(1.)“had I not seen it, I would not have spoken or written about it.”—I do not think I can be far out in attributing this gigantic bone to Alexander of Macedon, not only because “Allenklaisser” is so like the Arabic name Al Iskender, but also because the remembrance of the rapidity with which the founder of Alexandria had carried his conquests in the East, could not have been obliterated in the city which was indebted to him, for having become the central depot of the commerce of the world during upwards of one thousand years. There can be no manner of doubt that, in the course of ages, other ancient traditions became mixed up with legends of Alexander, especially as regards the Jews, who were treated by the great conqueror with the urbanity that some rulers of the earth, of our own times, would do well to imitate.We read in Abd-el-Hakam’s history of the conquest of Egypt (Makrizi by Quatremère,I, i, 218), that the body of a giant killed by Moses fell across the Nile and served as a bridge. With this legend may be associated Schiltberger’s tale, and his credulity need not bewondered at when we consider, that in the 13th century the story was thought worthy of being related; and some there were even bold enough to tell it to the powerful ruler of the Golden Horde, Bereke Khan, who enquired of the ambassadors sent to him in 1263 by the sultan Bibars, whether it was true that the bone of a giant, laid across the Nile, was being used as a bridge! The ambassadors, who had been probably selected from among the most enlightened of the sultan’s ministers, replied that they had never seen it, an answer that may have been elicited by the nature of the question, because the strange bridge seen by Schiltberger must have been in Arabia and not in Egypt. It united two rocks separated by a profound ravine in the depths of which coursed a torrent, and as it afforded the only practicable means for crossing the ravine on the high road, travellers were obliged to pass over it.I cannot believe that these topographic details were invented by Schiltberger, and am therefore inclined to think that he alludes to the neighbourhood of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek, places that acquired considerable importance during the Crusades in consequence of their admirable situations. They are easily identified with “Crach” and “Sebach” mentioned by De Lannoy, after he refers to the “montaignes d’Arrabicq” for the purpose of observing, that in the former was “la pierre du desert”, and in the latter the sepulchre of Aaron, and that the road thence conducted through a desert to St. Catherine and to Mecca. Quatremère says (Makrizi,II, i, 249) that Karac was the key to the road across the desert. Caravans to and from Damascus and Mecca, merchants, and troops despatched from the capital of Syria to that of Egypt, were obliged to pass close under its walls or at no great distance from them.Shaubek, the “Mons regalis” of the Crusaders, thirty-six miles from Kerak, was also a strong place. Burckhardt tells us that a ravine, three hundred feet in depth, encircles the citadel, which is in a better state of preservation than the one at Kerak or Krak, called also Petra deserti from its proximity to the ancient city of that name, and to which a part of Arabia owes the name of Arabia Petrea; its situation is characteristically described by Pliny:“oppidum circumdatum montibus inaccessis, amne interfluente”. The valley in which this ancient city was situated, the “vallis Moysi” of the Crusaders, now Wady Mousa (Raumer,Palæstina, etc., 271–277), five hundred feet in depth, is watered by a stream and surrounded by steep rocks (Laborde,Voy. dans l’Arabie pétrée, 55).According to an Arabian author quoted by Quatremère (l. c.II, i, 245), the road near these two cities was so peculiar that it could have been held by one man against a hundred horsemen. Another reason for the supposition that the bridge seen by Schiltberger was in one of these passages, lies in the fact that the same writer includes the tomb of Iskender among the holy places of pilgrimage in this ancient country; but he does not determine the individuality of that Iskender.On the hypothesis that “Allenklaisser’s” limb was near the tomb of Iskender, I should be inclined to look in the same locality for the bridge that was constructed, according to the inscription it bore, two hundred years before Schiltberger saw it. Judging from other passages in his work, the author was in Egypt probably about the year 1423, the date of the construction of the bridge being therefore 1223; this, however, can scarcely have been the case, because the feuds between Saladin’s successors, which commenced soon after his death in 1193, had not ceased, and the Ayoubites were continually in conflict with the Crusaders. It should be borne in mind that although Schiltberger knew that the year 825 of the Hegira corresponded toA.D.1423, he may not have been aware that the Mahomedan is shorter than the Christian year, whereby 200 Mahomedan years are equal to 193 solar years only; and thus he calculated that the construction of the bridge took place in 1223 instead of 1230. This was the time when Al-Kamyl the nephew of Saladin, having become reconciled with the emperor Frederick II., was recognised by the princes of his house as their suzerain lord, and he thereafter, until his death in 1238, held Syria and Egypt, with the exception of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek which he had to cede in 1229 to his nephew Daud or David. This circumstance, no doubt, induced the “king-sultan” to order the construction of a bridgefor keeping up communication between two parts of his kingdom, the new bridge being near the old one that was kept smeared with oil, a condition that had the effect of persuading the guileless Bavarian that it was indeed a gigantic bone.—Bruun.
(1.)“had I not seen it, I would not have spoken or written about it.”—I do not think I can be far out in attributing this gigantic bone to Alexander of Macedon, not only because “Allenklaisser” is so like the Arabic name Al Iskender, but also because the remembrance of the rapidity with which the founder of Alexandria had carried his conquests in the East, could not have been obliterated in the city which was indebted to him, for having become the central depot of the commerce of the world during upwards of one thousand years. There can be no manner of doubt that, in the course of ages, other ancient traditions became mixed up with legends of Alexander, especially as regards the Jews, who were treated by the great conqueror with the urbanity that some rulers of the earth, of our own times, would do well to imitate.
We read in Abd-el-Hakam’s history of the conquest of Egypt (Makrizi by Quatremère,I, i, 218), that the body of a giant killed by Moses fell across the Nile and served as a bridge. With this legend may be associated Schiltberger’s tale, and his credulity need not bewondered at when we consider, that in the 13th century the story was thought worthy of being related; and some there were even bold enough to tell it to the powerful ruler of the Golden Horde, Bereke Khan, who enquired of the ambassadors sent to him in 1263 by the sultan Bibars, whether it was true that the bone of a giant, laid across the Nile, was being used as a bridge! The ambassadors, who had been probably selected from among the most enlightened of the sultan’s ministers, replied that they had never seen it, an answer that may have been elicited by the nature of the question, because the strange bridge seen by Schiltberger must have been in Arabia and not in Egypt. It united two rocks separated by a profound ravine in the depths of which coursed a torrent, and as it afforded the only practicable means for crossing the ravine on the high road, travellers were obliged to pass over it.
I cannot believe that these topographic details were invented by Schiltberger, and am therefore inclined to think that he alludes to the neighbourhood of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek, places that acquired considerable importance during the Crusades in consequence of their admirable situations. They are easily identified with “Crach” and “Sebach” mentioned by De Lannoy, after he refers to the “montaignes d’Arrabicq” for the purpose of observing, that in the former was “la pierre du desert”, and in the latter the sepulchre of Aaron, and that the road thence conducted through a desert to St. Catherine and to Mecca. Quatremère says (Makrizi,II, i, 249) that Karac was the key to the road across the desert. Caravans to and from Damascus and Mecca, merchants, and troops despatched from the capital of Syria to that of Egypt, were obliged to pass close under its walls or at no great distance from them.
Shaubek, the “Mons regalis” of the Crusaders, thirty-six miles from Kerak, was also a strong place. Burckhardt tells us that a ravine, three hundred feet in depth, encircles the citadel, which is in a better state of preservation than the one at Kerak or Krak, called also Petra deserti from its proximity to the ancient city of that name, and to which a part of Arabia owes the name of Arabia Petrea; its situation is characteristically described by Pliny:“oppidum circumdatum montibus inaccessis, amne interfluente”. The valley in which this ancient city was situated, the “vallis Moysi” of the Crusaders, now Wady Mousa (Raumer,Palæstina, etc., 271–277), five hundred feet in depth, is watered by a stream and surrounded by steep rocks (Laborde,Voy. dans l’Arabie pétrée, 55).
According to an Arabian author quoted by Quatremère (l. c.II, i, 245), the road near these two cities was so peculiar that it could have been held by one man against a hundred horsemen. Another reason for the supposition that the bridge seen by Schiltberger was in one of these passages, lies in the fact that the same writer includes the tomb of Iskender among the holy places of pilgrimage in this ancient country; but he does not determine the individuality of that Iskender.
On the hypothesis that “Allenklaisser’s” limb was near the tomb of Iskender, I should be inclined to look in the same locality for the bridge that was constructed, according to the inscription it bore, two hundred years before Schiltberger saw it. Judging from other passages in his work, the author was in Egypt probably about the year 1423, the date of the construction of the bridge being therefore 1223; this, however, can scarcely have been the case, because the feuds between Saladin’s successors, which commenced soon after his death in 1193, had not ceased, and the Ayoubites were continually in conflict with the Crusaders. It should be borne in mind that although Schiltberger knew that the year 825 of the Hegira corresponded toA.D.1423, he may not have been aware that the Mahomedan is shorter than the Christian year, whereby 200 Mahomedan years are equal to 193 solar years only; and thus he calculated that the construction of the bridge took place in 1223 instead of 1230. This was the time when Al-Kamyl the nephew of Saladin, having become reconciled with the emperor Frederick II., was recognised by the princes of his house as their suzerain lord, and he thereafter, until his death in 1238, held Syria and Egypt, with the exception of the fortresses of Kerak and Shaubek which he had to cede in 1229 to his nephew Daud or David. This circumstance, no doubt, induced the “king-sultan” to order the construction of a bridgefor keeping up communication between two parts of his kingdom, the new bridge being near the old one that was kept smeared with oil, a condition that had the effect of persuading the guileless Bavarian that it was indeed a gigantic bone.—Bruun.
(1.)“Others believe in one who was called Molwa.”—If, as Neumann supposes, a Molla or Mussulman priest is here implied, I would venture to suggest that allusion is made to Hassan, founder of the sect of Assassins or Mulahidah. The partisans of “the Old Man of the Mountain” had not been entirely exterminated by the Mongols, for not only were they in Asia after Marco Polo, but they reappeared in India at a later period, where the Bohras, another Ismailis sect, existed, and with whom they have been frequently confounded. “The nature of their doctrine indeed”, says Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 154), “seems to be very much alike, and the Bohras like the Ismailis attach a divine character to theirMullahor chief pontiff, and make a pilgrimage to his presence once in life”.—Bruun.
(1.)“Others believe in one who was called Molwa.”—If, as Neumann supposes, a Molla or Mussulman priest is here implied, I would venture to suggest that allusion is made to Hassan, founder of the sect of Assassins or Mulahidah. The partisans of “the Old Man of the Mountain” had not been entirely exterminated by the Mongols, for not only were they in Asia after Marco Polo, but they reappeared in India at a later period, where the Bohras, another Ismailis sect, existed, and with whom they have been frequently confounded. “The nature of their doctrine indeed”, says Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, i, 154), “seems to be very much alike, and the Bohras like the Ismailis attach a divine character to theirMullahor chief pontiff, and make a pilgrimage to his presence once in life”.—Bruun.
(1.)“thy descendants will also acquire great power.”—It is stated in chapter 56 that Mahomet was born in the year of our Lord 609, so that his journey into Egypt took place in 622, the year of the prophet’s flight from Mecca to Medina. Schiltberger evidently confuses that memorable event with a journey undertaken by Mahomet when in his thirteenth year, if not into Egypt, at least into Chaldæa, where his great destiny was foretold to him by a Nestorian priest. It is most probable, however, that the author was not quite familiar with Mahomedan traditions, which assert that it was in the year 609, that is to say, thirteen years before the date of the Hegira, that Mahomet was informed of hislofty calling by an angel, and that the archangel Gabriel quickly taught him to read; it is therefore the existence of the prophet, not the birth of the man, that dates from this year. The error is very pardonable, because several miracles attributed to the prophet by Mussulmans, were supposed to have been performed in his youth. They believe, for instance, that from his infancy he was enclosed within an aureola, and could therefore stand in the light of the sun without casting a shadow, which would also have been the case had a black cloud floated over his head as related by Schiltberger, who remained too firmly attached to Christianity not to attribute the phenomenon to the wiles of the Prince of Darkness, rather than to the effect of celestial light.—Bruun.(1A.) What appears to be the more generally accepted story of Mahomet’s first journey from home, is related by Syer Ameer Ali, inA Critical examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed; London, 1873. When Abu Taleb (the prophet’s uncle, for he was an orphan) determined upon making a journey to Syria, leaving Mohammed with his own children, and was on the point of mounting his camel, the boy clasped his knees and cried: Oh! my uncle, take me with thee! The heart of Abu Taleb melted within him, and the little orphan nephew joined the commercial expedition of his uncle. They travelled together into Syria. During one of the halts they met an Arab monk, who, struck by the signs of future greatness, and intellectual and moral qualities of the highest type in the countenance of the orphan child of Abdullah, recognised in him the liberator and saviour of his country and people.—Ed.
(1.)“thy descendants will also acquire great power.”—It is stated in chapter 56 that Mahomet was born in the year of our Lord 609, so that his journey into Egypt took place in 622, the year of the prophet’s flight from Mecca to Medina. Schiltberger evidently confuses that memorable event with a journey undertaken by Mahomet when in his thirteenth year, if not into Egypt, at least into Chaldæa, where his great destiny was foretold to him by a Nestorian priest. It is most probable, however, that the author was not quite familiar with Mahomedan traditions, which assert that it was in the year 609, that is to say, thirteen years before the date of the Hegira, that Mahomet was informed of hislofty calling by an angel, and that the archangel Gabriel quickly taught him to read; it is therefore the existence of the prophet, not the birth of the man, that dates from this year. The error is very pardonable, because several miracles attributed to the prophet by Mussulmans, were supposed to have been performed in his youth. They believe, for instance, that from his infancy he was enclosed within an aureola, and could therefore stand in the light of the sun without casting a shadow, which would also have been the case had a black cloud floated over his head as related by Schiltberger, who remained too firmly attached to Christianity not to attribute the phenomenon to the wiles of the Prince of Darkness, rather than to the effect of celestial light.—Bruun.
(1A.) What appears to be the more generally accepted story of Mahomet’s first journey from home, is related by Syer Ameer Ali, inA Critical examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed; London, 1873. When Abu Taleb (the prophet’s uncle, for he was an orphan) determined upon making a journey to Syria, leaving Mohammed with his own children, and was on the point of mounting his camel, the boy clasped his knees and cried: Oh! my uncle, take me with thee! The heart of Abu Taleb melted within him, and the little orphan nephew joined the commercial expedition of his uncle. They travelled together into Syria. During one of the halts they met an Arab monk, who, struck by the signs of future greatness, and intellectual and moral qualities of the highest type in the countenance of the orphan child of Abdullah, recognised in him the liberator and saviour of his country and people.—Ed.
(2.)“The first temple is also called Mesgit, the other Medrassa, the third, Amarat.”—The designations of these several edifices and their uses are correct. The jamy, called “Sam”, is the largest of mosques; “Mesgit”, or rather mesjyd, being an ordinary and smaller mosque. “Medrassa”, for medressè, is a college usually attached to a mosque, and to be distinguished from the mehteb or boy’s school; and “Amarat”, for which we should read imaret, is an imperial place of burial, and a name applied also to a hospital, almshouse, etc.—Ed.
(2.)“The first temple is also called Mesgit, the other Medrassa, the third, Amarat.”—The designations of these several edifices and their uses are correct. The jamy, called “Sam”, is the largest of mosques; “Mesgit”, or rather mesjyd, being an ordinary and smaller mosque. “Medrassa”, for medressè, is a college usually attached to a mosque, and to be distinguished from the mehteb or boy’s school; and “Amarat”, for which we should read imaret, is an imperial place of burial, and a name applied also to a hospital, almshouse, etc.—Ed.
(1.)“Of the Infidel’s Easter-day.”—This is the first of the two Baïrams, the only religious festivals of the Mahomedans. The first, called Id Fitr—feast of the termination of the fast—falls on the first day of the month of Chewal, immediately after the feast of Ramadan. The second, called Id Addha, or Kourban Baïram—feast of sacrifice—is celebrated seventy days later, on the tenth day of the month of Zilhidshek. Id indicates the anniversary of these periodical feasts, which take place in their turn every season during the space of thirty-three years, according to the lunar months of the Mahomedan calendar. The first festival is of one day’s duration only, but it is usually observed for three days. The second, instituted in remembrance of Abraham’s sacrifice, is continued for four days. Mussulmans celebrate it by proceeding on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where is the Kaaba or sanctuary, constructed, it is said, by Abraham and his son Ishmael, in the form of the tent or tabernacle that was placed there by angels the day the world was created.The ancient custom of covering the Kaaba, at this festival, with a black cloth, is still observed, the old cloth being cut up and sold to pilgrims, who preserve the pieces as the most precious of relics.—Bruun.
(1.)“Of the Infidel’s Easter-day.”—This is the first of the two Baïrams, the only religious festivals of the Mahomedans. The first, called Id Fitr—feast of the termination of the fast—falls on the first day of the month of Chewal, immediately after the feast of Ramadan. The second, called Id Addha, or Kourban Baïram—feast of sacrifice—is celebrated seventy days later, on the tenth day of the month of Zilhidshek. Id indicates the anniversary of these periodical feasts, which take place in their turn every season during the space of thirty-three years, according to the lunar months of the Mahomedan calendar. The first festival is of one day’s duration only, but it is usually observed for three days. The second, instituted in remembrance of Abraham’s sacrifice, is continued for four days. Mussulmans celebrate it by proceeding on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where is the Kaaba or sanctuary, constructed, it is said, by Abraham and his son Ishmael, in the form of the tent or tabernacle that was placed there by angels the day the world was created.
The ancient custom of covering the Kaaba, at this festival, with a black cloth, is still observed, the old cloth being cut up and sold to pilgrims, who preserve the pieces as the most precious of relics.—Bruun.
(1.)“Those who are in this fellowship are called They.”—To those who are unfamiliar with the name, says Neumann, the title of Ghasi would scarcely be recognised in that of They. Neumann misunderstands Schiltberger, who does not at all allude to the Ghasi, but to those of the Malahidah sect called Day (Missionaries), and whom he designates They, just as his own countrymen at times employ the word Teutsche for Deutsche. There certainly were Malahidahs in Asia Minor, or Turkey, as the author called that territory.—Bruun.
(1.)“Those who are in this fellowship are called They.”—To those who are unfamiliar with the name, says Neumann, the title of Ghasi would scarcely be recognised in that of They. Neumann misunderstands Schiltberger, who does not at all allude to the Ghasi, but to those of the Malahidah sect called Day (Missionaries), and whom he designates They, just as his own countrymen at times employ the word Teutsche for Deutsche. There certainly were Malahidahs in Asia Minor, or Turkey, as the author called that territory.—Bruun.
(1.)“Machmet is his true messenger.”—This invocation in Arabic, in general use among Mussulmans, reads thus: La Illaha illa Allah!—No Gods, but God!—Illaha being the plural of Allah—God—and La, the simple negative, No, in opposition to Yes.—Ed.
(1.)“Machmet is his true messenger.”—This invocation in Arabic, in general use among Mussulmans, reads thus: La Illaha illa Allah!—No Gods, but God!—Illaha being the plural of Allah—God—and La, the simple negative, No, in opposition to Yes.—Ed.
(2.)“Machmet his chief messenger.”—The correct rendering of this passage would be: T’hary byr dour, Messyh kyoull dour, Meryam kara bash dour, M’hammed ressouly dour—God is one, the Messiah is his slave, Mary is a blackhead, Mahomet is his apostle. Mary is here termed a blackhead to signify a slave, because coloured females were employed as slaves, white women being reserved for other purposes. This formula, though no longer obligatory, would still be employed in the Mahomedan provinces of the Caucasus and in Persia, were a Christian to embrace Mahomedanism. The words imply a renunciation of Christianity, as also a recognition that God is One and Mahomet is his apostle.—Ed.
(2.)“Machmet his chief messenger.”—The correct rendering of this passage would be: T’hary byr dour, Messyh kyoull dour, Meryam kara bash dour, M’hammed ressouly dour—God is one, the Messiah is his slave, Mary is a blackhead, Mahomet is his apostle. Mary is here termed a blackhead to signify a slave, because coloured females were employed as slaves, white women being reserved for other purposes. This formula, though no longer obligatory, would still be employed in the Mahomedan provinces of the Caucasus and in Persia, were a Christian to embrace Mahomedanism. The words imply a renunciation of Christianity, as also a recognition that God is One and Mahomet is his apostle.—Ed.
(1.)“the Winden tongue, which they call Arnaw.”—Schiltberger was not wrong in saying that the Venede tongue was known to the Turks as the Arnaut; at least it appears in Pianzola (Grammatica,Dizionario, etc.) that the country called by the Italians, Illirice, was identical with the Slavonia of the Greeks and the Arnaut of the Turks. This is no place for solving the question, why the Turks should have designated two people of different origin by the same name; but the circumstance serves to support the opinion of several authors (Köppen,Krymsky Sbornyk, 1837, 226) that the Turks were not in the habit of calling people of any distinct nationality by the name of Arnaut, but rather all those who, being the subjects or brothers-in-arms of the Arianite family, had distinguished themselves in their struggles with them; such,for instance, as the Slaves and Albanians or Skipetars, among whom was George Castriota of Slave descent (Jirecek,Gesch. d. Bulgaren, 268). His biographer (Barletius,Vita Scanderbegi, etc., apud Zinkeisen,Gesch. d. O. R., i, 776) thus expresses himself in allusion to Topia, the compatriot of the Scanderbeg of the Turks. “Hic est ille Arianites qui apud Macedones (Slaves) et Epirotas (Albanians) cognomento Magnus et dictus et habitus est”, ... etc.—Bruun.
(1.)“the Winden tongue, which they call Arnaw.”—Schiltberger was not wrong in saying that the Venede tongue was known to the Turks as the Arnaut; at least it appears in Pianzola (Grammatica,Dizionario, etc.) that the country called by the Italians, Illirice, was identical with the Slavonia of the Greeks and the Arnaut of the Turks. This is no place for solving the question, why the Turks should have designated two people of different origin by the same name; but the circumstance serves to support the opinion of several authors (Köppen,Krymsky Sbornyk, 1837, 226) that the Turks were not in the habit of calling people of any distinct nationality by the name of Arnaut, but rather all those who, being the subjects or brothers-in-arms of the Arianite family, had distinguished themselves in their struggles with them; such,for instance, as the Slaves and Albanians or Skipetars, among whom was George Castriota of Slave descent (Jirecek,Gesch. d. Bulgaren, 268). His biographer (Barletius,Vita Scanderbegi, etc., apud Zinkeisen,Gesch. d. O. R., i, 776) thus expresses himself in allusion to Topia, the compatriot of the Scanderbeg of the Turks. “Hic est ille Arianites qui apud Macedones (Slaves) et Epirotas (Albanians) cognomento Magnus et dictus et habitus est”, ... etc.—Bruun.
(2.)“the Yassen tongue, which the Infidels call Afs.”—The As, Yasses—the Alains, Alans of antiquity, are the Ossets of to-day, a people inhabiting a strip of territory in the middle of the great mountain range of the Caucasus, and who are believed to be the only connecting link between the Indo-Persian branch and the European branch of the great Indo-Germanic race. The population in 1873 was estimated at 65,000, of which number, it was supposed, 50,000 were Christians; the remainder being Mahomedans and Pagans, or a mingling of the three (The Crimea and Transc., i, 296, ii, 2).An unpretending sketch of this interesting people, twice alluded to by the author (in chapter 61 he speaks of them as the Jassen and Affs), is here submitted.The earliest mention of the Alans is made by Josephus (Wars, VII, vii, 4), and again by Procopius (De Bell. Goth., iv, 3, 4), from whom we learn that they dwelt on the shores of the Lake Mæotis and to the North of the Caucasus, whence they overran the country of the Medes and of Armenia, until defeated by Artaces who forced them to withdraw beyond the Cyrus; similar predatory incursions into Tauric-Scythia and the West, being arrested by the Goths, who in their turn were overpowered by the Huns. The invasion of Asia Minor by the Alans gave cause of uneasiness to the Roman Empire, but it was successfully resisted by Arrian, prefect of Cappadocia (Forbiger,Handbuch der Alt. Geogr., i, 424), and they were also defeated by Vakhtang “Gourgasal”—Wolf Lion—the sovereign of Georgia, 466–499, upon their venturing to invade that kingdom (Brosset,Hist. de la Géorgie,I, 153). In 966, the Yasses were subdued by the Russiansunder Sviatoslaff, after his conquest of Tmoutorakan (Taman); and in 1276 they lost Dediakoff, their capital, to the Mongols, whose progress, having the Kiptchaks for their allies, they attempted to oppose (Karamsin,Hist. de Russie, i, 214; ii, 191). After this we find the Yasses in the West, for when Tchaga, the son of Nogaï, led an expedition sent by the Khan Toula Boga, 1287–1291, to the Danube, he halted for a while in the country of the Ass, now Moldavia, the capital of which bears their name to this day—Yassy (D’Ohsson,Hist. des Mongols, iv, note p. 750). After the death of Nogaï, 1299, at Kaganlik (now Kouïalnyk near Odessa), some 16,000 Ass or Alains, more than one half of which number were fighting men, crossed the river, 1301, and offered their services to the Byzantine Emperor by whom they were accepted (Pachymeres,Migne edition, tom. 144, p. 337).Alains were met in Khozary (Crimea) by the ambassadors of Bibars I., sultan of Egypt, 1260–1270 (Makrizi by Quatremère,I, i, 213, 218); a statement confirmed by Aboulfeda who says they occupied Kyrkyer, now Tchyfout Kaleh—Jew’s Fortress (seenote 8, p. 176, for this name), close to which is Baghtchasaraï the modern Tatar capital in the peninsula; also by Marino Sanudo the Venetian traveller, who wrote, 1333, that there still were in the country “Gothi et aliqui Alani” (Kunstmann,Stud. über M. S., 105).The Alains should be included amongst those populations in the East that were converted to Christianity through the exertions of Justinian; but they relapsed to paganism until a priesthood was settled in their country by Thamar, the great queen of Georgia, 1174–1201, who caused numerous churches to be constructed for their use; and that they belonged to the Greek Church, as stated by Schiltberger, is shewn by Rubruquis the Gray Friar, for he met at Scacatay some Alans or Aas, “as they were called by the Tartars”, who professed the Greek faith, and with whom he offered up prayers for the dead (Recueil de Voy. et de Mém., iv, 243, 246,et seq.)—Ed.
(2.)“the Yassen tongue, which the Infidels call Afs.”—The As, Yasses—the Alains, Alans of antiquity, are the Ossets of to-day, a people inhabiting a strip of territory in the middle of the great mountain range of the Caucasus, and who are believed to be the only connecting link between the Indo-Persian branch and the European branch of the great Indo-Germanic race. The population in 1873 was estimated at 65,000, of which number, it was supposed, 50,000 were Christians; the remainder being Mahomedans and Pagans, or a mingling of the three (The Crimea and Transc., i, 296, ii, 2).
An unpretending sketch of this interesting people, twice alluded to by the author (in chapter 61 he speaks of them as the Jassen and Affs), is here submitted.
The earliest mention of the Alans is made by Josephus (Wars, VII, vii, 4), and again by Procopius (De Bell. Goth., iv, 3, 4), from whom we learn that they dwelt on the shores of the Lake Mæotis and to the North of the Caucasus, whence they overran the country of the Medes and of Armenia, until defeated by Artaces who forced them to withdraw beyond the Cyrus; similar predatory incursions into Tauric-Scythia and the West, being arrested by the Goths, who in their turn were overpowered by the Huns. The invasion of Asia Minor by the Alans gave cause of uneasiness to the Roman Empire, but it was successfully resisted by Arrian, prefect of Cappadocia (Forbiger,Handbuch der Alt. Geogr., i, 424), and they were also defeated by Vakhtang “Gourgasal”—Wolf Lion—the sovereign of Georgia, 466–499, upon their venturing to invade that kingdom (Brosset,Hist. de la Géorgie,I, 153). In 966, the Yasses were subdued by the Russiansunder Sviatoslaff, after his conquest of Tmoutorakan (Taman); and in 1276 they lost Dediakoff, their capital, to the Mongols, whose progress, having the Kiptchaks for their allies, they attempted to oppose (Karamsin,Hist. de Russie, i, 214; ii, 191). After this we find the Yasses in the West, for when Tchaga, the son of Nogaï, led an expedition sent by the Khan Toula Boga, 1287–1291, to the Danube, he halted for a while in the country of the Ass, now Moldavia, the capital of which bears their name to this day—Yassy (D’Ohsson,Hist. des Mongols, iv, note p. 750). After the death of Nogaï, 1299, at Kaganlik (now Kouïalnyk near Odessa), some 16,000 Ass or Alains, more than one half of which number were fighting men, crossed the river, 1301, and offered their services to the Byzantine Emperor by whom they were accepted (Pachymeres,Migne edition, tom. 144, p. 337).
Alains were met in Khozary (Crimea) by the ambassadors of Bibars I., sultan of Egypt, 1260–1270 (Makrizi by Quatremère,I, i, 213, 218); a statement confirmed by Aboulfeda who says they occupied Kyrkyer, now Tchyfout Kaleh—Jew’s Fortress (seenote 8, p. 176, for this name), close to which is Baghtchasaraï the modern Tatar capital in the peninsula; also by Marino Sanudo the Venetian traveller, who wrote, 1333, that there still were in the country “Gothi et aliqui Alani” (Kunstmann,Stud. über M. S., 105).
The Alains should be included amongst those populations in the East that were converted to Christianity through the exertions of Justinian; but they relapsed to paganism until a priesthood was settled in their country by Thamar, the great queen of Georgia, 1174–1201, who caused numerous churches to be constructed for their use; and that they belonged to the Greek Church, as stated by Schiltberger, is shewn by Rubruquis the Gray Friar, for he met at Scacatay some Alans or Aas, “as they were called by the Tartars”, who professed the Greek faith, and with whom he offered up prayers for the dead (Recueil de Voy. et de Mém., iv, 243, 246,et seq.)—Ed.
(3.)“it is the Schurian and not the Greek tongue”.—This Jacob, surnamed Baradæus, or Zanzalus, died as bishop of Edessa in 588, leaving his sect in the most flourishing condition; it formsthe Syrian church in Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Nubia, Abyssinia, and other parts. His followers, known as Jacobites, believe that in the Saviour of the World, both natures are united in one, and herein lies the principal difference from the Greek Church. Although their vernacular is the Arabic, the Syrian Christians employ the Syrian language in public worship (Mosheim,Ecclesiastical History, etc., i, 154; Gardner,The Faiths of the World, etc., ii, 194).—Ed.
(3.)“it is the Schurian and not the Greek tongue”.—This Jacob, surnamed Baradæus, or Zanzalus, died as bishop of Edessa in 588, leaving his sect in the most flourishing condition; it formsthe Syrian church in Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Egypt, Nubia, Abyssinia, and other parts. His followers, known as Jacobites, believe that in the Saviour of the World, both natures are united in one, and herein lies the principal difference from the Greek Church. Although their vernacular is the Arabic, the Syrian Christians employ the Syrian language in public worship (Mosheim,Ecclesiastical History, etc., i, 154; Gardner,The Faiths of the World, etc., ii, 194).—Ed.
(1.)“Pera, which the Greeks call Kalathan, and the Infidels call it the same.”—The Genoese were already established at Constantinople when Manuel I. ascended the throne (1143). Besides the emporium of Copario in the city of Constantinople, they possessed Orcu in the suburb of Galata (Heyd,Le Colonie Commer., etc., i, 330; Desimone,I Genovesi, etc., 217et seq.), which they occupied during the reign of the Angelos dynasty, remaining there so long as the Latin Empire lasted, but without ever successfully rivalling the Venetians. After the restoration of the Greek Empire at Constantinople by Michel VIII. in 1261, their fortunes changed in consequence of the great privileges that were accorded to them by the emperor, which included the cession of the suburb of Galata, soon to become the central depôt of all their settlements in Greece, on the shores of the Black Sea and of the Sea of Azoff, a transfer which probably accounts for the appearance of “Mæotis palus, nunc Galatia”, in the list of new names supplied by Codinus (Hieroclis Synecdemus, etc., 313).Notwithstanding the rivalry of the Venetians, who in 1296 even seized upon Galata, or Pera as the colony was usually called by the Latins, and their frequent quarrels with the Greeks, the commercial prosperity of the Genoese settlement went on increasing until about the middle of the 14th century, when the Customs dues amounted to 200,000 hyperperes, those at Constantinople scarcely reaching the sum of 30,000 hyperperes(Niceph. Greg., ii, 842). This “State within a State”, no doubt excited the cupidity of the Turks after their assumption of power in Europe, and the removal of the sultan’s residence to Adrianople; but the Genoese succeeded for a time in averting the threatening danger by making numerous concessions, as appears by the treaty of commerce concluded by them in 1387 with Murad I., whose successor, Bajazet, lay siege to Constantinople. This monarch, however, was constrained to turn his arms against Timour, and the capital was spared the horrors of a longer siege. The battle of Angora, so fatal to the Ottoman power, delayed for a few decades only the fall of the Greek Empire and the disappearance of the Genoese.—Bruun.
(1.)“Pera, which the Greeks call Kalathan, and the Infidels call it the same.”—The Genoese were already established at Constantinople when Manuel I. ascended the throne (1143). Besides the emporium of Copario in the city of Constantinople, they possessed Orcu in the suburb of Galata (Heyd,Le Colonie Commer., etc., i, 330; Desimone,I Genovesi, etc., 217et seq.), which they occupied during the reign of the Angelos dynasty, remaining there so long as the Latin Empire lasted, but without ever successfully rivalling the Venetians. After the restoration of the Greek Empire at Constantinople by Michel VIII. in 1261, their fortunes changed in consequence of the great privileges that were accorded to them by the emperor, which included the cession of the suburb of Galata, soon to become the central depôt of all their settlements in Greece, on the shores of the Black Sea and of the Sea of Azoff, a transfer which probably accounts for the appearance of “Mæotis palus, nunc Galatia”, in the list of new names supplied by Codinus (Hieroclis Synecdemus, etc., 313).
Notwithstanding the rivalry of the Venetians, who in 1296 even seized upon Galata, or Pera as the colony was usually called by the Latins, and their frequent quarrels with the Greeks, the commercial prosperity of the Genoese settlement went on increasing until about the middle of the 14th century, when the Customs dues amounted to 200,000 hyperperes, those at Constantinople scarcely reaching the sum of 30,000 hyperperes(Niceph. Greg., ii, 842). This “State within a State”, no doubt excited the cupidity of the Turks after their assumption of power in Europe, and the removal of the sultan’s residence to Adrianople; but the Genoese succeeded for a time in averting the threatening danger by making numerous concessions, as appears by the treaty of commerce concluded by them in 1387 with Murad I., whose successor, Bajazet, lay siege to Constantinople. This monarch, however, was constrained to turn his arms against Timour, and the capital was spared the horrors of a longer siege. The battle of Angora, so fatal to the Ottoman power, delayed for a few decades only the fall of the Greek Empire and the disappearance of the Genoese.—Bruun.
(2.)“caused two seas to flow into each other.”—“La formation et l’origine du Bosphore de Thrace,” says Vivien de Saint-Martin (Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 469), “ont donné lieu, chez les anciens comme chez les modernes, aux hypothèses les plus aventureuses, jeux hardis de l’imagination basés sur de vieilles traditions de convulsions et de cataclysmes; les observations de la géologie moderne sont venues anéantir ces systèmes d’époques moins rigoureuses, en démontrant que les terrains de nature différente qui constituent les deux côtés du détroit, n’ont jamais pu être produit par un déchirement, et qu’il existe de toute nécessité depuis l’origine même des choses.” Other authors, including some philologists (Menn, inJahresbericht über d. Gymn. u. d. Realschule zu Neuss, 1854, 18), think otherwise, so that we need not be surprised if the sages at Constantinople also differed in opinion, or that the people there should have included the cutting of the strait among the exploits of Alexander.—Bruun.
(2.)“caused two seas to flow into each other.”—“La formation et l’origine du Bosphore de Thrace,” says Vivien de Saint-Martin (Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 469), “ont donné lieu, chez les anciens comme chez les modernes, aux hypothèses les plus aventureuses, jeux hardis de l’imagination basés sur de vieilles traditions de convulsions et de cataclysmes; les observations de la géologie moderne sont venues anéantir ces systèmes d’époques moins rigoureuses, en démontrant que les terrains de nature différente qui constituent les deux côtés du détroit, n’ont jamais pu être produit par un déchirement, et qu’il existe de toute nécessité depuis l’origine même des choses.” Other authors, including some philologists (Menn, inJahresbericht über d. Gymn. u. d. Realschule zu Neuss, 1854, 18), think otherwise, so that we need not be surprised if the sages at Constantinople also differed in opinion, or that the people there should have included the cutting of the strait among the exploits of Alexander.—Bruun.
(3.)“Troya, on a fine plain, and one can still see where the city stood.”—The ruins of the city of Priam did not exist in Schiltberger’s time any more than they do now; but in the absence of the material vestiges that Lechevalier and other travellers, his successors, believed they found beneath the surface of the earth, there is Homer’s admirable description, precise as that of the most accurate geographer, and which restores to us the primitivemap of the Trojan plain. I am here under the necessity of quoting at some length, a passage from Vivien de Saint-Martin’sDescription de l’Asie Mineur, 489:—“Dès que l’on accepte le plateau de Bounar-Bachi” (a name, says this author, derived from two sources of the Scamander) “comme l’emplacement de la Troie homérique, les indications circonstanciées et si nombreuses que fournit le Poète sur les localités environnantes, viennent s’adapter d’elles-mêmes an terrain actuel.” “Une ville de fondation éolienne qui usurpe le nom d’Ilion, et qui par la suite des temps et d’obscurité des traditions, prétendit occuper l’emplacement même de la cité de Priam, s’était élevée sur une autre éminence éloignée d’une lieue vers le Nord, et située non plus sur la gauche, mais sur la rive droite du Simoïs. Cette ville est l’Ilium des siècles postérieurs, l’Ilium Recens; et lorsque les poètes ou les historiens de l’époque romaine parlent du berceau de leur race, c’est toujours à cette Ilium éolienne qu’il faut rapporter leurs allusions et leurs descriptions, car le site réel de l’Ilium primitive était dès lors oublié. La nouvelle Ilium est maintenant ruinée, comme l’Ilium homérique; près de l’éminence isolée qu’elle occupa, on trouve aujourd’hui le village Turc de Tchiblak.”The ruins near the sea and at no great distance from Constantinople, believed by Schiltberger to have been those of the royal city, must have been the remains of Alexandria Troas opposite the island of Tenedos. It was there that the Russian pilgrim Daniel, and the author’s contemporaries, the archdeacon Zosimus and Clavijo, thought they saw the ruins of Troy, as was the case one hundred years later, 1547, with the French traveller Belon, who landed that he might examine them with the greater facility. At the base of a small hillock, but within the circuit of the walls of the city, were some ancient arches and the remains of two palaces in marble (Obs. de plusieurs singularités trouvées en Grèce, en Asie, etc.; in Saint-Martin, ii, 8). Belon passes lightly over the difficulty he experienced in not finding near this, the supposed site of the Homeric city, the two rivers Simoïs and Xanthus.The honorary president of the Geographical Society at Paris has lately sought to prove, that the city of Priam should be looked forwhere Lechevalier conceived it to be, that is to say, at Bunarbashí, whence Dr. Schliemann believes he is justified in removing it to the neighbourhood of Ilium Recens or Hissarlik, as the result of the successful explorations conducted by himself with the assistance of his wife. Although some English and most German authorities applaud the zeal with which his work was performed, and the great importance of his discoveries to students of archæology, all are not so readily persuaded that the question of the position of Ilium is solved, seeing that the topographical details, as we receive them from Homer, are drawn from the imagination of the poet, rather than after the reality.—Bruun.
(3.)“Troya, on a fine plain, and one can still see where the city stood.”—The ruins of the city of Priam did not exist in Schiltberger’s time any more than they do now; but in the absence of the material vestiges that Lechevalier and other travellers, his successors, believed they found beneath the surface of the earth, there is Homer’s admirable description, precise as that of the most accurate geographer, and which restores to us the primitivemap of the Trojan plain. I am here under the necessity of quoting at some length, a passage from Vivien de Saint-Martin’sDescription de l’Asie Mineur, 489:—“Dès que l’on accepte le plateau de Bounar-Bachi” (a name, says this author, derived from two sources of the Scamander) “comme l’emplacement de la Troie homérique, les indications circonstanciées et si nombreuses que fournit le Poète sur les localités environnantes, viennent s’adapter d’elles-mêmes an terrain actuel.” “Une ville de fondation éolienne qui usurpe le nom d’Ilion, et qui par la suite des temps et d’obscurité des traditions, prétendit occuper l’emplacement même de la cité de Priam, s’était élevée sur une autre éminence éloignée d’une lieue vers le Nord, et située non plus sur la gauche, mais sur la rive droite du Simoïs. Cette ville est l’Ilium des siècles postérieurs, l’Ilium Recens; et lorsque les poètes ou les historiens de l’époque romaine parlent du berceau de leur race, c’est toujours à cette Ilium éolienne qu’il faut rapporter leurs allusions et leurs descriptions, car le site réel de l’Ilium primitive était dès lors oublié. La nouvelle Ilium est maintenant ruinée, comme l’Ilium homérique; près de l’éminence isolée qu’elle occupa, on trouve aujourd’hui le village Turc de Tchiblak.”
The ruins near the sea and at no great distance from Constantinople, believed by Schiltberger to have been those of the royal city, must have been the remains of Alexandria Troas opposite the island of Tenedos. It was there that the Russian pilgrim Daniel, and the author’s contemporaries, the archdeacon Zosimus and Clavijo, thought they saw the ruins of Troy, as was the case one hundred years later, 1547, with the French traveller Belon, who landed that he might examine them with the greater facility. At the base of a small hillock, but within the circuit of the walls of the city, were some ancient arches and the remains of two palaces in marble (Obs. de plusieurs singularités trouvées en Grèce, en Asie, etc.; in Saint-Martin, ii, 8). Belon passes lightly over the difficulty he experienced in not finding near this, the supposed site of the Homeric city, the two rivers Simoïs and Xanthus.
The honorary president of the Geographical Society at Paris has lately sought to prove, that the city of Priam should be looked forwhere Lechevalier conceived it to be, that is to say, at Bunarbashí, whence Dr. Schliemann believes he is justified in removing it to the neighbourhood of Ilium Recens or Hissarlik, as the result of the successful explorations conducted by himself with the assistance of his wife. Although some English and most German authorities applaud the zeal with which his work was performed, and the great importance of his discoveries to students of archæology, all are not so readily persuaded that the question of the position of Ilium is solved, seeing that the topographical details, as we receive them from Homer, are drawn from the imagination of the poet, rather than after the reality.—Bruun.
(4.)“for all [kinds of] pastime that might be desired in front of the palace.”—The games, chiefly of Eastern origin, that were held in the open space in front of the imperial residence, are mentioned by various authors. It will here suffice to quote from the writings of a predecessor of Schiltberger, and of one who followed after him.When Edrisi visited Constantinople, circa 1161, sports were held in the hippodrome, which he considered the most marvellous in the universe. It had to be passed before reaching the palace, an edifice unequalled in its proportions and in the beauty of its construction (Jaubert edition, 297). Bertrandon de la Brocquière, 1432 (Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn edition, 1848), thus describes one of the sports he witnessed in the large and handsome square in front of St. Sophia: “I saw the brother of the emperor, the despot of the Morea, exercise himself with a score of other horsemen. Each had a bow, and they gallopped along the enclosure throwing their hats before them, which, when they had passed, they shot at; and he who with his arrow pierced the hat or was nearest to it, was esteemed the most expert.”—Ed.
(4.)“for all [kinds of] pastime that might be desired in front of the palace.”—The games, chiefly of Eastern origin, that were held in the open space in front of the imperial residence, are mentioned by various authors. It will here suffice to quote from the writings of a predecessor of Schiltberger, and of one who followed after him.
When Edrisi visited Constantinople, circa 1161, sports were held in the hippodrome, which he considered the most marvellous in the universe. It had to be passed before reaching the palace, an edifice unequalled in its proportions and in the beauty of its construction (Jaubert edition, 297). Bertrandon de la Brocquière, 1432 (Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn edition, 1848), thus describes one of the sports he witnessed in the large and handsome square in front of St. Sophia: “I saw the brother of the emperor, the despot of the Morea, exercise himself with a score of other horsemen. Each had a bow, and they gallopped along the enclosure throwing their hats before them, which, when they had passed, they shot at; and he who with his arrow pierced the hat or was nearest to it, was esteemed the most expert.”—Ed.
(5.)“he has no longer that power, so the apple has disappeared.”—Stephen of Novgorod (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 14), a pilgrim passing through Constantinople about the year 1350, certifies that the emperor held in his hand a kind of golden apple surmounted by a cross. Clavijo says the “pella redondadorada” was in its place, and so, we may conclude, was the cross; because in 1420, Zosimus (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 38) saw the cross on the apple that was in the emperor’s hand; it is probable, therefore, that these insignias were removed between the years 1420–1427, at which latter date Schiltberger spent some months at Constantinople after his escape from bondage.A short time before the author’s arrival in the city of the Cæsars, the aged Manuel died (1425), and John, his son and successor, was forced to sign a treaty of peace with the Turks, the conditions being of the most onerous nature; for he was deprived of all his possessions with the exception of the capital, the appanages in the Morea of the Greek princes, and a few fortresses on the shores of the Black Sea (Zinkeisen,Gesch. d. O. R., i, 533); he also covenanted to pay the sultan an annual tribute of 300,000 aspres, and to make him numerous presents of great value as a mark of personal regard. In such circumstances the unfortunate monarch must have been under the necessity of laying hands upon all the gold he could come across, and Schiltberger’sbon moton the disappearance of the apple together with the emperor’s power, might be taken literally.Zosimus relates that the statue which held the apple was distant an arrow’s flight from the hippodrome, doubtlessly the “fine square for tilting”, now known as the Meïdan. The magnificent palace wherein receptions were held, and that excited the admiration of Schiltberger, must have been the Boukoleon and Daphna which adjoined the hippodrome (Dethier,Der Bosphor und Constantinopel, Wien, 1873, 22). This edifice was greatly neglected during the reigns of the last of the Palæologi, and after his conquest of Constantinople, Mahomet II. ordered its complete destruction.The other palace noticed was the Blackernes, in which Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ.29) was received by the emperor Manuel. Near it, Bertrandon de la Brocquière found a “fausse braie d’un bon et haut mur en avant du fossé, qui était en glacis excepté dans un espace de deux cents pas à l’une de ses extrémités près du palais”. This must have been the place where Schiltberger saw a “getüll.”1—Bruun.(5A.) The statement that the statue was placed on a pillar is corroborated by Cedrenus in his Chronicles, and in the Annals of Zonaras, in which works we find it stated that the great pillar Augusteon was erected in the fifteenth year of the reign of Justinian, the statue being placed on it two years later. When Bertrandon de la Brocquière saw the equestrian statue, which he inadvertently calls that of Constantine, it grasped a sceptre in the left hand. Pierre Gilles, the naturalist and author, sent to the Levant by Francis I. of France, found portions of this statue in the melting house where ordnance were cast, it having been overturned and destroyed in 1523 (Antiquities of Constantinople, London, 1729); or in 1525, according to the anonymous author of the Constantiniade. The proportions were colossal, for the leg exceeded the height of a man, and the nose was nine inches in length, as were also the hoofs of the horse. Gilles represents that the statue, which was made of brass, faced the East, as if the emperor was marching against the Persians; the right arm was stretched out, and in the left hand was a globe to signify universal power over the whole world, all success in war being attributed to the cross fixed on the top. He was dressed like Achilles, in a coat of mail and shining helmet.It is certain that the globe and cross disappeared fully one hundred years before the arrival at Constantinople of Gilles, whose detailed description of the statue must have reference to its original condition.—Ed.
(5.)“he has no longer that power, so the apple has disappeared.”—Stephen of Novgorod (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 14), a pilgrim passing through Constantinople about the year 1350, certifies that the emperor held in his hand a kind of golden apple surmounted by a cross. Clavijo says the “pella redondadorada” was in its place, and so, we may conclude, was the cross; because in 1420, Zosimus (Pout. Rouss. loud., ii, 38) saw the cross on the apple that was in the emperor’s hand; it is probable, therefore, that these insignias were removed between the years 1420–1427, at which latter date Schiltberger spent some months at Constantinople after his escape from bondage.
A short time before the author’s arrival in the city of the Cæsars, the aged Manuel died (1425), and John, his son and successor, was forced to sign a treaty of peace with the Turks, the conditions being of the most onerous nature; for he was deprived of all his possessions with the exception of the capital, the appanages in the Morea of the Greek princes, and a few fortresses on the shores of the Black Sea (Zinkeisen,Gesch. d. O. R., i, 533); he also covenanted to pay the sultan an annual tribute of 300,000 aspres, and to make him numerous presents of great value as a mark of personal regard. In such circumstances the unfortunate monarch must have been under the necessity of laying hands upon all the gold he could come across, and Schiltberger’sbon moton the disappearance of the apple together with the emperor’s power, might be taken literally.
Zosimus relates that the statue which held the apple was distant an arrow’s flight from the hippodrome, doubtlessly the “fine square for tilting”, now known as the Meïdan. The magnificent palace wherein receptions were held, and that excited the admiration of Schiltberger, must have been the Boukoleon and Daphna which adjoined the hippodrome (Dethier,Der Bosphor und Constantinopel, Wien, 1873, 22). This edifice was greatly neglected during the reigns of the last of the Palæologi, and after his conquest of Constantinople, Mahomet II. ordered its complete destruction.
The other palace noticed was the Blackernes, in which Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ.29) was received by the emperor Manuel. Near it, Bertrandon de la Brocquière found a “fausse braie d’un bon et haut mur en avant du fossé, qui était en glacis excepté dans un espace de deux cents pas à l’une de ses extrémités près du palais”. This must have been the place where Schiltberger saw a “getüll.”1—Bruun.
(5A.) The statement that the statue was placed on a pillar is corroborated by Cedrenus in his Chronicles, and in the Annals of Zonaras, in which works we find it stated that the great pillar Augusteon was erected in the fifteenth year of the reign of Justinian, the statue being placed on it two years later. When Bertrandon de la Brocquière saw the equestrian statue, which he inadvertently calls that of Constantine, it grasped a sceptre in the left hand. Pierre Gilles, the naturalist and author, sent to the Levant by Francis I. of France, found portions of this statue in the melting house where ordnance were cast, it having been overturned and destroyed in 1523 (Antiquities of Constantinople, London, 1729); or in 1525, according to the anonymous author of the Constantiniade. The proportions were colossal, for the leg exceeded the height of a man, and the nose was nine inches in length, as were also the hoofs of the horse. Gilles represents that the statue, which was made of brass, faced the East, as if the emperor was marching against the Persians; the right arm was stretched out, and in the left hand was a globe to signify universal power over the whole world, all success in war being attributed to the cross fixed on the top. He was dressed like Achilles, in a coat of mail and shining helmet.
It is certain that the globe and cross disappeared fully one hundred years before the arrival at Constantinople of Gilles, whose detailed description of the statue must have reference to its original condition.—Ed.
1Seepage 84.
1Seepage 84.
(1.)“Lemprie; in it is a mountain that is so high, it reaches to the clouds.”—French and Italian names commencing with a vowel, commonly became transformed by the addition of the article which preceded them, and in this way, Imbro was altered during the Latin empire to Lembro, the name ordinarily given to the island, whence “Lemprie”, and Nembro of Clavijo. During a part of the 15th century, Imbros belonged to the Gattilusio, a Genoese family, and in 1430 became subject to the Greek emperor. Theisland is overspread with the ruins of many castles, the walls of which are covered with inscriptions and armorial bearings (Heyd,Le Colonie Commer., i, 416).—Bruun.(1A.) The author’s statement may be taken as being the reverse of the fact, and that the clouds had descended to the mountain, for the highest point of land on the island of Imbros is only 1959 feet, an altitude altogether insignificant when compared to the mountains he must have seen in his journeys; they include the great range of the Caucasus, shewing summits at upwards of 18,000 feet, and the noble Ararat, rising nearly 15,000 feet above the plains of the Araxes. Had his course lay further to the west, Samothraky, at 5248 feet above the sea, would have excited his imagination still more.—Ed.
(1.)“Lemprie; in it is a mountain that is so high, it reaches to the clouds.”—French and Italian names commencing with a vowel, commonly became transformed by the addition of the article which preceded them, and in this way, Imbro was altered during the Latin empire to Lembro, the name ordinarily given to the island, whence “Lemprie”, and Nembro of Clavijo. During a part of the 15th century, Imbros belonged to the Gattilusio, a Genoese family, and in 1430 became subject to the Greek emperor. Theisland is overspread with the ruins of many castles, the walls of which are covered with inscriptions and armorial bearings (Heyd,Le Colonie Commer., i, 416).—Bruun.
(1A.) The author’s statement may be taken as being the reverse of the fact, and that the clouds had descended to the mountain, for the highest point of land on the island of Imbros is only 1959 feet, an altitude altogether insignificant when compared to the mountains he must have seen in his journeys; they include the great range of the Caucasus, shewing summits at upwards of 18,000 feet, and the noble Ararat, rising nearly 15,000 feet above the plains of the Araxes. Had his course lay further to the west, Samothraky, at 5248 feet above the sea, would have excited his imagination still more.—Ed.
(2.)“wide, large, and thick as a mill-stone.”—The “golden discs” may have been simply of golden glass or mosion, with which the interior of the dome of St. Sophia was covered, as we are informed by Theophanes and Cedrenus, whose description refers to the present dome constructed soon after 559, the thirty-second year of the reign of Justinian.—Ed.
(2.)“wide, large, and thick as a mill-stone.”—The “golden discs” may have been simply of golden glass or mosion, with which the interior of the dome of St. Sophia was covered, as we are informed by Theophanes and Cedrenus, whose description refers to the present dome constructed soon after 559, the thirty-second year of the reign of Justinian.—Ed.
(3.)“I myself was at that same time with the king in Turkey.” After the battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet renewed the siege of Constantinople, the city being succoured by a force of 1200 men sent by Charles VI. of France, and bodies of troops from Genoa, Venice, Rhodes, and Lesbos. Marshal Boucicault withstood the siege with his little army, and on quitting the capital in 1399, the command devolved upon Chateaumorant, the emperor Manuel being absent in France, whither he had gone to ask for assistance. It was fortunate for the Greeks that Bajazet was obliged to muster the whole of his forces to enable him to encounter Timour’s legions.—Bruun.
(3.)“I myself was at that same time with the king in Turkey.” After the battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet renewed the siege of Constantinople, the city being succoured by a force of 1200 men sent by Charles VI. of France, and bodies of troops from Genoa, Venice, Rhodes, and Lesbos. Marshal Boucicault withstood the siege with his little army, and on quitting the capital in 1399, the command devolved upon Chateaumorant, the emperor Manuel being absent in France, whither he had gone to ask for assistance. It was fortunate for the Greeks that Bajazet was obliged to muster the whole of his forces to enable him to encounter Timour’s legions.—Bruun.
(1.)“Christus is risen.”—The ordinances of the Greek Church have undergone but little change since Schiltberger wrote.Warm water, τὸ ζέον (ὕδωρ being understood), is always mixed with wine.Leavened bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, is now ordinarily made and sold by bakers. It is called προσφορὰ, “prossura” in the text, and is administered to the people in turn by the priest, who stands at the altar. It is also administered to young children after baptism.Wednesday and Friday continue to be the ordinary fast days.Women are required to stand apart from the men, so that all churches are built with a γυναικέτης, or place for women; but this rule is not enforced.The so-called “coleba”, more correctly κολάβα, are still given to the priests at the μνημόσυνον, or service for the dead. This custom is very strictly observed.Fasts are kept at all the periods indicated, except on the day of the Assumption, when there is no fast. The fast for the Apostles commences on the fifty-ninth day after Easter Day.Χριστὸς ἀνέστη—Christ is risen—is sung daily from Easter Day to the Day of the Assumption.—Ed.
(1.)“Christus is risen.”—The ordinances of the Greek Church have undergone but little change since Schiltberger wrote.
Warm water, τὸ ζέον (ὕδωρ being understood), is always mixed with wine.
Leavened bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, is now ordinarily made and sold by bakers. It is called προσφορὰ, “prossura” in the text, and is administered to the people in turn by the priest, who stands at the altar. It is also administered to young children after baptism.
Wednesday and Friday continue to be the ordinary fast days.
Women are required to stand apart from the men, so that all churches are built with a γυναικέτης, or place for women; but this rule is not enforced.
The so-called “coleba”, more correctly κολάβα, are still given to the priests at the μνημόσυνον, or service for the dead. This custom is very strictly observed.
Fasts are kept at all the periods indicated, except on the day of the Assumption, when there is no fast. The fast for the Apostles commences on the fifty-ninth day after Easter Day.
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη—Christ is risen—is sung daily from Easter Day to the Day of the Assumption.—Ed.
(1.)“because in the same place there is a breakwater.”—“Wann es an der selben stat ein getüll hat.” The identical word “getüll” appears in the editions of 1475 (?) and 1549, but is altogether omitted by Penzel, and remains unexplained by Neumann. Professor Bruun (Russian edition) interprets it as palisade; I prefer, however, to translate it as breakwater, believing that I recognise in the locality described by Schiltberger that part of the city on the Sea of Marmora, between the Eptapyrgyon—Seven Towers—and the Acropolis, abreast of which huge stones were placed to resist the force of the waves (Cantacuzene,Hist. de l’Empire d’Orient). An earlier author (Glycas,Annales) states that they were conveyed thither for the construction of the fortifications. At any rate it is a fact, that the Admiralty chart shows what appears to be a submerged reef close inshore in onefathom and a half of water, about one half mile to the westward of Seraglio point, and not quite two miles from the Seven Towers.—Ed.
(1.)“because in the same place there is a breakwater.”—“Wann es an der selben stat ein getüll hat.” The identical word “getüll” appears in the editions of 1475 (?) and 1549, but is altogether omitted by Penzel, and remains unexplained by Neumann. Professor Bruun (Russian edition) interprets it as palisade; I prefer, however, to translate it as breakwater, believing that I recognise in the locality described by Schiltberger that part of the city on the Sea of Marmora, between the Eptapyrgyon—Seven Towers—and the Acropolis, abreast of which huge stones were placed to resist the force of the waves (Cantacuzene,Hist. de l’Empire d’Orient). An earlier author (Glycas,Annales) states that they were conveyed thither for the construction of the fortifications. At any rate it is a fact, that the Admiralty chart shows what appears to be a submerged reef close inshore in onefathom and a half of water, about one half mile to the westward of Seraglio point, and not quite two miles from the Seven Towers.—Ed.
(2.)“Many priests wear white garments at Mass.”—Every member of the Greek clergy is buried in complete ecclesiastical attire, but the ancient custom of interring in a sitting posture, was and is still observed in the case of a bishop only.In a recent account of the obsequies at Constantinople of a bishop of the Greek Church (The Times, August 29, 1878), the Correspondent writes: “I was ushered into a small densely crowded church, and on walking forward a few steps, found myself confronted by an aged and venerable prelate, seated on a throne in full canonicals, richly decorated with gold and jewels. He sat perfectly motionless, with his eyes closed, and holding in his right hand a jewelled rod resembling a sceptre. Two or three people advanced and devoutly kissed his hand, but he did not return the customary benediction, and gave no sign of consciousness. ‘Is he asleep?’ I whispered inquiringly to my friend. ‘No, he is dead; that is the late patriarch’.”Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός is called the Τρισάγιον, as being emblematic of the Holy Trinity. It is not sung in the Greek Church. Κύριε ἐλέησον is the response of the people to a prayer repeated by the priest during the service; and it is quite true that Χριστὲ ἐλέησον is never said in Greek churches.It is still the custom to kiss the priest’s right hand, at the same time saying, Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα!—Thy blessing, Your reverence. The priest places his left hand on the person’s head and replies, Εὐλογία!—A blessing on thee.A man must certainly be married before he enters the priesthood, and even before he can obtain the degree of deacon; but it is quite immaterial whether he be a father previous to or after ordination.—Ed.
(2.)“Many priests wear white garments at Mass.”—Every member of the Greek clergy is buried in complete ecclesiastical attire, but the ancient custom of interring in a sitting posture, was and is still observed in the case of a bishop only.
In a recent account of the obsequies at Constantinople of a bishop of the Greek Church (The Times, August 29, 1878), the Correspondent writes: “I was ushered into a small densely crowded church, and on walking forward a few steps, found myself confronted by an aged and venerable prelate, seated on a throne in full canonicals, richly decorated with gold and jewels. He sat perfectly motionless, with his eyes closed, and holding in his right hand a jewelled rod resembling a sceptre. Two or three people advanced and devoutly kissed his hand, but he did not return the customary benediction, and gave no sign of consciousness. ‘Is he asleep?’ I whispered inquiringly to my friend. ‘No, he is dead; that is the late patriarch’.”
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός is called the Τρισάγιον, as being emblematic of the Holy Trinity. It is not sung in the Greek Church. Κύριε ἐλέησον is the response of the people to a prayer repeated by the priest during the service; and it is quite true that Χριστὲ ἐλέησον is never said in Greek churches.
It is still the custom to kiss the priest’s right hand, at the same time saying, Εὐλόγησον, Δέσποτα!—Thy blessing, Your reverence. The priest places his left hand on the person’s head and replies, Εὐλογία!—A blessing on thee.
A man must certainly be married before he enters the priesthood, and even before he can obtain the degree of deacon; but it is quite immaterial whether he be a father previous to or after ordination.—Ed.
(1.)“after which, he can take another wife, and she another husband.”—The obscene and demoralising customs attributed to the Jassen or Yasses are fully and minutely described by the Abbé Chappe d’Auteroche, who witnessed precisely like ceremonies at Tobolsk, where marriages amongst the natives were thus celebrated (Voyage en Sibérie en 1761, etc., Paris, 1768, i, 163,et seq.). Olearius notices somewhat similar, but certainly milder, doings at Moscow in his time (Voyages, etc., 243); and Pitt (A True and Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mahommetans, etc., Exon., 1704) recounts something of the sort as occurring among the Algerines.It would appear, from a report recently made by the Ethnological Section of the Imperial Geographical Society of St. Petersburg, that similar practices, but in a greatly modified form, are in vogue amongst the peasantry in some parts of Little Russia.—Ed.
(1.)“after which, he can take another wife, and she another husband.”—The obscene and demoralising customs attributed to the Jassen or Yasses are fully and minutely described by the Abbé Chappe d’Auteroche, who witnessed precisely like ceremonies at Tobolsk, where marriages amongst the natives were thus celebrated (Voyage en Sibérie en 1761, etc., Paris, 1768, i, 163,et seq.). Olearius notices somewhat similar, but certainly milder, doings at Moscow in his time (Voyages, etc., 243); and Pitt (A True and Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mahommetans, etc., Exon., 1704) recounts something of the sort as occurring among the Algerines.
It would appear, from a report recently made by the Ethnological Section of the Imperial Geographical Society of St. Petersburg, that similar practices, but in a greatly modified form, are in vogue amongst the peasantry in some parts of Little Russia.—Ed.
(1.)“Karawag.”—This must have been the plain of Karabagh, between the rivers Kour and Araxes, where Shah Rokh spent the winter of 1420, being accompanied by his vassals; Khalyl Oullah, the shah of Shirwan, and Minutcher, his own valorous brother, being among his guests (Dorn,Versuch einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., vi, 4, 549). Like Schiltberger, Barbaro and Contarini have called the Kour, Tigris, and the Tigris, Shat or Set.—Bruun.
(1.)“Karawag.”—This must have been the plain of Karabagh, between the rivers Kour and Araxes, where Shah Rokh spent the winter of 1420, being accompanied by his vassals; Khalyl Oullah, the shah of Shirwan, and Minutcher, his own valorous brother, being among his guests (Dorn,Versuch einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., vi, 4, 549). Like Schiltberger, Barbaro and Contarini have called the Kour, Tigris, and the Tigris, Shat or Set.—Bruun.
(2.)“they call the Germans, Nymitsch.”—This term is borrowed from the Slaves, who have applied it to the Germans from the earliest times, either because the latter spoke an incomprehensible, a dumb language, or, as Schafarik explains (Slawische Alterthümer, i, 442), because they followed the example ofthe Celts, who called certain German tribes settled in Gaul, Nemetes.1—Bruun.
(2.)“they call the Germans, Nymitsch.”—This term is borrowed from the Slaves, who have applied it to the Germans from the earliest times, either because the latter spoke an incomprehensible, a dumb language, or, as Schafarik explains (Slawische Alterthümer, i, 442), because they followed the example ofthe Celts, who called certain German tribes settled in Gaul, Nemetes.1—Bruun.
1Nyemoï is the Russian adjective for dumb.Ed.
1Nyemoï is the Russian adjective for dumb.Ed.
(3.)“then did the sultan of Alkenier conquer it.”—Sis became finally subject to the Egyptians in 1374–75, having fallen into their hands upon several previous occasions, to wit, in 1266, 1275, and 1298 (Weil,Gesch. der Chal., iv, 55, 78, 213, 233). They had frequently appeared in force in its neighbourhood, notably in 1278 (Makrizi by Quatremère,I, i, 166), a date which nearly corresponds with the year in which the city was taken; a statement that would have been communicated to the author by his friends the Armenians, the most interested in the fate of their capital. It need not in this case be supposed that Schiltberger confounded the Mahomedan with the Christian year, and that he conceived 655 of the Hegira to correspond to 1277. In 655 orA.D.1257, Egypt was in too disturbed a state for the sultan to trouble himself about the conquest of Sis.—Bruun.
(3.)“then did the sultan of Alkenier conquer it.”—Sis became finally subject to the Egyptians in 1374–75, having fallen into their hands upon several previous occasions, to wit, in 1266, 1275, and 1298 (Weil,Gesch. der Chal., iv, 55, 78, 213, 233). They had frequently appeared in force in its neighbourhood, notably in 1278 (Makrizi by Quatremère,I, i, 166), a date which nearly corresponds with the year in which the city was taken; a statement that would have been communicated to the author by his friends the Armenians, the most interested in the fate of their capital. It need not in this case be supposed that Schiltberger confounded the Mahomedan with the Christian year, and that he conceived 655 of the Hegira to correspond to 1277. In 655 orA.D.1257, Egypt was in too disturbed a state for the sultan to trouble himself about the conquest of Sis.—Bruun.