(1.) “I went twice to Jherusalem with a koldigen.”—Schiltberger’s
commentators have not been able to identify the word “koldigen”, to which
Koehler (Germania, vii, 371–380) puts a mark of interrogation, observing
that it is written in precisely the same manner in two early editions.
Frescobaldi in 1384 (Viaggi in Terra Santa) speaks of the monks at the
monastery on Sinaï as Calores, instead of Καλογέροι. If Joseph,
Schiltberger’s companion, was a Christian, he might very possibly have
been a Kalogeros, a title turned into “Koldigen”.—Bruun.

(1a.) Another suggestion! Khodja is a corruption of the Persian word Khaja,
a term that in the East generally denotes a merchant (Garcin de Tassy, Les
Noms Propres et les Titres Musulm., 68). Or an interpretation of “Koldigen”
is perhaps to be found in Koul, the Turkish for a detachment or small body
of men, and jy, a termination significative of office, profession, or trade, as
for instance, arabajy, one who drives; kayikjy, a boatman; ghemijy, a sailor,
and similarly, Kouljy, one who leads a body of men. In European Turkey,
however, Kouljy means also a coast-guard-man, and in other parts of that
empire the term is applied to a keeper or custodian. In his Russian edition,
Professor Bruun submits the word Koljy derived from Koll, the title of
those of the second class of the Monastic Order of Kalender, the founder of
which Order, singularly enough, was one named Joseph. With the reader
must remain the privilege of deciding upon Joseph’s calling, whether monk,
merchant, coast-guard-man, or custodian!—Ed.
(2.) “The Infidels call Jherusalem, Kurtzitalil.”—Jerusalem is called by the
Turks, Kouds Shereef, with the first part of which name might be associated
the first syllable “Kurtz”; but Shereef could scarcely have been corrupted to
“italil”, which reminds me of Halil, a term pre-eminently applied to
Abraham the friend of God, and given to the gate of the city that leads to
Hebron, known as the Bab-el-Halil (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 201).—
Bruun.
(3.) “the pilgrims can kiss and touch it.”—The Russian pilgrim Daniel
observed three openings in the marble slab, through which the sacred stone
could be seen and kissed; but the indiscreet zeal of pilgrims, says Noroff,
who contrived to chip off fragments, necessitated its protection from further
mutilation.—Bruun.
(4.) “a brightness above the holy sepulchre, that is like fire.”—Some people
believed that this miracle was performed through the intervention of a dove,
while others attributed it to lightning. The Russian pilgrim Daniel explains
to his readers that it is only those who have not attended during the
celebration in church that could be sceptic as to the appearance of this light
from heaven, and he trusts that the truly faithful and of good repute will
believe in all the miracles that take place within the sanctuary! He
concludes his observations by quoting Luke xvi, 10.—Bruun.

(4a.) Of the lamp that burned in front of the Holy Sepulchre, Sir John
Mandevile has also recorded that “it went out of itself, on Good Friday, and
again lit itself at the hour that our Lord rose from the dead.” This lamp
Schiltberger may have seen, but it appears doubtful whether he witnessed
the performance of the miracle of the Holy Fire, “the brightness above the
Holy Sepulchre, that is like fire”, or he surely would have described the
supernatural occurrence.
This Easter miracle at the Holy Sepulchre has been the theme of most
travellers who have witnessed it ever since the days of Charlemagne. Henry
Maundrell (Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, etc., 96) was present at the
Easter festival (1697) during the ceremony kept up by the Greeks and
Armenians, upon the persuasion that every Easter a miraculous flame
descends from heaven into the Holy Sepulchre. He describes the fearful
tumult and clamour made by the people in their wild excitement in
anticipation of the miraculous appearance of the Holy Fire at the sepulchre,
produced, as he exposes, by the two miracle-mongers, the Greek and
Armenian bishops, who had entered the sepulchre alone for the purpose.
When they issued with two blazing torches in their hands, all the people
rushed with candles that they might obtain the purest fire sent down from
heaven, which they instantly applied to their beards, faces, and bosoms,
pretending that it would not burn like an earthly flame; but Maundrell says
he saw plainly that none could endure the experiment long enough to make
good that pretension.
Dean Stanley, who was at Jerusalem in 1853 (Sinaï and Palestine, 467),
states that Maundrell’s account is an almost exact transcript of what was
still to be seen. Captain Warren also witnessed the strange doings in 1867–
70 (Underground Jerusalem, 429–437); and in The Graphic, Sept. 21, 1878,
was published an interesting illustration of the interior of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre during the performance of the miracle, together with a short
account of the proceedings. “After a procession of bishops and priests thrice
round the building, the Patriarch enters the Sepulchre. Now the noise
becomes greater and greater ... making the place more like an Inferno than
the Church of Christ.... The Holy Fire now issues from the holes in the
walls, and hundreds of hands are stretched out as they frantically try to light
their candles at the flame.... By this time one candle has ignited the other,
and the crowd below is one mass of moving flame.” There is no abatement,

in this the 19th century, in the huge sham, with its attendant blind
superstition and noisy demonstrations.—Ed.
(5.) “the priests from the country of Prester John.”—Upon descending the
steps on the east side of Calvary (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 301), another
flight of twenty-four steps is reached, at the foot of which is the Chapel of
St. Helena, whence another flight of eleven steps conducts to the place
where the cross of Christ and those of the two thieves were found. Here is
an altar of the Latin church. The chapel of the Jacobites must have been
higher up, near the Chapel of St. John which enclosed the tomb of the
Baron of the Holy Sepulchre and of his brother, the first king of Jerusalem;
interesting monuments that have been destroyed, not by the Turks but by
the Greeks (Richter, Wallfahrten in Morgenlande, 22).—Bruun.
(6.) “the church of Saint Steffan, where he was stoned.”—It is asserted on
tradition (Noroff, Péler. en T. S., 19) that St. Stephen was stoned in front of
the sepulchre of the Holy Virgin, on the road that leads from the Gate of St.
Stephen, called also the Gate of Gethsemane. But there was another gate on
the north side of the city, that was named by the Crusaders after the first
Christian martyr, because it was believed that he was stoned in front of it;
this gate is now the Gate of Damascus.
Noroff states further, that in ancient times there was upon the same side a
church of St. Stephen, which was demolished by the Christians in
consequence of its proximity to the walls, and because it presented an
obstacle to their defence. Daniel the Russian pilgrim, saw that church intact,
and asserts that St. Stephen there met his death and was buried.
Schiltberger, no doubt, found it in ruins. De Lannoy, without mentioning the
church, was of opinion that the martyr suffered death close to the gate
which bore his name, the spot being near Kedron and the sepulchre of the
Holy Virgin. The old chronicler Adamnanus (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 312,
note 92), in describing the basilica of Zion with its cœnaculum, says: “Hic
petra monstratur supra quam Stephanus lapidatus extra civitatem
obdormitavit.” According to Daniel, Zion was not within the city.—Bruun.
(7.) “Another hospital that rests on fifty-four marble columns.”—The ruins
of this, the palace of the Hospitallers or Knights of the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem, are still to be seen to the south of, and at no great distance from
the Church of the Resurrection. A church and monastery dedicated to the

Holy Virgin were erected on this spot in 1048; and shortly afterwards were
constructed near these edifices, another church, a monastery, and hospital,
dedicated to St. John the Baptist. Gerard, almoner of this hospital, instituted
in 1118 the celebrated Order of Hospitallers.—Bruun.
(7a.) Benjamin of Tudela knew of two hospitals at Jerusalem which
supported four hundred knights, and afforded shelter to the sick. The four
hundred knights were ever ready to wage war together with those who came
from the country of the Franks. One hospital was called that of Salmon,
having been originally the palace built by Solomon.—Ed.
(8.) “Infidels do not allow either Christians or Jews to enter it.”—This must
be the place where Omar about the year 640 constructed the great mosque,
afterwards converted into a Christian church that was named Τὰ Ἅγια τῶν
Ἁγίων. The Crusaders called it Templum Domini, by which designation it
was known to Schiltberger, although it was in the hands of the
Mahomedans.—Bruun.
(9.) “called the throne of Salomon.”—This has reference to the site of the
mosque of Aksa, previously the Church of the Presentation of the Virgin,
built by Justinian in 530. The Russian pilgrim, Daniel, saw it in the wrecked
state to which it had been reduced at the conquest of Jerusalem by the
Franks, who there met with the most determined resistance on the part of
the Mussulmans.—Bruun.
(10.) “there our Lord healed the bed-ridden man.”—It was generally
supposed that the pool and the palace of the templars occupied the site of
the temple of Solomon, close to the mosque of Aksa (Raumer, Palæstina,
etc., 297). Daniel knew of the residence of Solomon only, because the
palace was not constructed until the Order of Hospitallers was established
in 1119, that is to say, four or five years after his stay in the Holy Land. The
church, and the dwellings of the templars, were destroyed in 1187 by
Saladin, so that there was nothing for Schiltberger to see but their remains.
—Bruun.
(11.) “the house of Herod.”—At no great distance from the pool, stood a
house said to have been that of Pilate; the modern edifice on the south side
of the Sakhara or mosque constructed by Omar in 637, is the residence of
the pasha. It is supposed that the palace of Herod was farther away to the
east, and to the right of the Via Dolorosa.—Bruun.

(12.) “A church, called that of Saint Annen,” is noticed by De Lannoy, who
adds that this was the birth-place of St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin
Mary; but he makes no allusion to the head of St. Stephen, or the arm of St.
John Chrysostom, relics which, through some mistake of the author, or of a
scribe, have usurped the place of those of St. Joachim the spouse of St.
Anne. Daniel asserts that a church consecrated to the latter existed in his
day; it stood over their dwelling and place of burial.—Bruun.
(13.) “Mount Syon ... stands higher than the city.”—The wall constructed
by Souleiman, the Magnificent, 1536–1539, traverses the ridge of the hills.
Within it, near an Armenian chapel, is pointed out the house of Annas, and
at a short distance is the principal church of the Armenians, dedicated to St.
James the Elder who was there beheaded. Within the wall stood the house
of Caiphas the high priest, now the Church of the Holy Saviour also
belonging to the Armenians, and in which is preserved the slab that closed
the Saviour’s tomb. This is probably the same church as described by
Schiltberger; called that of the Holy Saviour by De Lannoy (Voy. et
Ambass., 54), who says that it was in the occupation of Catholics, or
perhaps of Armenians who recognised the supremacy of the Pope, but not
of the Gregorians. This church could not have existed in the time of Daniel,
because he simply mentions the house of Caiphas.
Close at hand was the cœnaculum, in which the Last Supper took place—
where the Holy Ghost fell on the apostles—where the Holy Virgin expired,
and where Jesus Christ washed the apostles’ feet. The Church of Zion or of
the Virgin Mary, that stood here and is described by Daniel and others, was
afterwards occupied by the Franciscan friars, and eventually became a
mosque. William of Tyre (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 312), Schiltberger and
his contemporaries, Zosimus (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 50) and De Lannoy, all
agree that here was the tomb of St. Stephen; De Lannoy, however, adds that
it was the second place of his interment.—Bruun.
(14.) “A beautiful castle which was built by the king-sultan.”—This citadel
on the western side of the mount was constructed during the Crusades by
the Pisans, the tower of David which formed a part of it being of more
ancient date. Daniel and others considered it a formidable fortification.—
Bruun.

(15.) “King Soldan.”—The tomb of Solomon, described by several
pilgrims, adjoined that of David. De Lannoy calls it the burial place of
twelve other kings.—Bruun.
(16.) “A brook in the valley of Josophat.”—On the banks of this stream, the
Kedron, and at no great distance from the garden of Gethsemane, is a large
rectangular edifice that was constructed by the Empress Helena. Tobler (Die
Siloahquelle, 149), who has taken the trouble to record the number of steps
counted by thirty-eight travellers, his predecessors, without however
including Schiltberger, places the tomb of the Virgin at the foot of forty-
seven steps. Near the above edifice are four sepulchral monuments that
have been differently described, as their origin is unknown. Their style is
partly Greek and partly Egyptian, and they somewhat resemble the
monuments at Petra. They are fully described by Robinson, Biblical
Researches, etc., and Kraft, Die Topographie Jerusalems, Berlin, 1846.—
Bruun.
(17.) “the mount of Galilee.”—This is intended to designate the northern
summit of the Mount of Olives, on which was the tower Viri Galilei, so
called because two men in white stood there at the moment of the
Ascension (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 310). De Lannoy refers to this spot
when describing pilgrimages to the Mount of Olives: “Item, le lieu de
Galilée, où Jhésu-Crist s’apparut à ses onze appostres”; only he has
confounded the place where the two stood with that of the eleven.—Bruun.
(18.) “Dead Sea, which is one hundred and fifty stadia wide.”—Josephus
(Wars, etc., iv, 8, 3) wrote that the Dead Sea was 580 stadia in length, and
150 stadia wide. Seetzen (Reiseberichte in Monatliche Correspondenz,
Berlin, 1854, xviii, 440), gives the width at 13-1/2 English miles, which
Robinson reduces to 11-1/4 miles, at the same time observing that the water
level rose from 10 feet to 15 feet; and that when he happened to be there in
the month of May, the water had sufficiently risen to inundate, over the
space of one mile, a salt lake on its southern shore. The indications of
Josephus and of Schiltberger may have reference to the same season of the
year.—Bruun.
(18a.) Captain Warren (Underground Jerusalem, 175) gives much new and
valuable information on the Jordan and the valley of that river, and explains
that the rise and fall in the level of the Dead Sea is caused by the

fluctuations in the rush of water, the time of greater evaporations not
coinciding with that of the freshets. This rise and fall might possibly be
greater, were there no other regulating arrangement than evaporation; but at
the southern end there is a vast tract of land, only submerged by a few feet
(here is Robinson’s salt lake), and when this is covered the evaporation is
great; and should the waters be unduly extracted, this becomes dry land.
The Jordan overflows its banks at harvest time, which is simply owing to
the harvest being early in that semi-tropical district, when the waters of the
river are swollen by the waters of Hermon. The disparity in the dimensions
of the Dead Sea, as noted by different authors, is here accounted for and
explained. See Duc de Luynes’ Voy. d’Exploration à la Mer Morte, etc.,
Paris, 1874.—Ed.
(19.) “Christians usually bathe in the Jordan.”—Pilgrims, even in the days
of Josephus and of Jerome, looked for salvation through baptism in the
Jordan, and still may thousands be seen on Easter Monday, wending their
way from Jerusalem to Jericho, performing the distance in five hours; two
other hours bring them to the Jordan, and they assemble at the ruins of a
church and monastery that were dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The
church was equally a ruin in Daniel’s time, but the monastery and vaulted
chapel near Hermon were in existence. It is clear that this mount could not
have been either the great Hermon of the Lebanon, or the lesser Hermon
which is situated in the middle of the plain of Jezreel to the south of Mount
Tabor.
The monastery of St. John the Baptist (De Lannoy) was perhaps identical
with that constructed, according to Adamnanus (Raumer, Palæstina, etc.,
60), by St. Helena, at the place where Christ was baptised. Pocock (Desc. of
the East, etc., ii, 49) makes it distant one mile from the Jordan, and says
that Greeks and Latins, who are at issue as to the exact locality, are
mistaken in seeking it on the western bank of the river, John having
baptised at Bethany beyond the Jordan. Noroff (Péler. en T. S., 49) points
out that Pocock himself is in error, and that the Greeks and Latins were
quite right in keeping to the western bank, in front of Bethabara and not of
Bethany.—Bruun.
(20.) “from these it has its name.”—Many authors, from Josephus to
Burkhardt, have derived the name of the river Jordan from the two springs,
Jor and Dan, although the sources are in reality the Banias, Dan, and

Hasbeny; so that every allowance should be made if Schiltberger has failed
to give the correct etymology of the name, which signifies in Hebrew “that
which flows downwards”.—Bruun.
(21.) “where the Infidels often have a fair during the year.”—This beautiful
plain was in all probability the valley of Jericho, watered by the Jordan after
it leaves the lake of Tiberias or Gennesareth, and traverses two calcareous
hills, described by Justin in words similar to those of Schiltberger,—“Est
namque vallis quæ continuis montibus velut muro quodam clauditur.”
The valley of Jericho, compared by Josephus to a paradise, θεῶν χωρίον,
tractum divinum, is far from meriting such encomium, even though we
cannot but agree with Ritter that, considering the profusion and utility of the
vegetation still growing wildly in this fertile valley, and the scattered
remains of old aqueducts, it must have been one of the most beautiful
gardens in Palestine whilst in a state of cultivation during the Crusades.
That the sepulchre of St. James was in this valley is a very puzzling
statement, because it is asserted on tradition that the Apostle of that name,
surnamed the Elder, was beheaded on Mount Zion, on the spot where stands
the church that bears his name; it is alluded to by Schiltberger and De
Lannoy, and is actually in the custody of the Armenians, who state that the
head of the saint was carried off to Spain, Quaresimus (Elucidatio Terræ
Sanctæ, ii, 77) asserting that the body, as well as the head, is at
Campostella. According to Daniel and De Lannoy, the tomb of St. James
the Less was in the valley of Josaphat, near that of the prophet Zacharias,
close to which, says Schiltberger, reposed the remains of the prophet Jacob,
a name substituted for that of James, or rather James the Less, who, it is
said, concealed himself in a tomb near to that of Zacharias, upon the day
that our Lord was betrayed.—Bruun.
(22.) “twelve hundred and eighty years from Christ.”—The holy places had
been frequently won and lost during the Crusades, but they were never
again recovered from the Egyptians, after the expulsion of the Mongols
from Syria by the sultan Koutouz and his amir Beïbars in 1260, the year
658 of the Hegira. Schiltberger’s error in computation, of twenty years,
probably arose from his having added the years of this date, 658 instead of
638 to the 622 years that had elapsed from the birth of Christ to the
commencement of the Mahomedan era. These dates amount together to

1280, which he must have thought corresponded to 658 of the Hegira, the
period indicated to him as that at which Mussulman rule was established in
Syria and Palestine, and Christians lost their influence.—Bruun.
(23.) “and this they do that they may make more profit.”—Many travellers
in Egypt, whether previous to, during, or since the Crusades, have noticed
that balsam was to be obtained only from the Matarea garden near Cairo. To
his translation of Abd-Allatif’s description of Egypt, Silvester de Sacy adds
several passages on the cultivation of balsam in that country, being extracts
from the reports of European and Eastern writers; but he omits Arnold of
Lubeck and De Lannoy. Whilst at Cairo, the latter was presented by the
patriarch of India with a “fyole de fin balme de la vigne, où il croist, dont il
est en partie seigneur”; and he repeats the tradition related by Brocardus
(Terræ Sanctæ Descr., 311), that the vine of the balsam had been brought to
Babylon, meaning Cairo, by Cleopatra.
Schiltberger was in Syria and Egypt at about the same time as De Lannoy,
and may have heard this tradition, also the legend that was related to the
Bishop of Lubeck, to the effect that the balsam tree did not put forth in the
garden of Matarea until the Virgin, in passing by when on her flight from
the persecutions of Herod, had washed her son’s clothes in the stream that
irrigated the garden. Makrizi associates this very fable with the well at
Matarea, adding, that the balm-tree had quite disappeared from the country
about the Jordan where it was formerly exclusively obtained. Strabo (XVI,
ii, 41) and Pliny (XII, v, 4) both say that this plant was cultivated in the
royal gardens at Jericho, of which it was the chief ornament (Josephus,
Wars, etc., iv, 8); but it is doubtful whether it disappeared entirely from
Judæa after the days of Cleopatra and Augustus, because some was
purchased at Jerusalem in 705 by St. Guillebaud (cited by S. de Sacy, Abd-
Allatif, 91); and Burkhardt learnt that balm-oil was to be obtained at
Tiberias, extracted from a fruit that greatly resembled the cucumber, and
grew on a stem very like the balsam tree at Mecca.
Now-a-days, a sort of oil, produced from the myrobalsamum and prepared
at Jerusalem, is sold to superstitious pilgrims for genuine balsam or extract
of opobalsamum, although it does not possess its qualities. Deception was
also practised in Schiltberger’s time, but he has shewn himself not to have
been so great a simpleton as the many who are being continually duped.

That the sale of balsam was a great source of revenue to the sultan (the
patriarch of Armenia paid a high price for it, see page 92), is confirmed by
others. Makrizi considered it a most useful commodity. Christian sovereigns
vied with each other in securing a supply, and it was greatly esteemed by
Christians in general, because baptism was not considered efficacious
unless oil of balsam was dropped into the water prepared for the purpose.—
Bruun.
(23a.) A plant called the balsam, from which oil was extracted, and not to
be found in any other part of the world, grew in the vicinity of Fostat the
chief city of Egypt, situated on the river Nile to the north. So wrote Ibn
Haukal in the 10th century. It was near Fostat that Cairo was founded in
968. Jacques de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine in the 13th century (afterwards
bishop of Tusculum, the modern Frascati) alludes to the produce of balsam
in Egypt, which previously was to be obtained in the Holy Land only
(Gesta Dei per Francos, etc., Hanoviæ, MDCXI, Bongars edition).
According to De Lannoy, it grew by the shore near the city of Cairo, and De
Maillet, Consul for France at that city in the early part of the last century,
specially describes the plant, which, however, he could not have seen, as it
had disappeared two hundred years before his time.
The last of the plants that grew in the garden of Matarea, says this author,
were not more than two or three cubits in height, the stem being about one
inch in thickness; the leaves of a beautiful green, on slender branches,
resembled those of the rue. The stem had a double bark, the outer of a
reddish colour, the inner, the thinnest, being perfectly green. The smell of
the two barks was not unlike that of the turpentine tree, but when bruised
between the fingers emitted an odour similar to that of cardamom. Like the
vine, this plant was primed annually, and De Maillet supposes that then was
extracted the valuable balsam so greatly esteemed by all Christians,
especially those of the Coptic church, the efficacy of baptism without its
application being generally doubted (Descr. de l’Egypte, edited by the Abbé
Le Mascrier, à la Haye, 1740). De Maillet distinguishes the balsam of Cairo
from that of Mecca, which Ali Bey (Travels, etc.) informs us was not made
there, but, on the contrary, was very scarce, as it could only be obtained
when brought by the Bedouins. Ali Bey was told that it came from Medina.
According to some authors, the last of the balsam plants growing in Egypt
were destroyed in 1615 by an inundation of the Nile.—Ed.

CHAPTER XLI.

(1.) “Of these four rivers I have seen three.”—Well versed as Schiltberger
was in the Holy Scriptures, he could not but have been aware that the
Euphrates and Tigris were included among the four rivers that had their
source in Paradise; but he substitutes the Nile and Rison for the Gihon and
Pison.
It is noticed elsewhere, that in the time of the Crusades the Nile and
Euphrates were mistaken for each other, in consequence of the name by
which a part of Cairo was known. When, after a time, the error was
discovered, the Indus was substituted for the Euphrates, partly, perhaps,
because Koush—Ethiopia—was confounded with the country of the
Cossæi, peopled, according to the classic authors, by Ethiopians; and also
because it had formerly been mistaken for Κύσσια χώρα of the ancients,
known to the Hebrews as Eriz Koush, situated to the east of Babylon (Fürst,
Gesch. des Karäerth., 102). Thus was it that Giovanni de’ Marignolli (Reis.
in das Morgenl., 18) who passed through China and India soon after Marco
Polo, mistook the Gihon of the Bible for the Indus and the Nile. Even De
Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass., 88) does not venture to refute the opinion as to the
continuity of these two rivers. Being under the impression that the Nile was
a continuation of the Indus, Schiltberger calls the two rivers, which he
believed were united, the Nile, imagining that they were identical with the
Gihon or Sihon, a name that greatly resembles the Hebrew denomination of
the Nile.
“Rison” could scarcely have been other than the Pison of the Bible, spelled
Phison in the Nuremberg MS. (Penzel edition, 123); this accounts for the
statement that gold and precious stones were found in it, produce for which
the territory of Khivila, watered by the Phison, was celebrated. Schiltberger
adds, that the “Rison” traversed India, whilst he identifies the Indus with
the Nile; his fourth river must therefore have been the Ganges, the Phison
of Moses of Chorene, who states that the river was at the limits of the two
peninsulas of India, although Haythoun, his countryman, believed the
Phison to be the Oxus because it divided Persia into two parts: one
containing Samarkand and Bokhara; the other, the southern cities of
Nishapur, Ispahan, etc. Not satisfied with having reconciled the
contradictory opinions of his predecessors, in identifying the Phison with

the Ganges, Giovanni de’ Marignolli unites to these two rivers the Hoang-
Ho and even the Volga (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., Appendix, vii), and he
represents that, after irrigating Evilach in India, the Phison passes, not only
into China, where it is called the Karamora (Kara-mouran—Black River—
was the name given by the Mongols to the Yellow River of the Chinese),
but after disappearing in the sands behind Caffa, again shews itself and
forms the Sea of Bakou—Caspian—behind Chana—Tana, now Azoff. We
are bound to admit that Schiltberger is nearer the truth in saying that he had
never seen the “Rison” at all, than was the bishop of Bisignano who
recognised it in too many rivers at one and the same time.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XLII.

(1.) “the city of Lambe, in a forest called Lambor.”—Pepper was cultivated
in Malabar, the country indicated by these two names, long before
Schiltberger’s time. Kazvini, who died in 1283, Aboulfeda and Ibn Batouta,
all mention its produce, and Giovanni de’ Marignolli, who visited Malabar
in 1348, describes the cultivation of pepper in pretty much the same terms
as does our author, equally refuting the story that the black colour was
owing to smoke employed to drive away serpents. We are informed by this
author of the existence of many Christians of St. Thomas in the country, and
that there was a Latin church dedicated to St. George in the town of
Columbus, doubtlessly the Kollam of the Arabs (Peschel, Gesch. d.
Erdkunde, 162, note 3), the Kuilon of the Chinese, called Coilum by Marco
Polo, Chulam by Benjamin of Tudela, Kaalan by Haythoun, Palombo,
Alembo, Polumbrum by Oderic and Mandevile, and Koulem by the natives.
These names have nothing in common with Koulouri, where the Russian
merchant Nikitin spent five months, but they somewhat assimilate that of
Colanum taken in 1503 by the Portuguese, who stated that this town on the
coast of Malabar was reputed to be the most ancient and the richest in India
(Maffei, Hist. Ind., i, 52, xii, 289). Colanum may have been one of the
places mentioned by Schiltberger, the other being Calicut, touched at by
Vasco de Gama in 1498.
The colonisation of the Christian communities seen by the Portuguese at the
south-west extremity of the Deccan, dates from the earliest centuries of our
era. Neander says (Allg. Gesch. d. christlichen Relig. und Kirche, I, i, 114)

that the Syriac-Persian community on the coast of Malabar owes its origin
to St. Thomas, although its existence, according to Cosmas
“Indicopleustes”, cannot be traced earlier than the 6th century. Gregory of
Nazianzus asserts (Orat., 25) that the Gospel was preached in India by the
apostle St. Thomas, who was murdered at a place near Madras called
Mailapur, on the Coromandel Coast, the Maabar of Marco Polo, and
identical with Mirapolis, where Giovanni de’ Marignolli tells us the apostle
was buried. We are scarcely encouraged to look for the forest of “Lambor”
in the province of Maabar, because there happened to be indications of
Christian churches, rather than on the coast of Melibar or Malabar, where
the produce of pepper in ancient times is fully established.—Bruun.
(1a.) Friar Jordanus, 1333 (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 27), indignantly denies that
fire was placed under the pepper trees, and is satisfied that the fruit turns
black simply upon coming to maturity. Oderic (Hakluyt Voyages, ii, 160),
also a predecessor of Schiltberger, repeats the statement that in the kingdom
of Minibar where pepper grows, fires are made with the object of burning
up the serpents, that the people might gather at the harvest without injury to
themselves. Oderic estimated the circuit of the forest at an eighteen days’
journey, and the two cities in it, not named by our author, he calls Flandrina
and Cyncilim. At the south end of the forest stood a city called Polumbrum,
noticed in the foregoing note, and at a distance of ten days’ journey was the
kingdom of Mobar, where lay interred the body of St. Thomas.
“It is seventeen hundred and forty years ago”, said the papa or priest at
Cacador to Buchanan in 1800, “since a certain saint named Thomas
introduced the Nazareens; he landed at Meliapura, and took up his
residence on a hill near Madras, now called after his name” (Journey from
Madras, London, 1807). There he performed a miracle annually, says
another authority, until English heretics came into the neighbourhood. St.
Thomas afterwards made a voyage to Cochin, and near that place
established a church which became the metropolitan; he returned to
Meliapura and there died, or, according to others, was put to death. It
appears that a bishop of India was present at the Council of Nice, a.d. 325,
and in the following century the Christians on the coast of Malabar received
the accession of a bishop of Antioch, who was accompanied by a small
party of Syrians. That Christians in Malabar were numerous at the time
Schiltberger obtained his information is most probable, because Portuguese

historians relate that in the year 1503 they possessed upwards of one
hundred churches, those in the interior refusing to conform to Rome
(Assemanus, Bibliot. Orient., iv, 391 et seq.; M. Geddes, The Hist. of the
Church of Malabar, 1694; Gardner, Faiths of the World, etc., ii, 900; see
also G. B. Howard, Christians of St. Thomas and their Liturgies, 1864;
Yule’s Marco Polo, ii, 341 et seq.).—Ed.
(2.) “the juice of an apple which they call liuon.”—There can scarcely be a
doubt that this was the lemon, called nimbouka in Sanscrit; neemon, leemon
in Hindostani, and lemonn by the Arabs, a fruit with which Schiltberger
could scarcely have been familiar in his own country, or in those parts of
Asia Minor, Central Asia, and even Egypt, through which he travelled. The
lemon, brought from India by the Arabs about a.d. 912, was first planted at
Oman; then at Basra in Irak; afterwards in Syria, where the plant became
common, whence it was introduced into Palestine and Egypt. Jacques de
Vitry includes the lemon tree with others he saw for the first time when in
the Holy Land in the 13th century: “sunt ibi speciales arbores tam fructiferæ
quam steriles” (Gesta Dei per Francos, etc., lxxxvi); from which it might
almost be inferred that the Crusaders, who are supposed to have introduced
this plant into Europe, did not do so until after Jacques de Vitry wrote. The
genus, however, could not have been entirely unknown in the West, it being
recorded in Chronica Montis Cassiniensis, Pertz Scr., 7, 652, that when the
prince of Salerno in the year 1000 (1016?) was besieged by the Arabs, forty
Norman knights who passed that way on their homeward journey from the
Holy Land, delivered him. Upon taking their leave, the knights were
accompanied by ambassadors from the prince, who were bearers of presents
of the “poma cedrina (citrina?), amigdalas quoque et deauratas nuces”, and
a message to the Norman people, inviting them to come to so beautiful a
country and help him to defend it (Abd-Allatif, S. de Sacy edition, 115–117;
Makrizi in Quatremère; Journ. Horticultural Society, ix, 1855; Risso et
Poiteau, Hist. et Culture des Orangers, Paris, 1872; Hehn, Kulturpflanzen
und Hausthiere in ihrem Uebergang aus Asien nach Griechenl. und Ital.,
Berlin, 1877).
Lemon-juice was employed at Ceylon as protection against the numberless
land-leeches that seized upon the bare legs of the natives in the lowlands
(Ibn Batouta, Lee edition, 188; Knox, Hist. of Ceylon, etc., I, iv, 49),
precisely the sort of country where the vine pepper—Piper nigrum—grows

to best advantage, viz., on level ground along the banks of rivers and
rivulets (Simmonds, Tropl. Agriculture, 476). In his notice on “Sylan”, Friar
Oderic says that the people who dive into a lake infested with horse-
leeches, for the purpose of recovering precious stones, “take lemons, which
they peel, anointing themselves thoroughly with the juice thereof, that so
they may dive naked under the water, the horse-leeches not being able to
hurt them” (Hakluyt Voyages, ii, 160). Sir Emerson Tennent quotes Oderic,
and distinguishes the land- from the cattle-leech. The former, so inimical to
man, never visits ponds or streams, but is found in the lower ranges of hill
country kept damp by frequent showers; it attains a length of two inches
(Natural History of Ceylon, Chap. xiii). There is strange confusion, in
associating the use to which the lemon is put, in Ceylon, with the pepper-
growing country of Malabar by no means famous for leeches.—Ed.

CHAPTER XLIII.

(1.) “those from Venice likewise.”—In his admirable treatise on the
establishment of Italian commercial depôts in Egypt, Heyd (d. Ital.
Handelscolon., etc., in the Zeitschrift f. d. gesammte Staatswissenschaft, xx,
54–138) confirms the statement that of the several Italian Powers, the
Venetians and Genoese were at that time the most interested in trade with
Alexandria. Their predecessors the Pisans, who had taken an active part in
the eastern trade, were forced at the commencement of the 15th century to
abandon their interests in favour of the Florentines, and in great measure
also of the Anconitans, Neapolitans, and citizens of Gaeta; but the Catalans,
equally with the Italians, kept up extensive commercial relations with
Egypt.—Bruun.
(2.) “the king of Zipern.”—Allusion is made to the taking of Alexandria,
Oct. 10th, 1365, by Peter of Lusignan, king of Cyprus, and his allies the
Genoese, Venetians, and knights of Rhodes. De Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass.,
70) records that the allied forces landed near the old port, the entrance to
which was ever afterwards closed against all vessels of Christian
nationalities. Upon the approach of the Egyptians on the above occasion,
the Franks re-embarked after having pillaged the city and carried off five
thousand captives (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., iv, 512). This expedition, in
which twenty-four Venetian, two Genoese, ten Rhodian, five French, and

several Cyprian vessels took part, was completed in the space of a week, so
that allowing the requisite time for landing and re-embarking, the
occupation of the city would most probably have lasted three days, the
period indicated by Schiltberger.—Bruun.
(3.) “took Alexandria, and remained in it three days.”—This tower must
have been either the pharos of Alexandria, or some tower on the islet that
had become united to the mainland by the sands of the Nile; otherwise, De
Lannoy, to whom we are indebted for a detailed description of the port of
Alexandria under a strategic point of view, would not have failed to notice
it. He simply mentions a long spit, one mile wide, between the old and new
ports which both reached to the walls of the city. This islet is now occupied
by one of its finest quarters.
Makrizi describes the pharos at Alexandria (S. de Sacy, Chrestom. Arabe, ii,
189) as having at the top a large mirror, around which criers were seated.
Upon perceiving the approach of an enemy through the agency of this
reflector, they gave warning to those in the immediate neighbourhood by
loud cries, and flags were displayed to apprise others at a distance, so that
people in all parts of the city were immediately on the alert.
De Sacy (Abd-Allatif, 239) is of opinion that the large circles employed in
astronomical observations and which were placed on the highest part of
such lofty buildings as the pharos, may have led Arabian writers, who
usually delighted in the relation of all that was marvellous, to represent that
the mirror at the top of the Alexandria lighthouse was placed there for better
observing the departure of Greek vessels from their ports. The tower
described in the text was no doubt designed for this purpose, because Ijas
an Arabian author (Weil. l. c., v, 358) relates, that in 1472 the sultan Kaïtbaï
caused a new lighthouse to be constructed near the old one; it
communicated with the city by means of a dyke, and was provided with a
chapel, a mill, and a bakehouse; also a platform from which strange vessels
could be seen at the distance of a day’s sail, so that time was afforded for
preparing the guns with which the tower was supplied, to resist their
approach. Schiltberger was right in saying that there was a temple in the
tower, because Abd-Allatif speaks of a mosque as being at the top of the
pharos at Alexandria.

Apart from the possibility of there having been a traitor amongst them who
ministered in that temple, the Egyptians may have invented the tale narrated
in this chapter, in extenuation of their negligence in suffering themselves to
be taken by surprise by the Crusaders.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XLIV.

(1.) “had I not seen it, I would not have spoken or written about it.”—I do
not think I can be far out in attributing this gigantic bone to Alexander of
Macedon, not only because “Allenklaisser” is so like the Arabic name Al
Iskender, but also because the remembrance of the rapidity with which the
founder of Alexandria had carried his conquests in the East, could not have
been obliterated in the city which was indebted to him, for having become
the central depot of the commerce of the world during upwards of one
thousand years. There can be no manner of doubt that, in the course of ages,
other ancient traditions became mixed up with legends of Alexander,
especially as regards the Jews, who were treated by the great conqueror
with the urbanity that some rulers of the earth, of our own times, would do
well to imitate.
We read in Abd-el-Hakam’s history of the conquest of Egypt (Makrizi by
Quatremère, I, i, 218), that the body of a giant killed by Moses fell across
the Nile and served as a bridge. With this legend may be associated
Schiltberger’s tale, and his credulity need not be wondered at when we
consider, that in the 13th century the story was thought worthy of being
related; and some there were even bold enough to tell it to the powerful
ruler of the Golden Horde, Bereke Khan, who enquired of the ambassadors
sent to him in 1263 by the sultan Bibars, whether it was true that the bone
of a giant, laid across the Nile, was being used as a bridge! The
ambassadors, who had been probably selected from among the most
enlightened of the sultan’s ministers, replied that they had never seen it, an
answer that may have been elicited by the nature of the question, because
the strange bridge seen by Schiltberger must have been in Arabia and not in
Egypt. It united two rocks separated by a profound ravine in the depths of
which coursed a torrent, and as it afforded the only practicable means for
crossing the ravine on the high road, travellers were obliged to pass over it.

I cannot believe that these topographic details were invented by
Schiltberger, and am therefore inclined to think that he alludes to the
neighbourhood of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek, places that acquired
considerable importance during the Crusades in consequence of their
admirable situations. They are easily identified with “Crach” and “Sebach”
mentioned by De Lannoy, after he refers to the “montaignes d’Arrabicq” for
the purpose of observing, that in the former was “la pierre du desert”, and in
the latter the sepulchre of Aaron, and that the road thence conducted
through a desert to St. Catherine and to Mecca. Quatremère says (Makrizi,
II, i, 249) that Karac was the key to the road across the desert. Caravans to
and from Damascus and Mecca, merchants, and troops despatched from the
capital of Syria to that of Egypt, were obliged to pass close under its walls
or at no great distance from them.
Shaubek, the “Mons regalis” of the Crusaders, thirty-six miles from Kerak,
was also a strong place. Burckhardt tells us that a ravine, three hundred feet
in depth, encircles the citadel, which is in a better state of preservation than
the one at Kerak or Krak, called also Petra deserti from its proximity to the
ancient city of that name, and to which a part of Arabia owes the name of
Arabia Petrea; its situation is characteristically described by Pliny:
“oppidum circumdatum montibus inaccessis, amne interfluente”. The valley
in which this ancient city was situated, the “vallis Moysi” of the Crusaders,
now Wady Mousa (Raumer, Palæstina, etc., 271–277), five hundred feet in
depth, is watered by a stream and surrounded by steep rocks (Laborde, Voy.
dans l’Arabie pétrée, 55).
According to an Arabian author quoted by Quatremère (l. c. II, i, 245), the
road near these two cities was so peculiar that it could have been held by
one man against a hundred horsemen. Another reason for the supposition
that the bridge seen by Schiltberger was in one of these passages, lies in the
fact that the same writer includes the tomb of Iskender among the holy
places of pilgrimage in this ancient country; but he does not determine the
individuality of that Iskender.
On the hypothesis that “Allenklaisser’s” limb was near the tomb of
Iskender, I should be inclined to look in the same locality for the bridge that
was constructed, according to the inscription it bore, two hundred years
before Schiltberger saw it. Judging from other passages in his work, the
author was in Egypt probably about the year 1423, the date of the

construction of the bridge being therefore 1223; this, however, can scarcely
have been the case, because the feuds between Saladin’s successors, which
commenced soon after his death in 1193, had not ceased, and the Ayoubites
were continually in conflict with the Crusaders. It should be borne in mind
that although Schiltberger knew that the year 825 of the Hegira
corresponded to a.d. 1423, he may not have been aware that the
Mahomedan is shorter than the Christian year, whereby 200 Mahomedan
years are equal to 193 solar years only; and thus he calculated that the
construction of the bridge took place in 1223 instead of 1230. This was the
time when Al-Kamyl the nephew of Saladin, having become reconciled
with the emperor Frederick II., was recognised by the princes of his house
as their suzerain lord, and he thereafter, until his death in 1238, held Syria
and Egypt, with the exception of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek which
he had to cede in 1229 to his nephew Daud or David. This circumstance, no
doubt, induced the “king-sultan” to order the construction of a bridge for
keeping up communication between two parts of his kingdom, the new
bridge being near the old one that was kept smeared with oil, a condition
that had the effect of persuading the guileless Bavarian that it was indeed a
gigantic bone.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XLV.

(1.) “Others believe in one who was called Molwa.”—If, as Neumann
supposes, a Molla or Mussulman priest is here implied, I would venture to
suggest that allusion is made to Hassan, founder of the sect of Assassins or
Mulahidah. The partisans of “the Old Man of the Mountain” had not been
entirely exterminated by the Mongols, for not only were they in Asia after
Marco Polo, but they reappeared in India at a later period, where the
Bohras, another Ismailis sect, existed, and with whom they have been
frequently confounded. “The nature of their doctrine indeed”, says Colonel
Yule (Marco Polo, i, 154), “seems to be very much alike, and the Bohras
like the Ismailis attach a divine character to their Mullah or chief pontiff,
and make a pilgrimage to his presence once in life”.—Bruun.

CHAPTER XLVI.

(1.) “thy descendants will also acquire great power.”—It is stated in chapter
56 that Mahomet was born in the year of our Lord 609, so that his journey
into Egypt took place in 622, the year of the prophet’s flight from Mecca to
Medina. Schiltberger evidently confuses that memorable event with a
journey undertaken by Mahomet when in his thirteenth year, if not into
Egypt, at least into Chaldæa, where his great destiny was foretold to him by
a Nestorian priest. It is most probable, however, that the author was not
quite familiar with Mahomedan traditions, which assert that it was in the
year 609, that is to say, thirteen years before the date of the Hegira, that
Mahomet was informed of his lofty calling by an angel, and that the
archangel Gabriel quickly taught him to read; it is therefore the existence of
the prophet, not the birth of the man, that dates from this year. The error is
very pardonable, because several miracles attributed to the prophet by
Mussulmans, were supposed to have been performed in his youth. They
believe, for instance, that from his infancy he was enclosed within an
aureola, and could therefore stand in the light of the sun without casting a
shadow, which would also have been the case had a black cloud floated
over his head as related by Schiltberger, who remained too firmly attached
to Christianity not to attribute the phenomenon to the wiles of the Prince of
Darkness, rather than to the effect of celestial light.—Bruun.
(1a.) What appears to be the more generally accepted story of Mahomet’s
first journey from home, is related by Syer Ameer Ali, in A Critical
examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed; London, 1873. When
Abu Taleb (the prophet’s uncle, for he was an orphan) determined upon
making a journey to Syria, leaving Mohammed with his own children, and
was on the point of mounting his camel, the boy clasped his knees and
cried: Oh! my uncle, take me with thee! The heart of Abu Taleb melted
within him, and the little orphan nephew joined the commercial expedition
of his uncle. They travelled together into Syria. During one of the halts they
met an Arab monk, who, struck by the signs of future greatness, and
intellectual and moral qualities of the highest type in the countenance of the
orphan child of Abdullah, recognised in him the liberator and saviour of his
country and people.—Ed.
(2.) “The first temple is also called Mesgit, the other Medrassa, the third,
Amarat.”—The designations of these several edifices and their uses are
correct. The jamy, called “Sam”, is the largest of mosques; “Mesgit”, or

rather mesjyd, being an ordinary and smaller mosque. “Medrassa”, for
medressè, is a college usually attached to a mosque, and to be distinguished
from the mehteb or boy’s school; and “Amarat”, for which we should read
imaret, is an imperial place of burial, and a name applied also to a hospital,
almshouse, etc.—Ed.

CHAPTER XLVII.

(1.) “Of the Infidel’s Easter-day.”—This is the first of the two Baïrams, the
only religious festivals of the Mahomedans. The first, called Id Fitr—feast
of the termination of the fast—falls on the first day of the month of Chewal,
immediately after the feast of Ramadan. The second, called Id Addha, or
Kourban Baïram—feast of sacrifice—is celebrated seventy days later, on
the tenth day of the month of Zilhidshek. Id indicates the anniversary of
these periodical feasts, which take place in their turn every season during
the space of thirty-three years, according to the lunar months of the
Mahomedan calendar. The first festival is of one day’s duration only, but it
is usually observed for three days. The second, instituted in remembrance of
Abraham’s sacrifice, is continued for four days. Mussulmans celebrate it by
proceeding on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where is the Kaaba or sanctuary,
constructed, it is said, by Abraham and his son Ishmael, in the form of the
tent or tabernacle that was placed there by angels the day the world was
created.
The ancient custom of covering the Kaaba, at this festival, with a black
cloth, is still observed, the old cloth being cut up and sold to pilgrims, who
preserve the pieces as the most precious of relics.—Bruun.

CHAPTER LI.

(1.) “Those who are in this fellowship are called They.”—To those who are
unfamiliar with the name, says Neumann, the title of Ghasi would scarcely
be recognised in that of They. Neumann misunderstands Schiltberger, who
does not at all allude to the Ghasi, but to those of the Malahidah sect called
Day (Missionaries), and whom he designates They, just as his own
countrymen at times employ the word Teutsche for Deutsche. There

certainly were Malahidahs in Asia Minor, or Turkey, as the author called
that territory.—Bruun.

CHAPTER LII.

(1.) “Machmet is his true messenger.”—This invocation in Arabic, in
general use among Mussulmans, reads thus: La Illaha illa Allah!—No
Gods, but God!—Illaha being the plural of Allah—God—and La, the
simple negative, No, in opposition to Yes.—Ed.
(2.) “Machmet his chief messenger.”—The correct rendering of this passage
would be: T’hary byr dour, Messyh kyoull dour, Meryam kara bash dour,
M’hammed ressouly dour—God is one, the Messiah is his slave, Mary is a
blackhead, Mahomet is his apostle. Mary is here termed a blackhead to
signify a slave, because coloured females were employed as slaves, white
women being reserved for other purposes. This formula, though no longer
obligatory, would still be employed in the Mahomedan provinces of the
Caucasus and in Persia, were a Christian to embrace Mahomedanism. The
words imply a renunciation of Christianity, as also a recognition that God is
One and Mahomet is his apostle.—Ed.

CHAPTER LVI.

(1.) “the Winden tongue, which they call Arnaw.”—Schiltberger was not
wrong in saying that the Venede tongue was known to the Turks as the
Arnaut; at least it appears in Pianzola (Grammatica, Dizionario, etc.) that
the country called by the Italians, Illirice, was identical with the Slavonia of
the Greeks and the Arnaut of the Turks. This is no place for solving the
question, why the Turks should have designated two people of different
origin by the same name; but the circumstance serves to support the opinion
of several authors (Köppen, Krymsky Sbornyk, 1837, 226) that the Turks
were not in the habit of calling people of any distinct nationality by the
name of Arnaut, but rather all those who, being the subjects or brothers-in-
arms of the Arianite family, had distinguished themselves in their struggles
with them; such, for instance, as the Slaves and Albanians or Skipetars,
among whom was George Castriota of Slave descent (Jirecek, Gesch. d.

Bulgaren, 268). His biographer (Barletius, Vita Scanderbegi, etc., apud
Zinkeisen, Gesch. d. O. R., i, 776) thus expresses himself in allusion to
Topia, the compatriot of the Scanderbeg of the Turks. “Hic est ille Arianites
qui apud Macedones (Slaves) et Epirotas (Albanians) cognomento Magnus
et dictus et habitus est”, ... etc.—Bruun.
(2.) “the Yassen tongue, which the Infidels call Afs.”—The As, Yasses—the
Alains, Alans of antiquity, are the Ossets of to-day, a people inhabiting a
strip of territory in the middle of the great mountain range of the Caucasus,
and who are believed to be the only connecting link between the Indo-
Persian branch and the European branch of the great Indo-Germanic race.
The population in 1873 was estimated at 65,000, of which number, it was
supposed, 50,000 were Christians; the remainder being Mahomedans and
Pagans, or a mingling of the three (The Crimea and Transc., i, 296, ii, 2).
An unpretending sketch of this interesting people, twice alluded to by the
author (in chapter 61 he speaks of them as the Jassen and Affs), is here
submitted.
The earliest mention of the Alans is made by Josephus (Wars, VII, vii, 4),
and again by Procopius (De Bell. Goth., iv, 3, 4), from whom we learn that
they dwelt on the shores of the Lake Mæotis and to the North of the
Caucasus, whence they overran the country of the Medes and of Armenia,
until defeated by Artaces who forced them to withdraw beyond the Cyrus;
similar predatory incursions into Tauric-Scythia and the West, being
arrested by the Goths, who in their turn were overpowered by the Huns. The
invasion of Asia Minor by the Alans gave cause of uneasiness to the Roman
Empire, but it was successfully resisted by Arrian, prefect of Cappadocia
(Forbiger, Handbuch der Alt. Geogr., i, 424), and they were also defeated
by Vakhtang “Gourgasal”—Wolf Lion—the sovereign of Georgia, 466–499,
upon their venturing to invade that kingdom (Brosset, Hist. de la Géorgie, I,
153). In 966, the Yasses were subdued by the Russians under Sviatoslaff,
after his conquest of Tmoutorakan (Taman); and in 1276 they lost
Dediakoff, their capital, to the Mongols, whose progress, having the
Kiptchaks for their allies, they attempted to oppose (Karamsin, Hist. de
Russie, i, 214; ii, 191). After this we find the Yasses in the West, for when
Tchaga, the son of Nogaï, led an expedition sent by the Khan Toula Boga,
1287–1291, to the Danube, he halted for a while in the country of the Ass,
now Moldavia, the capital of which bears their name to this day—Yassy

(D’Ohsson, Hist. des Mongols, iv, note p. 750). After the death of Nogaï,
1299, at Kaganlik (now Kouïalnyk near Odessa), some 16,000 Ass or
Alains, more than one half of which number were fighting men, crossed the
river, 1301, and offered their services to the Byzantine Emperor by whom
they were accepted (Pachymeres, Migne edition, tom. 144, p. 337).
Alains were met in Khozary (Crimea) by the ambassadors of Bibars I.,
sultan of Egypt, 1260–1270 (Makrizi by Quatremère, I, i, 213, 218); a
statement confirmed by Aboulfeda who says they occupied Kyrkyer, now
Tchyfout Kaleh—Jew’s Fortress (see note 8, p. 176, for this name), close to
which is Baghtchasaraï the modern Tatar capital in the peninsula; also by
Marino Sanudo the Venetian traveller, who wrote, 1333, that there still were
in the country “Gothi et aliqui Alani” (Kunstmann, Stud. über M. S., 105).
The Alains should be included amongst those populations in the East that
were converted to Christianity through the exertions of Justinian; but they
relapsed to paganism until a priesthood was settled in their country by
Thamar, the great queen of Georgia, 1174–1201, who caused numerous
churches to be constructed for their use; and that they belonged to the Greek
Church, as stated by Schiltberger, is shewn by Rubruquis the Gray Friar, for
he met at Scacatay some Alans or Aas, “as they were called by the Tartars”,
who professed the Greek faith, and with whom he offered up prayers for the
dead (Recueil de Voy. et de Mém., iv, 243, 246, et seq.)—Ed.
(3.) “it is the Schurian and not the Greek tongue”.—This Jacob, surnamed
Baradæus, or Zanzalus, died as bishop of Edessa in 588, leaving his sect in
the most flourishing condition; it forms the Syrian church in Syria,
Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Nubia, Abyssinia, and other parts. His
followers, known as Jacobites, believe that in the Saviour of the World, both
natures are united in one, and herein lies the principal difference from the
Greek Church. Although their vernacular is the Arabic, the Syrian
Christians employ the Syrian language in public worship (Mosheim,
Ecclesiastical History, etc., i, 154; Gardner, The Faiths of the World, etc., ii,
194).—Ed.

CHAPTER LVII.

(1.) “Pera, which the Greeks call Kalathan, and the Infidels call it the
same.”—The Genoese were already established at Constantinople when
Manuel I. ascended the throne (1143). Besides the emporium of Copario in
the city of Constantinople, they possessed Orcu in the suburb of Galata
(Heyd, Le Colonie Commer., etc., i, 330; Desimone, I Genovesi, etc., 217 et
seq.), which they occupied during the reign of the Angelos dynasty,
remaining there so long as the Latin Empire lasted, but without ever
successfully rivalling the Venetians. After the restoration of the Greek
Empire at Constantinople by Michel VIII. in 1261, their fortunes changed in
consequence of the great privileges that were accorded to them by the
emperor, which included the cession of the suburb of Galata, soon to
become the central depôt of all their settlements in Greece, on the shores of
the Black Sea and of the Sea of Azoff, a transfer which probably accounts
for the appearance of “Mæotis palus, nunc Galatia”, in the list of new
names supplied by Codinus (Hieroclis Synecdemus, etc., 313).
Notwithstanding the rivalry of the Venetians, who in 1296 even seized upon
Galata, or Pera as the colony was usually called by the Latins, and their
frequent quarrels with the Greeks, the commercial prosperity of the
Genoese settlement went on increasing until about the middle of the 14th
century, when the Customs dues amounted to 200,000 hyperperes, those at
Constantinople scarcely reaching the sum of 30,000 hyperperes (Niceph.
Greg., ii, 842). This “State within a State”, no doubt excited the cupidity of
the Turks after their assumption of power in Europe, and the removal of the
sultan’s residence to Adrianople; but the Genoese succeeded for a time in
averting the threatening danger by making numerous concessions, as
appears by the treaty of commerce concluded by them in 1387 with Murad
I., whose successor, Bajazet, lay siege to Constantinople. This monarch,
however, was constrained to turn his arms against Timour, and the capital
was spared the horrors of a longer siege. The battle of Angora, so fatal to
the Ottoman power, delayed for a few decades only the fall of the Greek
Empire and the disappearance of the Genoese.—Bruun.
(2.) “caused two seas to flow into each other.”—“La formation et l’origine
du Bosphore de Thrace,” says Vivien de Saint-Martin (Desc. de l’A. M., ii,
469), “ont donné lieu, chez les anciens comme chez les modernes, aux
hypothèses les plus aventureuses, jeux hardis de l’imagination basés sur de
vieilles traditions de convulsions et de cataclysmes; les observations de la

géologie moderne sont venues anéantir ces systèmes d’époques moins
rigoureuses, en démontrant que les terrains de nature différente qui
constituent les deux côtés du détroit, n’ont jamais pu être produit par un
déchirement, et qu’il existe de toute nécessité depuis l’origine même des
choses.” Other authors, including some philologists (Menn, in
Jahresbericht über d. Gymn. u. d. Realschule zu Neuss, 1854, 18), think
otherwise, so that we need not be surprised if the sages at Constantinople
also differed in opinion, or that the people there should have included the
cutting of the strait among the exploits of Alexander.—Bruun.
(3.) “Troya, on a fine plain, and one can still see where the city stood.”—
The ruins of the city of Priam did not exist in Schiltberger’s time any more
than they do now; but in the absence of the material vestiges that
Lechevalier and other travellers, his successors, believed they found
beneath the surface of the earth, there is Homer’s admirable description,
precise as that of the most accurate geographer, and which restores to us the
primitive map of the Trojan plain. I am here under the necessity of quoting
at some length, a passage from Vivien de Saint-Martin’s Description de
l’Asie Mineur, 489:—“Dès que l’on accepte le plateau de Bounar-Bachi” (a
name, says this author, derived from two sources of the Scamander)
“comme l’emplacement de la Troie homérique, les indications
circonstanciées et si nombreuses que fournit le Poète sur les localités
environnantes, viennent s’adapter d’elles-mêmes an terrain actuel.” “Une
ville de fondation éolienne qui usurpe le nom d’Ilion, et qui par la suite des
temps et d’obscurité des traditions, prétendit occuper l’emplacement même
de la cité de Priam, s’était élevée sur une autre éminence éloignée d’une
lieue vers le Nord, et située non plus sur la gauche, mais sur la rive droite
du Simoïs. Cette ville est l’Ilium des siècles postérieurs, l’Ilium Recens; et
lorsque les poètes ou les historiens de l’époque romaine parlent du berceau
de leur race, c’est toujours à cette Ilium éolienne qu’il faut rapporter leurs
allusions et leurs descriptions, car le site réel de l’Ilium primitive était dès
lors oublié. La nouvelle Ilium est maintenant ruinée, comme l’Ilium
homérique; près de l’éminence isolée qu’elle occupa, on trouve aujourd’hui
le village Turc de Tchiblak.”
The ruins near the sea and at no great distance from Constantinople,
believed by Schiltberger to have been those of the royal city, must have
been the remains of Alexandria Troas opposite the island of Tenedos. It was

there that the Russian pilgrim Daniel, and the author’s contemporaries, the
archdeacon Zosimus and Clavijo, thought they saw the ruins of Troy, as was
the case one hundred years later, 1547, with the French traveller Belon, who
landed that he might examine them with the greater facility. At the base of a
small hillock, but within the circuit of the walls of the city, were some
ancient arches and the remains of two palaces in marble (Obs. de plusieurs
singularités trouvées en Grèce, en Asie, etc.; in Saint-Martin, ii, 8). Belon
passes lightly over the difficulty he experienced in not finding near this, the
supposed site of the Homeric city, the two rivers Simoïs and Xanthus.
The honorary president of the Geographical Society at Paris has lately
sought to prove, that the city of Priam should be looked for where
Lechevalier conceived it to be, that is to say, at Bunarbashí, whence Dr.
Schliemann believes he is justified in removing it to the neighbourhood of
Ilium Recens or Hissarlik, as the result of the successful explorations
conducted by himself with the assistance of his wife. Although some
English and most German authorities applaud the zeal with which his work
was performed, and the great importance of his discoveries to students of
archæology, all are not so readily persuaded that the question of the position
of Ilium is solved, seeing that the topographical details, as we receive them
from Homer, are drawn from the imagination of the poet, rather than after
the reality.—Bruun.
(4.) “for all [kinds of] pastime that might be desired in front of the
palace.”—The games, chiefly of Eastern origin, that were held in the open
space in front of the imperial residence, are mentioned by various authors.
It will here suffice to quote from the writings of a predecessor of
Schiltberger, and of one who followed after him.
When Edrisi visited Constantinople, circa 1161, sports were held in the
hippodrome, which he considered the most marvellous in the universe. It
had to be passed before reaching the palace, an edifice unequalled in its
proportions and in the beauty of its construction (Jaubert edition, 297).
Bertrandon de la Brocquière, 1432 (Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn
edition, 1848), thus describes one of the sports he witnessed in the large and
handsome square in front of St. Sophia: “I saw the brother of the emperor,
the despot of the Morea, exercise himself with a score of other horsemen.
Each had a bow, and they gallopped along the enclosure throwing their hats
before them, which, when they had passed, they shot at; and he who with

his arrow pierced the hat or was nearest to it, was esteemed the most
expert.”—Ed.
(5.) “he has no longer that power, so the apple has disappeared.”—Stephen
of Novgorod (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 14), a pilgrim passing through
Constantinople about the year 1350, certifies that the emperor held in his
hand a kind of golden apple surmounted by a cross. Clavijo says the “pella
redonda dorada” was in its place, and so, we may conclude, was the cross;
because in 1420, Zosimus (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 38) saw the cross on the
apple that was in the emperor’s hand; it is probable, therefore, that these
insignias were removed between the years 1420–1427, at which latter date
Schiltberger spent some months at Constantinople after his escape from
bondage.
A short time before the author’s arrival in the city of the Cæsars, the aged
Manuel died (1425), and John, his son and successor, was forced to sign a
treaty of peace with the Turks, the conditions being of the most onerous
nature; for he was deprived of all his possessions with the exception of the
capital, the appanages in the Morea of the Greek princes, and a few
fortresses on the shores of the Black Sea (Zinkeisen, Gesch. d. O. R., i,
533); he also covenanted to pay the sultan an annual tribute of 300,000
aspres, and to make him numerous presents of great value as a mark of
personal regard. In such circumstances the unfortunate monarch must have
been under the necessity of laying hands upon all the gold he could come
across, and Schiltberger’s bon mot on the disappearance of the apple
together with the emperor’s power, might be taken literally.
Zosimus relates that the statue which held the apple was distant an arrow’s
flight from the hippodrome, doubtlessly the “fine square for tilting”, now
known as the Meïdan. The magnificent palace wherein receptions were
held, and that excited the admiration of Schiltberger, must have been the
Boukoleon and Daphna which adjoined the hippodrome (Dethier, Der
Bosphor und Constantinopel, Wien, 1873, 22). This edifice was greatly
neglected during the reigns of the last of the Palæologi, and after his
conquest of Constantinople, Mahomet II. ordered its complete destruction.
The other palace noticed was the Blackernes, in which Clavijo (Hakluyt
Soc. Publ. 29) was received by the emperor Manuel. Near it, Bertrandon de
la Brocquière found a “fausse braie d’un bon et haut mur en avant du fossé,

qui était en glacis excepté dans un espace de deux cents pas à l’une de ses
extrémités près du palais”. This must have been the place where
Schiltberger saw a “getüll.”1—Bruun.
(5a.) The statement that the statue was placed on a pillar is corroborated by
Cedrenus in his Chronicles, and in the Annals of Zonaras, in which works
we find it stated that the great pillar Augusteon was erected in the fifteenth
year of the reign of Justinian, the statue being placed on it two years later.
When Bertrandon de la Brocquière saw the equestrian statue, which he
inadvertently calls that of Constantine, it grasped a sceptre in the left hand.
Pierre Gilles, the naturalist and author, sent to the Levant by Francis I. of
France, found portions of this statue in the melting house where ordnance
were cast, it having been overturned and destroyed in 1523 (Antiquities of
Constantinople, London, 1729); or in 1525, according to the anonymous
author of the Constantiniade. The proportions were colossal, for the leg
exceeded the height of a man, and the nose was nine inches in length, as
were also the hoofs of the horse. Gilles represents that the statue, which was
made of brass, faced the East, as if the emperor was marching against the
Persians; the right arm was stretched out, and in the left hand was a globe to
signify universal power over the whole world, all success in war being
attributed to the cross fixed on the top. He was dressed like Achilles, in a
coat of mail and shining helmet.
It is certain that the globe and cross disappeared fully one hundred years
before the arrival at Constantinople of Gilles, whose detailed description of
the statue must have reference to its original condition.—Ed.
1See page 84.

CHAPTER LVIII.

(1.) “Lemprie; in it is a mountain that is so high, it reaches to the clouds.”—
French and Italian names commencing with a vowel, commonly became
transformed by the addition of the article which preceded them, and in this
way, Imbro was altered during the Latin empire to Lembro, the name
ordinarily given to the island, whence “Lemprie”, and Nembro of Clavijo.
During a part of the 15th century, Imbros belonged to the Gattilusio, a
Genoese family, and in 1430 became subject to the Greek emperor. The

island is overspread with the ruins of many castles, the walls of which are
covered with inscriptions and armorial bearings (Heyd, Le Colonie
Commer., i, 416).—Bruun.
(1a.) The author’s statement may be taken as being the reverse of the fact,
and that the clouds had descended to the mountain, for the highest point of
land on the island of Imbros is only 1959 feet, an altitude altogether
insignificant when compared to the mountains he must have seen in his
journeys; they include the great range of the Caucasus, shewing summits at
upwards of 18,000 feet, and the noble Ararat, rising nearly 15,000 feet
above the plains of the Araxes. Had his course lay further to the west,
Samothraky, at 5248 feet above the sea, would have excited his imagination
still more.—Ed.
(2.) “wide, large, and thick as a mill-stone.”—The “golden discs” may have
been simply of golden glass or mosion, with which the interior of the dome
of St. Sophia was covered, as we are informed by Theophanes and
Cedrenus, whose description refers to the present dome constructed soon
after 559, the thirty-second year of the reign of Justinian.—Ed.
(3.) “I myself was at that same time with the king in Turkey.” After the
battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet renewed the siege of Constantinople, the city
being succoured by a force of 1200 men sent by Charles VI. of France, and
bodies of troops from Genoa, Venice, Rhodes, and Lesbos. Marshal
Boucicault withstood the siege with his little army, and on quitting the
capital in 1399, the command devolved upon Chateaumorant, the emperor
Manuel being absent in France, whither he had gone to ask for assistance. It
was fortunate for the Greeks that Bajazet was obliged to muster the whole
of his forces to enable him to encounter Timour’s legions.—Bruun.

CHAPTER LIX.

(1.) “Christus is risen.”—The ordinances of the Greek Church have
undergone but little change since Schiltberger wrote.
Warm water, τὸ ζέον (ὕδωρ being understood), is always mixed with wine.
Leavened bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, is now ordinarily made
and sold by bakers. It is called προσφορὰ, “prossura” in the text, and is

administered to the people in turn by the priest, who stands at the altar. It is
also administered to young children after baptism.
Wednesday and Friday continue to be the ordinary fast days.
Women are required to stand apart from the men, so that all churches are
built with a γυναικέτης, or place for women; but this rule is not enforced.
The so-called “coleba”, more correctly κολάβα, are still given to the priests
at the μνημόσυνον, or service for the dead. This custom is very strictly
observed.
Fasts are kept at all the periods indicated, except on the day of the
Assumption, when there is no fast. The fast for the Apostles commences on
the fifty-ninth day after Easter Day.
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη—Christ is risen—is sung daily from Easter Day to the Day
of the Assumption.—Ed.

CHAPTER LX.

(1.) “because in the same place there is a breakwater.”—“Wann es an der
selben stat ein getüll hat.” The identical word “getüll” appears in the
editions of 1475 (?) and 1549, but is altogether omitted by Penzel, and
remains unexplained by Neumann. Professor Bruun (Russian edition)
interprets it as palisade; I prefer, however, to translate it as breakwater,
believing that I recognise in the locality described by Schiltberger that part
of the city on the Sea of Marmora, between the Eptapyrgyon—Seven
Towers—and the Acropolis, abreast of which huge stones were placed to
resist the force of the waves (Cantacuzene, Hist. de l’Empire d’Orient). An
earlier author (Glycas, Annales) states that they were conveyed thither for
the construction of the fortifications. At any rate it is a fact, that the
Admiralty chart shows what appears to be a submerged reef close inshore in
one fathom and a half of water, about one half mile to the westward of
Seraglio point, and not quite two miles from the Seven Towers.—Ed.
(2.) “Many priests wear white garments at Mass.”—Every member of the
Greek clergy is buried in complete ecclesiastical attire, but the ancient
custom of interring in a sitting posture, was and is still observed in the case
of a bishop only.

In a recent account of the obsequies at Constantinople of a bishop of the
Greek Church (The Times, August 29, 1878), the Correspondent writes: “I
was ushered into a small densely crowded church, and on walking forward
a few steps, found myself confronted by an aged and venerable prelate,
seated on a throne in full canonicals, richly decorated with gold and jewels.
He sat perfectly motionless, with his eyes closed, and holding in his right
hand a jewelled rod resembling a sceptre. Two or three people advanced
and devoutly kissed his hand, but he did not return the customary
benediction, and gave no sign of consciousness. ‘Is he asleep?’ I whispered
inquiringly to my friend. ‘No, he is dead; that is the late patriarch’.”
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός is called the Τρισάγιον, as being emblematic of the Holy
Trinity. It is not sung in the Greek Church. Κύριε ἐλέησον is the response of
the people to a prayer repeated by the priest during the service; and it is
quite true that Χριστὲ ἐλέησον is never said in Greek churches.
It is still the custom to kiss the priest’s right hand, at the same time saying,
Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα!—Thy blessing, Your reverence. The priest places his
left hand on the person’s head and replies, Εὐλογία!—A blessing on thee.
A man must certainly be married before he enters the priesthood, and even
before he can obtain the degree of deacon; but it is quite immaterial whether
he be a father previous to or after ordination.—Ed.

CHAPTER LXI.

(1.)“after which, he can take another wife, and she another husband.”—The
obscene and demoralising customs attributed to the Jassen or Yasses are
fully and minutely described by the Abbé Chappe d’Auteroche, who
witnessed precisely like ceremonies at Tobolsk, where marriages amongst
the natives were thus celebrated (Voyage en Sibérie en 1761, etc., Paris,
1768, i, 163, et seq.). Olearius notices somewhat similar, but certainly
milder, doings at Moscow in his time (Voyages, etc., 243); and Pitt (A True
and Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mahommetans,
etc., Exon., 1704) recounts something of the sort as occurring among the
Algerines.
It would appear, from a report recently made by the Ethnological Section of
the Imperial Geographical Society of St. Petersburg, that similar practices,