CHAPTER XL.

(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.

(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 tobe 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.

(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 tobe 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 fromheaven, 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 inThe 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 ashort 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.

(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 inThe 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 ashort 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 theRussian 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.

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 theRussian 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.

(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 Presentationof 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 Armenianchapel, 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.

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 constructedby 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 thefreshets. 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.

(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 thefreshets. 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.

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.

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 cultivatedin 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, seepage 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, saysthis 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.

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 cultivatedin 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, seepage 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, saysthis 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.

(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.

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.

(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’ Marignollitells 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 (HakluytVoyages, 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, 391et 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’sMarco Polo, ii, 341et seq.).—Ed.

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’ Marignollitells 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 (HakluytVoyages, 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, 391et 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’sMarco Polo, ii, 341et 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 aboutA.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 inChronica 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 thenatives 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” (HakluytVoyages, 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.

Lemon-juice was employed at Ceylon as protection against the numberless land-leeches that seized upon the bare legs of thenatives 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” (HakluytVoyages, 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.

(1.)“those from Venice likewise.”—In his admirable treatise on the establishment of Italian commercial depôts in Egypt, Heyd (d. Ital. Handelscolon., etc., in theZeitschrift 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.

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.

Back to Index Next