(1.)“when Saint Silvester was Pope at Rome.”—The Armenian Church teaches that St. Thaddeus, one of the seventy-two disciples of our Lord, and St. Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, were the first to preach the gospel in Armenia; but the actual conversion of the Armenians to Christianity was not effected until the reign of Tiridates in the 4th century, by St. Gregory, thenceforth named Lousarovitch—the Enlightener. He was the son of a prince of Parthia, the assassin of Chosroes, king of Armenia, who, though not a kinsman of Gregory, belonged to the race of the Arsacidæ of Parthian origin; St. Gregory’s own ancestors, the Surenians, being also a branch of the same royal race. St. Gregory was, therefore, indeed a kinsman of Tiridates, who was the son of Chosroes.
(1.)“when Saint Silvester was Pope at Rome.”—The Armenian Church teaches that St. Thaddeus, one of the seventy-two disciples of our Lord, and St. Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, were the first to preach the gospel in Armenia; but the actual conversion of the Armenians to Christianity was not effected until the reign of Tiridates in the 4th century, by St. Gregory, thenceforth named Lousarovitch—the Enlightener. He was the son of a prince of Parthia, the assassin of Chosroes, king of Armenia, who, though not a kinsman of Gregory, belonged to the race of the Arsacidæ of Parthian origin; St. Gregory’s own ancestors, the Surenians, being also a branch of the same royal race. St. Gregory was, therefore, indeed a kinsman of Tiridates, who was the son of Chosroes.
(2.)“this same king who built the large church at Bethleen, as has been already stated.”—It is singular that Bethlehem is not mentioned at all in the chapter devoted to a description of the holy places, so that it is just possible the Nuremberg MS. is a copy of the MS. at Heidelberg, in which that city is not named. Opinions are greatly divided upon this statement of Schiltberger. In a communication from Bishop Aïvazoffsky, I am assured that no church whatever was constructed prior to the king’s conversion; but it is stated in an apocryphal writing, that Tiridates caused a church to be built at Jerusalem after his conversion. On the other hand, Vaillant de Florival (Dictionnaire Historique, sub vocem, Dertad) inserts that, after his conversion, the king ordered the construction of many churches, one being at Bethlehem, and dedicated to the nativity of Christ.—Bruun.
(2.)“this same king who built the large church at Bethleen, as has been already stated.”—It is singular that Bethlehem is not mentioned at all in the chapter devoted to a description of the holy places, so that it is just possible the Nuremberg MS. is a copy of the MS. at Heidelberg, in which that city is not named. Opinions are greatly divided upon this statement of Schiltberger. In a communication from Bishop Aïvazoffsky, I am assured that no church whatever was constructed prior to the king’s conversion; but it is stated in an apocryphal writing, that Tiridates caused a church to be built at Jerusalem after his conversion. On the other hand, Vaillant de Florival (Dictionnaire Historique, sub vocem, Dertad) inserts that, after his conversion, the king ordered the construction of many churches, one being at Bethlehem, and dedicated to the nativity of Christ.—Bruun.
(3.)“The king again became a man, and was, with all his people, again a Christian.”—This tradition in regard to Tiridates and St. Gregory is told with considerable accuracy. Armenian chroniclers relate that Gregory, having refused to worship the idol set up by the king, was by his orders taken to the fortress in the town of Ardashat, and there thrown into a stinking pit, to be consumed, as we read in the text, by serpents and other reptiles, but where he nevertheless remained miraculously preserved from all harm during the space of fourteen, or, according to others, fifteen years. The place situated in the valley of the Araxes, is now called Khorvyrab—Dry well—the site of a monastery in which is shown the saint’s dungeon.Rhipsime, not Susanna, was the name of the beautiful maiden the king sought to corrupt. She was a devout woman who had fled the importunities of Diocletian, and with Guiane and many other saintly persons of her sex, was put to a cruel death by Tiridates. The story goes on to say that, for these persecutions of Christians, Tiridates was smitten by the Lord, thereby losing his reason and becoming like a wild beast; but his favourite sister, Khosroivitouhdt, having had a vision, caused Gregory to be summoned out of the pit. That holy man restored reason to theking, who thereupon, with all his subjects, became converted to Christianity (The Crimea and Transc., i, 236, 243).—Ed.
(3.)“The king again became a man, and was, with all his people, again a Christian.”—This tradition in regard to Tiridates and St. Gregory is told with considerable accuracy. Armenian chroniclers relate that Gregory, having refused to worship the idol set up by the king, was by his orders taken to the fortress in the town of Ardashat, and there thrown into a stinking pit, to be consumed, as we read in the text, by serpents and other reptiles, but where he nevertheless remained miraculously preserved from all harm during the space of fourteen, or, according to others, fifteen years. The place situated in the valley of the Araxes, is now called Khorvyrab—Dry well—the site of a monastery in which is shown the saint’s dungeon.
Rhipsime, not Susanna, was the name of the beautiful maiden the king sought to corrupt. She was a devout woman who had fled the importunities of Diocletian, and with Guiane and many other saintly persons of her sex, was put to a cruel death by Tiridates. The story goes on to say that, for these persecutions of Christians, Tiridates was smitten by the Lord, thereby losing his reason and becoming like a wild beast; but his favourite sister, Khosroivitouhdt, having had a vision, caused Gregory to be summoned out of the pit. That holy man restored reason to theking, who thereupon, with all his subjects, became converted to Christianity (The Crimea and Transc., i, 236, 243).—Ed.
(4.)“the King Derthat and the man Gregory.”—Tiridates was never at Babylon, nor was any Infidel people ever converted by him to Christianity (Bishop Aïvazoffsky); but it should be borne in mind that although the Chaldæans and Nestorians of Kourdistan have nothing in common with the Armenians, they hold St. Gregory in great veneration, as he was sent by Tiridates to Cæsarea in Cappadocia to receive consecration at the hands of St. Leontius, the metropolitan of that country. Schiltberger would have done better to express himself to this effect, instead of saying that St. Gregory was placed at the head of the church by the king.—Bruun.
(4.)“the King Derthat and the man Gregory.”—Tiridates was never at Babylon, nor was any Infidel people ever converted by him to Christianity (Bishop Aïvazoffsky); but it should be borne in mind that although the Chaldæans and Nestorians of Kourdistan have nothing in common with the Armenians, they hold St. Gregory in great veneration, as he was sent by Tiridates to Cæsarea in Cappadocia to receive consecration at the hands of St. Leontius, the metropolitan of that country. Schiltberger would have done better to express himself to this effect, instead of saying that St. Gregory was placed at the head of the church by the king.—Bruun.
(1.)“Saint Silvester.”—Agathange, secretary to Tiridates, and Zenobius, a disciple of Gregory, speak of a journey to Rome that was undertaken by those two personages circa 318–19, for the purpose of seeing the Emperor Constantine and Pope Silvester, and concluding with them a treaty of peace and friendship. They remained at Rome one month, and returned to Armenia charged with honours. Moses of Chorene, the catholicos John, Stephen Assolic, and other Armenian historians prior to the 11th century, are united in support of this record of Agathange and Zenobius. Later, during the First and Second Crusades, exaggerated and absurd details, such as those related by Schiltberger, were fabricated; and a monstrous document purporting to be the treaty of peace between Constantine and Tiridates—Sylvester and Gregory, called Tought-tashantz—The Convention—was invented and published after the manner of the false Decretales.It is in consequence of this controverted document that Armeno-Catholics and other Armenians have enunciated principles and details, such as we read in part in the text (Bishop Aïvazoffsky).Whilst admitting the fairness of the bishop’s observation, Iwould point out that Schiltberger was simply a ready listener to what the natives, who did not even belong to the Church of Rome, believed to be true; and to what were maintained as incontrovertible facts by the Armeno-Catholics, who in his time were by far the more numerous.—Bruun.
(1.)“Saint Silvester.”—Agathange, secretary to Tiridates, and Zenobius, a disciple of Gregory, speak of a journey to Rome that was undertaken by those two personages circa 318–19, for the purpose of seeing the Emperor Constantine and Pope Silvester, and concluding with them a treaty of peace and friendship. They remained at Rome one month, and returned to Armenia charged with honours. Moses of Chorene, the catholicos John, Stephen Assolic, and other Armenian historians prior to the 11th century, are united in support of this record of Agathange and Zenobius. Later, during the First and Second Crusades, exaggerated and absurd details, such as those related by Schiltberger, were fabricated; and a monstrous document purporting to be the treaty of peace between Constantine and Tiridates—Sylvester and Gregory, called Tought-tashantz—The Convention—was invented and published after the manner of the false Decretales.
It is in consequence of this controverted document that Armeno-Catholics and other Armenians have enunciated principles and details, such as we read in part in the text (Bishop Aïvazoffsky).
Whilst admitting the fairness of the bishop’s observation, Iwould point out that Schiltberger was simply a ready listener to what the natives, who did not even belong to the Church of Rome, believed to be true; and to what were maintained as incontrovertible facts by the Armeno-Catholics, who in his time were by far the more numerous.—Bruun.
(2.)“a king they call Takchauer.”—Cantemir believes that Tekiour is a corruption of τοῦ Κυρίου, and he adds that previous to the conquest of Constantinople, the emperors were called by the Turks, Stamboul Tekioury or Takfoury—Masters of the City. Takavor is the Armenian for king.—Bruun.
(2.)“a king they call Takchauer.”—Cantemir believes that Tekiour is a corruption of τοῦ Κυρίου, and he adds that previous to the conquest of Constantinople, the emperors were called by the Turks, Stamboul Tekioury or Takfoury—Masters of the City. Takavor is the Armenian for king.—Bruun.
(1.)“Gregory taught the Christian faith ... as is above stated.”—The Armenians believe, and are prepared to prove, that none of the dogmas of their faith, as they were received from St. Gregory, have undergone any change, and this is why they distinguish themselves as being Gregorians in opposition to Armeno-Catholics.—Bruun.
(1.)“Gregory taught the Christian faith ... as is above stated.”—The Armenians believe, and are prepared to prove, that none of the dogmas of their faith, as they were received from St. Gregory, have undergone any change, and this is why they distinguish themselves as being Gregorians in opposition to Armeno-Catholics.—Bruun.
(2.)“then he must say it himself, right through.”—The priest prepares several small loaves, but consecrates one only, and alone recites the prayers and psalms during the preparation. He celebrates the Mass unassisted, other priests performing the functions of deacons in their absence. The practice of Low Mass among the Armenians serves to prove, that the greater number of that people met by Schiltberger were Armeno-Catholics.—Bruun.
(2.)“then he must say it himself, right through.”—The priest prepares several small loaves, but consecrates one only, and alone recites the prayers and psalms during the preparation. He celebrates the Mass unassisted, other priests performing the functions of deacons in their absence. The practice of Low Mass among the Armenians serves to prove, that the greater number of that people met by Schiltberger were Armeno-Catholics.—Bruun.
(3.)“They place much confidence in our religion.”—This passage in Neumann’s edition stands thus: “Sie machent vil geuartiezi unsers geloubes.” The word “geuartiezi” does not appear in the editions of 1475 (?), 1549 and 1814; Neumann does not explain it; Koehler (Germania, etc.,herausgegeben vonF. Pfeifer; Wien, vii, 1862), who undertook to correct the errors of Neumann, asks “Was ist geuartiezi?” and Professor Bruun(Russian edition) believes it to be untranslatable, although he thinks the author meant to imply that the Armenian had borrowed largely from the Roman Catholic Church, or at all events that the one assimilated the other in its types and ceremonies.The word “geuärd” occurs in chapter 20, and is possibly intended for gewähr; I have rendered it as “right”, or justification from a sense of confidence. Timour’s youngest wife (see page 29) was anxious to satisfy her lord, that the letter and ring had been sent to her by one of his vassals without any assurance, any confidence on her part, to warrant him in so doing. It appears to me, considering the careless manner in which the transcriber has performed his work in other places, that a similar interpretation is to be applied to “geuartiezi” as to “geuärd”; the words that immediately follow implying prepossession on the part of the Armenians in favour of the Church of Rome—“they also willingly go to Mass in our churches, which the Greeks do not”; apparently because “They place much confidence (have much faith) in our religion”.—Ed.
(3.)“They place much confidence in our religion.”—This passage in Neumann’s edition stands thus: “Sie machent vil geuartiezi unsers geloubes.” The word “geuartiezi” does not appear in the editions of 1475 (?), 1549 and 1814; Neumann does not explain it; Koehler (Germania, etc.,herausgegeben vonF. Pfeifer; Wien, vii, 1862), who undertook to correct the errors of Neumann, asks “Was ist geuartiezi?” and Professor Bruun(Russian edition) believes it to be untranslatable, although he thinks the author meant to imply that the Armenian had borrowed largely from the Roman Catholic Church, or at all events that the one assimilated the other in its types and ceremonies.
The word “geuärd” occurs in chapter 20, and is possibly intended for gewähr; I have rendered it as “right”, or justification from a sense of confidence. Timour’s youngest wife (see page 29) was anxious to satisfy her lord, that the letter and ring had been sent to her by one of his vassals without any assurance, any confidence on her part, to warrant him in so doing. It appears to me, considering the careless manner in which the transcriber has performed his work in other places, that a similar interpretation is to be applied to “geuartiezi” as to “geuärd”; the words that immediately follow implying prepossession on the part of the Armenians in favour of the Church of Rome—“they also willingly go to Mass in our churches, which the Greeks do not”; apparently because “They place much confidence (have much faith) in our religion”.—Ed.
(4.)“a saint named Aurencius.”—St. Auxentius, priest-martyr, is fêted in the Armeno-Catholic Church on December 25th, and in the Greek Church on December 13th, N. S.—Bruun.
(4.)“a saint named Aurencius.”—St. Auxentius, priest-martyr, is fêted in the Armeno-Catholic Church on December 25th, and in the Greek Church on December 13th, N. S.—Bruun.
(5.)“Saint James the Great.”—St. James the Apostle is confounded with St. James bishop of Nisibis, a near relative and contemporary of St. Gregory “the Enlightener”.—Bruun.
(5.)“Saint James the Great.”—St. James the Apostle is confounded with St. James bishop of Nisibis, a near relative and contemporary of St. Gregory “the Enlightener”.—Bruun.
(6.)“his name is Zerlichis.”—Sarghis, St. Sergius, was a martyr. The Armenians celebrate his festival fifteen days before Lent. The Armeno-Catholics keep the day on February 24th, and the Greek Church on January 2nd (Bishop Aïvazoffsky).—Bruun.
(6.)“his name is Zerlichis.”—Sarghis, St. Sergius, was a martyr. The Armenians celebrate his festival fifteen days before Lent. The Armeno-Catholics keep the day on February 24th, and the Greek Church on January 2nd (Bishop Aïvazoffsky).—Bruun.
(7.)“our Lady’s day in Lent, which they do not hold as we do.”—The Armenians do not fast in the name of the Twelve Apostles, and the Ave Maria occurs only in the services of the Armeno-Catholics. On the day of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, a hymn is chanted, in which are introduced the words that were spoken to Mary by the Angel.—Bruun.
(7.)“our Lady’s day in Lent, which they do not hold as we do.”—The Armenians do not fast in the name of the Twelve Apostles, and the Ave Maria occurs only in the services of the Armeno-Catholics. On the day of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, a hymn is chanted, in which are introduced the words that were spoken to Mary by the Angel.—Bruun.
(8.)“then they bury him altogether.”—It is quite true that prayers are daily repeated over a grave for the space of a week, and each person attending throws a handful of earth on it as prescribed by the rubric; but the gradual interment is an invention.—Bruun.
(8.)“then they bury him altogether.”—It is quite true that prayers are daily repeated over a grave for the space of a week, and each person attending throws a handful of earth on it as prescribed by the rubric; but the gradual interment is an invention.—Bruun.
(9.)“God forgive thee thy sins.”—Asstwadz toghoukhyoùn ta mekhytt, is here intended for the words of absolution pronounced by the priest; but it would be more correct to say—Asstwadz toghoukhuyoùn schnorhestzè—May God grant you absolution. For “Ogoruicka” we should read Ogormya or Ogormyha, the modern phrase being: Ter voghormyà yndz—Lord have mercy upon us; but Meghà Asdoutzò—I have sinned before God—is more commonly said by the people.—Ed.
(9.)“God forgive thee thy sins.”—Asstwadz toghoukhyoùn ta mekhytt, is here intended for the words of absolution pronounced by the priest; but it would be more correct to say—Asstwadz toghoukhuyoùn schnorhestzè—May God grant you absolution. For “Ogoruicka” we should read Ogormya or Ogormyha, the modern phrase being: Ter voghormyà yndz—Lord have mercy upon us; but Meghà Asdoutzò—I have sinned before God—is more commonly said by the people.—Ed.
(10.)“counts, and knights, who are subject to him.”—The Armeno-Catholics adopted Low Mass at the commencement of the 14th century. In ancient times prayers were offered for the sovereign and all Christian kings and princes; but never specially for the Roman emperor.—Bruun.
(10.)“counts, and knights, who are subject to him.”—The Armeno-Catholics adopted Low Mass at the commencement of the 14th century. In ancient times prayers were offered for the sovereign and all Christian kings and princes; but never specially for the Roman emperor.—Bruun.
(11.)“if a priest teaches the Word of God, but does not understand and attend to it, he commits a sin.”—There is more to confirm than to reject in the information contained in this chapter.The patriarch must be elected by the unanimous voice of the dignitaries of the Church, who assemble at the patriarchal seat from all parts for the purpose. This has ever been the custom; but since the annexation of Etchmiadzin to Russia, the choice is subject to the emperor’s approval.The preparation of the wafer by women is quite out of the question, and it is also forbidden to laymen by the 22nd Canon of the pontiff Leon; this duty is performed by deacons as well as priests, who first communicate and then administer to the people. In reading the Gospel, the priest faces the congregation, thereby turning his back to the altar, so that the people necessarily look towards the East.That a priest should separate himself from his wife for threedays before and one day after he celebrates the Mass, is strictly in accordance with the Canons of St. Thaddeus; but the observance has become even more stringent in modern times, the priest being required to leave his home and retire to his church during the space of eight days before officiating.A Canon addressed by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, to the pontiff Vertanes, circa 340, requires that the altar shall be furnished with a curtain; a curtain shall likewise fall in front of the sanctuary, within which only the minister celebrating the Mass may enter, other ministers present taking their seats outside according to precedence. This rule has become relaxed in modern times, for deacons as well as priests may now stand at the altar.As in the Greek Church, no female quæ sit menstrua, may enter a sacred edifice.It is always the godfather who carries an infant into church for baptism. If the child to be baptised is out of its infancy, it is conducted by a servant of the Church.Divorce is not to be obtained in the Armenian Church, except in cases of adultery, impotence, and a permanently foul breath.There is no ykonostass or altar screen as in the Russo-Greek church; but an image, that is to say a painting on canvas or panel, graven images not being tolerated, is always over the altar in the middle of the pem, a raised course in the centre aisle, that is kept covered with carpets, silk, cloth of silver or gold, on which are laid candlesticks, the censer, and a Bible resting on a piece of silk, for the priest does not touch the book with his hands.The clergy do not pretend to having the power of absolving the penitent; absolution is pronounced in the name of the Almighty.“Very gorgeous and majestic”, says Dr. Issaverdens, “are the garments which the Armenians make use of in their religious ceremonies.”Whatever the restriction in Schiltberger’s time, it is certain that all are now free to read the Gospel. That the contrary was ever the case is denied.The “varthabiet”—Vartabied—is a doctor of divinity possessing knowledge of all holy science, and of all that concerns the study of the Holy Scriptures, of the Fathers, the Councils, and of dogmatical,moral, and disputed theology. The Vartabieds are the first to be consulted in all controversies on religion, its rites, and all ecclesiastical discipline (Issaverdens,Armenia and the Armenians, ii, 413, 486; Bishop Meyerditch Kherimian,communicated;The Crimea and Transc., i, 207).—Ed.
(11.)“if a priest teaches the Word of God, but does not understand and attend to it, he commits a sin.”—There is more to confirm than to reject in the information contained in this chapter.
The patriarch must be elected by the unanimous voice of the dignitaries of the Church, who assemble at the patriarchal seat from all parts for the purpose. This has ever been the custom; but since the annexation of Etchmiadzin to Russia, the choice is subject to the emperor’s approval.
The preparation of the wafer by women is quite out of the question, and it is also forbidden to laymen by the 22nd Canon of the pontiff Leon; this duty is performed by deacons as well as priests, who first communicate and then administer to the people. In reading the Gospel, the priest faces the congregation, thereby turning his back to the altar, so that the people necessarily look towards the East.
That a priest should separate himself from his wife for threedays before and one day after he celebrates the Mass, is strictly in accordance with the Canons of St. Thaddeus; but the observance has become even more stringent in modern times, the priest being required to leave his home and retire to his church during the space of eight days before officiating.
A Canon addressed by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, to the pontiff Vertanes, circa 340, requires that the altar shall be furnished with a curtain; a curtain shall likewise fall in front of the sanctuary, within which only the minister celebrating the Mass may enter, other ministers present taking their seats outside according to precedence. This rule has become relaxed in modern times, for deacons as well as priests may now stand at the altar.
As in the Greek Church, no female quæ sit menstrua, may enter a sacred edifice.
It is always the godfather who carries an infant into church for baptism. If the child to be baptised is out of its infancy, it is conducted by a servant of the Church.
Divorce is not to be obtained in the Armenian Church, except in cases of adultery, impotence, and a permanently foul breath.
There is no ykonostass or altar screen as in the Russo-Greek church; but an image, that is to say a painting on canvas or panel, graven images not being tolerated, is always over the altar in the middle of the pem, a raised course in the centre aisle, that is kept covered with carpets, silk, cloth of silver or gold, on which are laid candlesticks, the censer, and a Bible resting on a piece of silk, for the priest does not touch the book with his hands.
The clergy do not pretend to having the power of absolving the penitent; absolution is pronounced in the name of the Almighty.
“Very gorgeous and majestic”, says Dr. Issaverdens, “are the garments which the Armenians make use of in their religious ceremonies.”
Whatever the restriction in Schiltberger’s time, it is certain that all are now free to read the Gospel. That the contrary was ever the case is denied.
The “varthabiet”—Vartabied—is a doctor of divinity possessing knowledge of all holy science, and of all that concerns the study of the Holy Scriptures, of the Fathers, the Councils, and of dogmatical,moral, and disputed theology. The Vartabieds are the first to be consulted in all controversies on religion, its rites, and all ecclesiastical discipline (Issaverdens,Armenia and the Armenians, ii, 413, 486; Bishop Meyerditch Kherimian,communicated;The Crimea and Transc., i, 207).—Ed.
(1.)“that it might be said that thirty Greeks were given for an onion.”—This battle between the Armenians and Greeks has reference in all probability to the triumph of Thoros II., or Theodore of the Roupenian dynasty, over Andronicus, who entered Cilicia at the head of an invading army, with instructions from the emperor to seize the king and bind him in chains. Finlay (Hist. of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, ii, 242) characterises the two reverses met with by that general in Cilicia, as shameful defeats. Armenian historiographers (Chamich,Hist. of Armenia, ii, 195; Issaverdens,Armenia and the Armenians, i, 300) enter more largely into details, and describe the great slaughter of Greeks and the multitude of prisoners made, among whom were many chiefs, Andronicus himself effecting his escape with the greatest difficulty.The emperor being greatly concerned upon learning that a large number of his men remained in the victor’s hands, sent ambassadors to treat for their ransom. “If these people were of any use to me,” said Thoros, “I would not part with them, but as they are not, take them for what you choose.” The reply to this taunt was the dispatch of a large sum of money to the king, for the emperor wished to shew that his men were indeed of great value; but upon seeing the treasure, the king exclaimed with affected astonishment: “What! are my captives truly worth so much?” and ordered that the whole of the money should be distributed among his troops. The ambassadors stood amazed at this munificence, and Thoros merely observed to them: “I reward my soldiers that they may again take your chiefs;” which they did do upon the second invasionby Andronicus, again receiving large sums of money in exchange for the prisoners they made. Chamich sets these events as occurring in the year 1146, and Issaverdens in 1144; but, according to Dr. Leo Alishan of the Mechitaristic Society at Venice, author ofNerses the Graceful, and his Times, and other historical works, Thoros II. fought and won about the year 1152. This appears to be the only episode in the history of the Byzantine Empire and of the kingdom of Armenia, that in any degree assimilates the absurdly exaggerated tale of victory invented by those Armenian friends to whom Schiltberger, upon more occasions than this, was too ready to listen.A curious incident at the close of the late Russo-Turkish war is worth relating, with reference to Schiltberger’s version of the value set upon the Greek prisoners. The Porte having entertained the idea of raising the taxation, the Armenians determined upon opposing the measure with vigour, and they accordingly destroyed the house of the Turkish Mudjir; after which, the Armenian women planted onions and garlic over the ruins—an act that is looked upon as a sign of the greatest contempt.—(The Times, September 26th, 1878.)
(1.)“that it might be said that thirty Greeks were given for an onion.”—This battle between the Armenians and Greeks has reference in all probability to the triumph of Thoros II., or Theodore of the Roupenian dynasty, over Andronicus, who entered Cilicia at the head of an invading army, with instructions from the emperor to seize the king and bind him in chains. Finlay (Hist. of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, ii, 242) characterises the two reverses met with by that general in Cilicia, as shameful defeats. Armenian historiographers (Chamich,Hist. of Armenia, ii, 195; Issaverdens,Armenia and the Armenians, i, 300) enter more largely into details, and describe the great slaughter of Greeks and the multitude of prisoners made, among whom were many chiefs, Andronicus himself effecting his escape with the greatest difficulty.
The emperor being greatly concerned upon learning that a large number of his men remained in the victor’s hands, sent ambassadors to treat for their ransom. “If these people were of any use to me,” said Thoros, “I would not part with them, but as they are not, take them for what you choose.” The reply to this taunt was the dispatch of a large sum of money to the king, for the emperor wished to shew that his men were indeed of great value; but upon seeing the treasure, the king exclaimed with affected astonishment: “What! are my captives truly worth so much?” and ordered that the whole of the money should be distributed among his troops. The ambassadors stood amazed at this munificence, and Thoros merely observed to them: “I reward my soldiers that they may again take your chiefs;” which they did do upon the second invasionby Andronicus, again receiving large sums of money in exchange for the prisoners they made. Chamich sets these events as occurring in the year 1146, and Issaverdens in 1144; but, according to Dr. Leo Alishan of the Mechitaristic Society at Venice, author ofNerses the Graceful, and his Times, and other historical works, Thoros II. fought and won about the year 1152. This appears to be the only episode in the history of the Byzantine Empire and of the kingdom of Armenia, that in any degree assimilates the absurdly exaggerated tale of victory invented by those Armenian friends to whom Schiltberger, upon more occasions than this, was too ready to listen.
A curious incident at the close of the late Russo-Turkish war is worth relating, with reference to Schiltberger’s version of the value set upon the Greek prisoners. The Porte having entertained the idea of raising the taxation, the Armenians determined upon opposing the measure with vigour, and they accordingly destroyed the house of the Turkish Mudjir; after which, the Armenian women planted onions and garlic over the ruins—an act that is looked upon as a sign of the greatest contempt.—(The Times, September 26th, 1878.)
(1.)“Sant Masicia.”—This is the ancient Amastris, now called Amasserah. The architecture of its walls of defence bears witness to Genoese occupation, the earliest date of which is not known. In 1346, Amastris was included in the empire of the Palæologi, after having belonged to Nicæa, but it is certain that the Genoese were in possession previous to 1398 (Heyd,d. Ital. Handelscolon, etc., in theZeitschrift f. d. gesammte Staatswissenschaft, xviii, 712), at which date they had a consul there. Clavijo calls Amastris, visited by him a few years later, a Genoese town, where he saw many remains of ancient splendour.After being for a long time a dependency of the Central Administration at Caffa, Samastris, by a decree of 1449, became subjectto that of Pera to which it had previously belonged, but had been detached “propter inopiam et imbecilitatem loci ipsius Pere” (Zap. Odess. Obstschest., v, 810). Under these circumstances it is very probable that the Genoese were at Samastris at a still earlier period than that indicated by Heyd. According to Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., iii, 69), this city fell into the hands of the Turks in the campaign of 1461, together with Sinope and Trebizond.—Bruun.
(1.)“Sant Masicia.”—This is the ancient Amastris, now called Amasserah. The architecture of its walls of defence bears witness to Genoese occupation, the earliest date of which is not known. In 1346, Amastris was included in the empire of the Palæologi, after having belonged to Nicæa, but it is certain that the Genoese were in possession previous to 1398 (Heyd,d. Ital. Handelscolon, etc., in theZeitschrift f. d. gesammte Staatswissenschaft, xviii, 712), at which date they had a consul there. Clavijo calls Amastris, visited by him a few years later, a Genoese town, where he saw many remains of ancient splendour.
After being for a long time a dependency of the Central Administration at Caffa, Samastris, by a decree of 1449, became subjectto that of Pera to which it had previously belonged, but had been detached “propter inopiam et imbecilitatem loci ipsius Pere” (Zap. Odess. Obstschest., v, 810). Under these circumstances it is very probable that the Genoese were at Samastris at a still earlier period than that indicated by Heyd. According to Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., iii, 69), this city fell into the hands of the Turks in the campaign of 1461, together with Sinope and Trebizond.—Bruun.
(2.)“one hundred are quite of brass.”—Schiltberger is scarcely to be charged with exaggeration, if we consider what Manuel Chrysoloras has said of these walls. “I cannot conceive the walls of Constantinople, in regard to their extent and circuit, to have been inferior to those of Babylon. The towers are without number; the proportions and height of any one tower sufficed to astonish the beholder, and their construction and the large flights of steps excited universal admiration.”In stating that there were one thousand churches, the author intended to convey the idea that they were very numerous; indeed Clavijo estimated the number at three thousand. Schiltberger appears to have been too much dazzled by the magnificence of the church of St. Sophia, to think of entering more largely upon a description of it as others have done.—Bruun.
(2.)“one hundred are quite of brass.”—Schiltberger is scarcely to be charged with exaggeration, if we consider what Manuel Chrysoloras has said of these walls. “I cannot conceive the walls of Constantinople, in regard to their extent and circuit, to have been inferior to those of Babylon. The towers are without number; the proportions and height of any one tower sufficed to astonish the beholder, and their construction and the large flights of steps excited universal admiration.”
In stating that there were one thousand churches, the author intended to convey the idea that they were very numerous; indeed Clavijo estimated the number at three thousand. Schiltberger appears to have been too much dazzled by the magnificence of the church of St. Sophia, to think of entering more largely upon a description of it as others have done.—Bruun.
(3.)“A city called Asparseri.”—This is Ak-kerman, a name which is the equivalent for Byelgorod, the Slave for White-Town, a place mentioned in the Russian and Polish chronicles of the middle ages—called Tchetate Alba by the Moldavians, and by the Maghyars, Feierwar, not Feriena as it appears through a printer’s error in Dlugocz (Hist. Poloniæetc., xi, 324).The Greeks of the Lower Empire changed the name from White-Town to Mavrocastron, turned by the Italians into Mocastro and Moncastro, as we find it in De Lannoy, Barbaro, and others.There are good grounds for the supposition that the name White was given originally by the Greeks, because the Aspron mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp., 167) should be looked for in this locality, notwithstanding that the emperor situates it on the Dnieper, a scribe’s error for Dniester. I know ofno author who speaks of a White-Town on the Lower Dnieper, and the emperor himself describes the place to which he alludes, as being situated on the bank of the river nearest to Bulgaria.It would appear that the ancient name was not forgotten by the Greeks after they had changed it to Mavrocastron, because some authors of the latter part of the middle ages have alluded to the place as Leucopolichnion or Asprocastron; in all probability identical with “Asparseri”, and certainly to be distinguished from White-Town, but a distinction that is to be attributed to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. How otherwise are we to account for the appearance in the Heidelberg MS., of the native name Asparsaraï—White-Town—and for the statement in the Nuremberg MS. (Penzel’s edition) that Schiltberger took his departure, not from Asparsaraï but from White-Town, direct for Soutchava1at that time the chief city of Little Walachia or Mavrovlachia as Moldavia was then called.Grecian colonists were attracted to the neighbourhood of modern Ak-kerman in very remote times. The Tyrites of Herodotus lived there, probably at Ophiussa, a city known to Strabo. There, also, flourished Tyras, to be identified perhaps with Turis, ceded by the emperor Justinian,A.D.547, to the Antes, a Slave tribe which may have been the first to give the name of Byelgorod to the place which Edrisi certainly had in his mind, when he wrote about the Coman city distant one day’s journey from the mouth of the Danube, called Akliba; a name composed of two Turkish words, Ak and liva—White District—and therefore possibly the Coman designation for the “White City” of Schiltberger, the Akkerman of Aboulfeda.—Bruun.
(3.)“A city called Asparseri.”—This is Ak-kerman, a name which is the equivalent for Byelgorod, the Slave for White-Town, a place mentioned in the Russian and Polish chronicles of the middle ages—called Tchetate Alba by the Moldavians, and by the Maghyars, Feierwar, not Feriena as it appears through a printer’s error in Dlugocz (Hist. Poloniæetc., xi, 324).
The Greeks of the Lower Empire changed the name from White-Town to Mavrocastron, turned by the Italians into Mocastro and Moncastro, as we find it in De Lannoy, Barbaro, and others.
There are good grounds for the supposition that the name White was given originally by the Greeks, because the Aspron mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp., 167) should be looked for in this locality, notwithstanding that the emperor situates it on the Dnieper, a scribe’s error for Dniester. I know ofno author who speaks of a White-Town on the Lower Dnieper, and the emperor himself describes the place to which he alludes, as being situated on the bank of the river nearest to Bulgaria.
It would appear that the ancient name was not forgotten by the Greeks after they had changed it to Mavrocastron, because some authors of the latter part of the middle ages have alluded to the place as Leucopolichnion or Asprocastron; in all probability identical with “Asparseri”, and certainly to be distinguished from White-Town, but a distinction that is to be attributed to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. How otherwise are we to account for the appearance in the Heidelberg MS., of the native name Asparsaraï—White-Town—and for the statement in the Nuremberg MS. (Penzel’s edition) that Schiltberger took his departure, not from Asparsaraï but from White-Town, direct for Soutchava1at that time the chief city of Little Walachia or Mavrovlachia as Moldavia was then called.
Grecian colonists were attracted to the neighbourhood of modern Ak-kerman in very remote times. The Tyrites of Herodotus lived there, probably at Ophiussa, a city known to Strabo. There, also, flourished Tyras, to be identified perhaps with Turis, ceded by the emperor Justinian,A.D.547, to the Antes, a Slave tribe which may have been the first to give the name of Byelgorod to the place which Edrisi certainly had in his mind, when he wrote about the Coman city distant one day’s journey from the mouth of the Danube, called Akliba; a name composed of two Turkish words, Ak and liva—White District—and therefore possibly the Coman designation for the “White City” of Schiltberger, the Akkerman of Aboulfeda.—Bruun.
1... ich zu einer Wallachischen Stadt kam, die unter dem Nahmen der weissen Stadt bekannt ist. Von da kam ich nach Sedhof; welches die Hauptstadt der kleinen Wallachey ist.—Page 205.
1... ich zu einer Wallachischen Stadt kam, die unter dem Nahmen der weissen Stadt bekannt ist. Von da kam ich nach Sedhof; welches die Hauptstadt der kleinen Wallachey ist.—Page 205.
(4.)“Linburgch, the chief city in White Reissen the Lesser.”—This White Russia was the eastern part of Galicia, alluded to by Marino Sanudo in his letter to the king of France. “Russia minor quæ confinat ab occidente cum Polonia....” (Kunstmann,Stud. überM. S., 105).In distinguishing White Russia from the kingdom of Russia (seepage 50), Schiltberger refers to the grand-duchy of Lithuania, and not only to the White Russia of our own times, which then formed part of the grand-duchy.—Bruun.
(4.)“Linburgch, the chief city in White Reissen the Lesser.”—This White Russia was the eastern part of Galicia, alluded to by Marino Sanudo in his letter to the king of France. “Russia minor quæ confinat ab occidente cum Polonia....” (Kunstmann,Stud. überM. S., 105).
In distinguishing White Russia from the kingdom of Russia (seepage 50), Schiltberger refers to the grand-duchy of Lithuania, and not only to the White Russia of our own times, which then formed part of the grand-duchy.—Bruun.
(5.)“gemandan.”—I am indebted to Mr. Mnatzakan Hakhoumoff of Shousha, for the Lord’s Prayer in modern Armenia, and in the tongue spoken by the Tatars west of the Caspian Sea.—Ed.
(5.)“gemandan.”—I am indebted to Mr. Mnatzakan Hakhoumoff of Shousha, for the Lord’s Prayer in modern Armenia, and in the tongue spoken by the Tatars west of the Caspian Sea.—Ed.
The Lord’s Prayer in Modern Armenian.
Haïr mer vor hersince es sourp egwitzy anoun kho egwesouè arkhaïouthyoum kho egwitzy kamkh kho vorpess hergwince ev hergry zhatz mer hanapazort tour mez aïsor, evthogmez zpardys mer vorpess, ev mekh thogoumkh meroz pardabanatz, ev my tanyr zmez y tcharè, zy kho è arkhaïouthyoum zorouthyoun ev pharkh havidians. Ammen.
The Lord’s Prayer in the Tatar tongue.
Byzum athamuz ky ghyogdasan pyr olsun sanun adun ghyalsun sanun padshalygun olsun sanun stadygun nedja ky geogda eïla da dïunyada ver byza gyounluk georagymuz va bagushla byzum tahsurlarumuz nedja ky byz baghishlüruh byzum tahsurlulara goïma byzy gedah sheïtan ïoluna amma pakh ela byzy pyslugden tchounky sanunkidr padshalus ihtiar va hiurmat ta diunianun ahruna.
Abbott, K. E.—Southern Cities of Persia, andPersian Azerbaijan; in MS.
Abd-Allatif—Relation de l’Egypte; trad. et enrichi de Notes par M. Silvestre de Sacy. Paris, 1810.
Abd el Hakam. See Makrizi.
Aboulfeda—Géographie d’; trad. par Reinaud et De Slane. 3 tom. Paris, 1848.
Aivazoffsky, Bishop, of Theodosia. MS. Communications.
Ali Bey—Travels of, 2 vols. London, 1816.
Arabshah—L’Histoire du Grand Tamerlan; trad. par Vattier. Paris, 1658.
Arnold von Lübeck—inDie Geschichtschreiber der Deutschen Vorzeit, herausgegebenvon Pertz, Grimm, etc. Berlin, 1847–67.
Aschbach, J.—Geschichte Kaiser Sigmund’s, iv. Hamburg, 1833–45.
Assemanus—Bibliotheca Orientalis Clemento-Vaticana, etc., iii. Romæ, 1719–1728.
Baier—De numo Amideo, in hisOpuscula. Halæ, 1770.
Benjamin of Tudela—The Itinerary of; Asher edition. 2 vols. Berlin, 1840.
Berezin—in Prince Obolensky’sYárlyk Toktámysha k’ Yagailou. Kazan, 1850.
Berezin—Nashestvye Mongolovin theJournal du Ministère de l’Instruction publique.
Blau, O.—Ueber Volksthum und Sprache der Kumanenin theZeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig, Band xxix.
Bonfinii, Antonii—Rerum Ungaricarum Decades quatuor, cum dimidia.Basileæ, 1568.
Bruun, Prof. P.—Geographische Bemerkungen zu Schiltberger’s Reisen, in theSitzungsberichte der König. Bayer. Akademie. München, 1869, 1870.
Büsching—Grosse Erdbeschreibung, xii. Troppau, 1784.
Chardin, Le Chev. J.—Voyages en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient, etc. Langlès edition. Paris, 1811.
Clavijo—Narrative of the Embassy, trans. by C. R. Markham. Hakluyt Society’s publication, 1859.
Codinus. See Parthey.
Cosmography. Basel, 1874.
De Guignes, J.—Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols, etc. 4 tom.—Paris, 1756–58.
De La Croze, M. V.—Histoire du Christianisme des Indes.La Haye, 1724.
De Lannoy, Le Chev. G.—Voyages et Ambassades, 1399–1450. Mons, 1840.
Dlugosz, J.—Historiæ Poloniæetc., etc. 2 vol. Lipsiæ, 1711–12.
D’Ohsson, Mouradja—Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman, etc. 3 tom. Paris, 1787–1820.
D’Ohsson, C. Mouradja—Des Peuples du Caucase, etc. Paris, 1828.
D’Ohsson, C. Mouradga—Histoire des Mongols, etc. 4 tom. La Haye et Amsterdam, 1834–1835.
Dorn, B.—Versuch einer Geschichte der Schirwanshache, in theMémoires de l’Académie de St. Pétersbourg.
Dorn, B.—Geographica Caucasia, in theMémoires de l’Académie de St. Pétersbourg,VIser., vii, 527.
Edrisi—Trad. par Amédée Jaubert, inRecueil des Voyages et des Mémoires, tom. v, vi. Paris, 1836–40.
Engel, J. Chr. von—Geschichte des Ungrischen Reichs, v. Wien, 1805.
Erdmann, Dr. F. von—Temudschin der Unerschütterliche, etc. Leipzig, 1862.
Evliya Effendi—Travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa, in the 17th Century; trans. from the Turkish, by J. v. Hammer. 2 vols. London, 1846.
Fallmerayer, J. P.—Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt.München, 1827.
Forbiger, A.—Handbuch der alten Geographie, etc., ii. Leipzig, 1842.
Fraehn, C. M.—Ibn Foszlan, und anderer Araber Berichte.St. Petersburg, 1823.
Froissart,—Les Chroniques de Sire Jean—in the Panthéon Littéraire.
Fürst—Geschichte des Karäerthums, ii. Leipzig, 1862.
Garcin de Tassy—Mémoire sur les Noms propres et des Titres Mussulmans.Paris, 1854.
Gardner, Rev. J.—The Faiths of the World, a Dictionary of all Religions and Religious Sects, etc., 2 vols. London and Edinburgh.
Genebrardi, Gilberti—Libri Hebræorum Chronologici eodem Genebrarde interpreta.Lugdini, 1609.
Gihan Numa. See Mustafa.
Gilles, Pierre—Antiquities of Constantinople.London, 1729.
Grégoire de Nazianze—Œuvres, etc., 2 tom. Paris, 1609–11.
Gregoræ, Nicephori—Byzantinæ Historiæ, lib. xxiv. 3 vol.—Schopen edition, 1855.
Güldenstädt, J. A.—Reisen durch Russland, ii. St. Petersburg, 1787–1791.
Hadjy Khalpha. See Mustafa.
Hammer, J. von—Berichtigung der orientalischen Namen Schiltberger’sinDenkschriften der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, für die Jahre 1823 und 1824. Band ix.
Hammer-Purgstall—Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, etc., trad. de l’Allemand par Hellert, 3 tom. Paris, 1835–43.
Hammer-Purgstall—Geschichte der Goldenen Horde in Kiptschak, das ist, der Mongolen in Russland.—Pesth, 1840.
Hammer-Purgstall—Geschichte der Ilchane, das ist, der Mongolen in Persien, ii. Darmstadt, 1842–43.
Heyd, Prof. W.—Die Colonien der Römischen Kirche in den von den Tartaren beherrschten Ländern Asiens und Europas, ii. Tübingen, 1858.
Heyd, Prof. W.—Die Italienischen Handelscolonien, etc., in theZeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft, xviii, xix.
Heyd, Prof. W.—Le Colonie Commerciali degli Italiani in Oriente, nel Medio Evo;Dissertazioni rifatte dall’ Autore e recate in Italiano dal Professore G. Müller, 2 vols. Venezia e Torino, 1866.
Hurmuzaky, E. von—Fragmente zur Geschichte der Rumänen.Bukarest, 1878.
Ibn Batouta—Voyages, par Defrémery et Sanguinetti. Paris, 1853–58.
Ibn Batuta—The Travels of, trans. by Samuel Lee, D.D. London, 1829.
Ibn Haukal—The Oriental Geography of, trans. by Sir W. Ouseley. London, 1800.
Issaverdens, Dr.—Armenia and the Armenians.Venice, 1875.
Jean du Plan de Carpin—Relation de, inRecueil des Voyages et des Mémoires, etc.
Jirecek, K. J.—Geschichte der Bulgaren.Prag, 1876.
Jordanus Catalani—Wonders of the East, trans. by Col. H. Yule. Hakluyt Society’s Publication, 1863.
Kanitz, F.—Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan, etc. Leipzig, 1875–77.
Kazvini—Kosmographie, etc.; trans. by H. Ethè. Leipzig, 1868.
Khanikoff—Mémoire sur Khacani, in theJournal Asiatique,VI, série, v.
Khanikoff—O nyekotóryh’ Arábskyh’ nadpýseh, in theZapýssky Imperátorskavo Geographýtcheskavo Obstschestvà.
Klaproth, H. J.—Voyage au Caucase et en Géorgie.Paris, 1823.
Köppen, J.—Krýmsky Sbórnyk, O drévnostyah yoújnavo bérega Krýma y gor Tavrytcheskyh’.St. Petersbourg, 1837.
Kraft—Die Topographie Jerusalems.Berlin, 1846.
Kunstmann—Studien über Marino Sanudo.München, 1855.
Lamansky—O Slavyánah v’ Máloy Asii.St. Petersburg, 1859.
Leontief—O Myestopolojény’ye Orny, in thePropilei, iv. Moskva, 1874.
Makrizi—Histoire des Sultans Mamlouks de l’Egypte, trad. par Quatremère. Paris, 1837.
Mandevile, Sir John—Voyages and Travels, etc. London, 1670.
Marigny. See Taibout de Marigny.
Maundrell, H.—A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, at Easter, 1697.Oxford, 1749.
Marignolli, Giov. de’—Reise in das Morgenland, von Jahr 1339–1353, Meinert edition. Prag, 1820.
Mosheimii, J. L.—Historia Tartarorum Ecclesiastica, etc.—Helmstadii, 1741.
Mustafa ibn Abd Allah, called Hadjy Khalpha—Jihan Numa Geographia Orientalis, etc. Londini Gothorum, 1818.
Neander, J. A. W.—Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche.Hamburg, 1825–52.
Neshry—Geschichte des Osmanischen Hauses, trans. by Noeldecke in theMorgenländische Zeitschrift, xv.
Noroff, A. S.—Pélerinage en Terre Sainte de l’Igoumène Russe Daniel, etc.—St. Pétersbourg, 1864.
Nikitin. See Sreznevsky.
Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roy.Paris.
Olearius—Voyages faits en Moscovie, Tartarie et Perse, 2 tom. Amsterdam, 1727.
Ouseley, Sir Wm.—Travels in Various Countries of the East, more particularly Persia, 2 vols. London, 1821.
Parthey, G. F. C.—Hieroclis Synecdemus et notitiæ Græcæ episcopatuum, etc. Berolini, 1866.
Peschel, O.—Geschichte der Erdkunde.München, 1865.
Petis de la Croix, F.—Histoire de Timur Bec.Paris, 1722.
Petitot, C. B.—Collection complète des Mémoires relatifs à l’Histoire de France, 56 tom. Paris, 1819–24.
Pólnoye Sobrány’ye Roússkyh’ Lyétopyssey.Complete Collection of Russian MSS.
Polo, Marco—The Book of Ser, newly translated and edited, with Notes, Maps, and other Illustrations, by Col. Henry Yule, C.B., 2 vols., 2nd Ed. London, 1875.
Potocki, Comte J.—Voyages dans les Steps d’Astrakhan et du Caucase, etc., 2 tom. Paris, 1829.
Pouteshéstvy’ye Roússkyh’ loudyéy.Travels of Russians.St. Petersburg, 1837.
Rashid-eddin—Histoire des Mongols de la Perse, trad. etc., par M. Quatremère. Paris, 1836.
Raumer, K. G. von—Palästina, 4th Ed. Leipzig, 1864.
Recueil de Voyages et de Mémoires, etc.,publié par la Société de Géographie. Paris, 1839.
Rehm, F.—Handbuch der Geschichte des Mittelalters seit den Kreuzzügen, iv. Cassel, 1831–39.
Rehm, F.—Tableau Générale des Timouriades, in vol. iii of Rehm’sHandbuch der Geschichte des Mittelalters.
Richter, E.—Wallfahrten im Morgenlande.—Berlin, 1823.
Ritter, K.—Die Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen; oder, allgemeine vergleichende Geographie, etc. Berlin, 1822.
Robinson, Dr. E.—Biblical Researches in Palestine and adjacent Regions, etc., 3 vols. London, 1866.
Saad-eddin. Saidino—Chronica dell’ Origine, e Progressi della Casa Ottomana, by V. Bratutti, 1649.
Saint Martin, M. J.—Mémoires Historiques et Géographiques sur l’Arménie, etc., 2 tom. Paris, 1818–19.
Saint-Martin, Vivien de—Description de l’Asie Mineure, 2 tom. Paris, 1852.
Sanutus, Marinus—Liber secretorum fidelium crucis super Terræ Sanctæ recuperatione et conservatione, etc.;Gesta Dei per Francos. Hanoviæ, 1611.
Savelieff—Monety Joudjydov, etc.
Schafarik, P. J.—Slawische Alterthümer.Deutsch von Moriz Aehrenfeld; Wuttke edition, ii. Leipzig, 1843–1844.
Schwandtnerus, J. G.—Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum veteres, etc., 3 vol. Vindoboni,1746–48.
Seetzen—Reiseberichte in monatlicher Correspondenz.Berlin, 1854.
Silvestre de Sacy, A. J.—Chrestomathie Arabe, 3 tom. Paris, 1806.
Spratt, Capt. T. A. B., R.N.—Travels and Researches in Crete, 2 vols., 2nd Ed. London, 1865.
Sprengel, M. C.—Geschichte der wichtichsten geographiesch Entdeckungen, 2nd Ed. Halle, 1792.
Sreznevsky—Hojdénye za try Móry’ya Afanásia Nikitina, in Notes of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, ii, 3.
Stephen of Novgorod. SeePouteshéstvy’ye Roússkyh’ loudyéy.
Taitbout de Marigny—Voyage dans le pays des Tcherkesses.See Potocki.
Taitbout de Marigny—Hydrographie de la Mer Noire.Trieste, 1856.
Telfer, Commr. J. Buchan, R.N.—The Crimea and Transcaucasia, 2 vols., 2nd Ed. London, 1877.
Theiner—Vetera Monumenta Historiam Hungariæ Sacram Illustrantia.Romæ, 1859.
Thunmann. See Schwandtnerus.
Tobler, T.—Die Siloahquelle und der Oelberg, etc. St. Gallen, 1852.
Wahl, S. F. G.—Allgemeine Beschreibung des persischen Reiches, ii. Leipzig.
Webb.—A Survey of Egypt and Syria, undertaken in the Year 1422 by Sir Gilbert de Lannoy; inArchæologia, vol. 21, 1827, p. 281et seq.
Weil, Dr. G.—Geschichte der Chalifen, nach handschriftlichen, grösstentheils noch unbenützten Quellen bearbeitet, iv. Mannheim, 1846–60.
Weil, Dr. G.—Geschichte der islamitischen Völker.Stuttgart, 1866.
Yakout—(Modjem el-Bouldan) inDictionnaire Géographique, Historique et Littéraire de la Perse;par C. Barbier de Meynard.Paris, 1861.
Ysvestye Imperátorskavo Geographýtcheskavo Obstschestva, or, Reports of the Imperial Geographical Society; St. Petersburg.
Yule, Col. H., C.B.—Cathay and the Way Thither, 2 vols. Hakluyt Society’s Publication, 1866.
Zapyssky Odesskavo Obsshtschestvà Ystórii Drévnostey.
Zinkeisen, J. W.—Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, vi. Gotha, 1840–43.
Zosimus, seePouteshéstvy’ye Rousskyk loudyéy.
The Names in parenthesis are those employed by Schiltberger.