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

(1.) “Then came many people from all countries to help him.“—The army of King Sigismund, made up of contingents from various states, consisted of about 100,000 men at the siege of Nicopolis, 60,000 being horsemen. An Eastern writer has estimated the number of fighting men at 130,000 (Aschbach, Gesch. K. Sigmunds, i, 101, Saad-eddin, Bratutti edition). In his narrative of the action, Bonfinius (Rer. Hung. Decad. III., ii, 403) repeats the proud boast of the king of Hungary, that not only should he turn the Turks out of Europe, but were the sky itself to fall, he was prepared to support it on the points of his lances.—Ed.

(2.) “Pudem.”—In the middle ages, this city was called Bdin or Bydinum (Schafarik, Slawische Alterthümer, etc., ii, 217), transformed by Schiltberger into Pudem, and by Marshal de Boucicault (Petitot Collect., vi, 448) into Baudins. According to Mannert, quoted by Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., i, 416), Widdin was situated on the site of the ancient Bononia, now called by the people Bodon; but he makes no mention of the Βιδύνη of the Byzantines, which he would have found on consulting Acropolita. Widdin, the capital of Western Bulgaria, was inherited by J. Sracimir upon the death of his father, the King John Alexander, in 1365; and Eastern Bulgaria was bestowed by this sovereign on his younger son, Shishman III. The former was under the necessity of acknowledging the suzerainty of the Porte, in the reign of Amurat I; and there is every reason for supposing that it was he whom Boucicault (448) designates the lord of the country, in saying, that he was a Greek Christian, forcibly subjected to the Turks.—Bruun.

(3.) “The king took possession of this city also.”—Hammer (328) and Engel (Gesch. d. U. R., ii, 198) are of opinion, that Schiltberger here refers to the city of Orsova; but the former allows, that the city believed by Engel to be Orsova, was the Aristum of Bonfinius (Rer. Hung. Decad. III., ii, 377), called Raco by the French Marshal (449); it may therefore be conceded that the city in question was Rahova, on the road taken by the Christian army, which would have been retracing its steps, had its aim, after the capture of Widdin, been the siege of Orsova.—Bruun.

(3A.) “Nicopoly.”—In my Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger (Sitzungsberichte d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 271), I have endeavoured to shew that, in stating that the Infidels knew the city of “Schiltaw” by the name of “Nicopoly”, Schiltberger does not call attention to the city of Nicopolis on the Danube, near the estuary of the Osma, but to ancient Nicopolis founded by Trajan, the ruins of which are still to be seen near the village of Nikup, on the Rushita, a tributary of the Yantra. I was formerly of opinion that the battle which decided the Eastern question at that period, was fought near the village, and this opinion, adopted by several authors of merit, has recently been supported by M. Jirecek in his admirable work, Geschichte der Bulgaren, wherein reference is made to an ancient Servian Chronicle in which it is recorded, that the battle took place “na rece Rositê u Nikopolju”. It would appear, however, that the author of this notice, through some misapprehension, confounded the Rushita with the Osma; and M. Kanitz (Donau-Bulgarien, ii, 58–70) having lately, on just grounds, condemned my hypothesis, I am now persuaded that the Christians were defeated by Bajazet in the neighbourhood of the present town of Nicopolis, which was in existence at that time, though from what period is not known; nor are we able to determine when the ancient Nicopolis “ad Hæmum”, disappeared.

If Schiltberger’s contemporaries sometimes designated the one city by the name of Great Nicopolis, they did so simply to distinguish it from a fortress on the opposite, the left bank of the Danube, called Little Nicopolis, that was taken by the Christians in the preceding campaign (Jirecek, 354). It is, therefore, just possible, that the sultan, having passed Trnov, or Ternova, when on his way to the besieged city, had also entered Tchunkatch (see trans. of the Turkish historiographer, Neshry, in Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl. Gesellsch., xv, 346), the name possibly given by Neshry to the castle of Tchuka, the ruins of which are to be seen in the upper part of the city, called now as it was then, Shvishtov, Shistov, Sistova, situated at a distance of fifteen miles to the south-east of the field of battle. If such were indeed the case, I would venture to suggest, until some better explanation is offered, that our author may, by mistake or through some misconception, have given to the besieged city the name of Shistov, corrupted by him to “Schiltaw”.—Bruun.

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

The Christian soldiers fled in disorder, and being hard pressed by Bajazet’s troops, many were killed on the mountain, one of the heights near Nicopolis, as they hurried to the Danube, many others being drowned in their unsuccessful efforts to reach the shipping—probably some of the vessels of the Venetian blockading squadron, under the command of Giovanni Mocenigo, on board of which, Sigismund, and Philibert de Noillac, Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, were received; the latter being conveyed to Rhodes, whence the ships sailed for Dalmatia to land the king. It seems pretty clear, from Schiltberger’s narrative, that the battle of Nicopolis was fought in the immediate vicinity of the city on the Danube, and therefore at a considerable distance from the ancient Nicopolis, the city of Trajan. Details of the action will be found in Aubert de Vertot d’Aubeuff’s Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers de St. Jean de Jerusalem, etc., 1726.

There is no evidence that Schiltberger set foot in Shistova, but the name had doubtlessly become familiar to him, both before and after his capture, at a time that he was totally unacquainted with the language of the people amongst whom he had fallen. If the incidents of his eventful career were indeed dictated from memory, his statement that the Infidels knew Nicopolis as “Schiltaw”, for Shvishtov, Shishtovo, may be accounted for, by the accidental confusion of names.—Ed.

(4.) “Werterwaywod.”—Schiltberger evidently alludes here to John Mirca (John Mirtcha), prince or voyevoda of Walachia, called John, by Mme. de Lusson (Engel, Gesch. d. U. R., iv, 160: iii, 5), and Marcus, by the Byzantines (L. Chalco, 77). He was the son of the voyevoda, J. Radul, and having succeeded his elder brother, J. Dan, added the Dobroudja to his domains after the short reign of Ivanko or Iuanchus, “filius bonæ memoriæ magnifici domini Dobrdize”, as he is styled in the treaty concluded with the Genoese in 1387 (Not. et Extr., etc., xi, 65; and Mem. de l’Inst. de France, vii, 292–334). There is no difficulty in recognising the Bulgarian despot, Dobrotitch, in the person of the father, who, after the death of Alexander, declared his independance in the Dobroudja, whence, in all probability, its name. (Bruun, Journ. du Minis. de l’Instruc. Pub., St. Petersburg, Sept. 1877.)—Bruun.

(5.) “he had come a great distance with six thousand men.”—The force commanded by the Comte de Nevers, son of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, consisted of 1000 knights, 1000 soldiers, and 6000 mercenaries. The Count was supported by the flower of the French nobility. Aschbach (Gesch. K. Sigmund’s, i, 98) places the total at 10,000 men.—Ed.

(6.) “Duke of Iriseh, known as the despot.”—Stephen, prince of Servia, is here designated the despot of “Iriseh”, because Servia at that time was also known as Rascia. Thus—“ipsum regnum Rasciæ—regno Hungariæ; ab antiquo subjectum”, etc. (Engel, Gesch. d. U. R., iii, 370). Windeck, the contemporary biographer of Sigismund (Aschbach, Gesch. K. Sigmund’s, i, 234), likewise states, that the king advanced “gegen Sirfien und Raizen, und bedingte mit dem Tischbot”, that is to say, the despot. As the Turks are in the habit of preceding with an I, all foreign names commencing with a consonant, so may Schiltberger’s comrades, as Magyars, have converted Rascia into Iriseh.—Bruun.

(7.) “Duke of Burgony.”—This Duke of Burgundy was the valiant Comte de Nevers, aged 22 years only, afterwards surnamed Jean sans Peur; he was uncle to Charles VI. “Hanns Putzokardo” is easily recognised as the John Boucicault already noticed. As to the lord “Centumaranto”, Fallmerayer believes this person to have been Saint Omer, without, however, stating any reason for this belief; it is, therefore, more probable that Châteaumorant should be substituted for the name given by Schiltberger.

We read in Boucicault, that one Jean Chasteaumorant arrived in Turkey, with the money for the ransom of the French knights. It is very possible that a namesake, and even a near relative of this Châteaumorant, was among them, to whom the marshal afterwards entrusted the defence of Constantinople against the Turks, upon his own return to France.—Bruun.

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

(2.) “Kalipoli.”—Gallipoli, is mentioned (Ducas., Hist. Byz.) as being the first town occupied by the Turks (1356) on the European continent. By the treaty of Adrianople, 1204, upon the fall of the Empire, Gallipoli, which had been strongly fortified by the Byzantine emperors, fell to the Venetians; but the possession of an important stronghold commanding the entrance to the Marmora and Black Sea, was continually disputed by the Italians and Greeks, until the year 1307, when the Genoese and Greeks having, as allies, vanquished the Catalans in the Sea of Marmora, laid siege to Gallipoli, to which place those mercenaries of the Empire had been sent, who, after destroying the town and devastating the country around, withdrew into Attica and Bœotia. The Turks rebuilt the fortifications, which were greatly strengthened by Bajazet, who also constructed a port for his galleys. The Count de Nevers and 24 of his illustrious companions in arms, were detained in captivity at Gallipoli, and afterwards at Broussa, until ransomed for the sum of 200,000 golden ducats. (Heyd., Le Colonie Commer., i, 347; Hammer, Hist. de l’E. O., i, 106.)—Ed.

(3.) “Windischy land.”—According to Froissart (iv, c. 52), Sigismund embarked at Constantinople on board of a vessel that had just discharged a cargo of provisions. It is stated in the History of Cyprus, that the king arrived in Dalmatia by way of Rhodes. Thwrocz (Schwandtnerus, Script. Rerum Hung., iv, 9) adds, that he afterwards landed in Croatia, the country alluded to by Schiltberger as “Windischy land”. See “Windische Mark”, in Cosmographey.—Bruun.

(1.) “and the people he took away, and some he left in Greece.”—Baron Hammer points out, that Styrian historians have not noticed this fact, with which, in all probability, is connected the origin of certain Slave settlements in Asia Minor. M. Lamansky (O Slav. v. Mal. Asii) however, believes, they are of more ancient date.—Bruun.

(2.) “king-sultan.”—Schiltberger styles the sultan of Egypt, king-sultan, because, having the caliph at his court, he was considered as being at the head of all Mahomedan monarchs. The sultan at the period indicated was Barkok, the first of the dynasty of Circassian Mamelouks, if we except Bibars II, whose reign, 1309–1310, was of the shortest duration. Twenty years before his accession (1382), Barkok was carried as a slave into Egypt, from the Crimea, whither he had gone from his own native country in the Caucasus.—Bruun.

(3.) “king of Babylony.”—This king of Babylon was Ahmed, son of Oveis, son of the Jelarid Hassan the Great, the descendant of Abaka, the son of Houlakou, the son of Tuly, son of Jengiz Khan. Timour drove Ahmed from Baghdad, but he returned upon several occasions, notably in 1395, and remained until 1402. Previously to the battle of Nicopolis, Bajazet had written to tell him that, in his opinion, the expulsion of Timour was of greater moment than that of the Takfour, that is to say, of the Greek emperor (Hammer, Hist. de l’E. O., ii, 466, note xv).—Bruun.

(4.) “king of Persia.”—Even before the battle of Nicopolis, nearly the whole of Persia had been subjugated by Timour, and divided between his sons, Omar Sheykh and Miran Shah, and other amirs. The Shah Mansour, who had also appealed to Bajazet for succour, perished in 1393 at the battle of Sheeraz; the other princes of the house of Mouzzafer had been put to death, with the exception of Zein Alabin, and Shebel, the two sons of the shah Shoudia, who ended their days at Samarkand (Weil., Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 40); it is, consequently, somewhat puzzling to determine, to which sovereign of Persia the Christian captives were sent.—Bruun.

(5.) “White Tartary.”—According to Neumann, Schiltberger here seeks to distinguish the free Tatars from the Black Tatars, that is to say, the vanquished and paying tribute. Erdmann (Temud. d. U., 194), on the authority of Rashid uddin, considers that by White Tatars were meant the Turk tribes, who were afterwards known as Mongols, the Black Tatars being the real Mongols. He tells us, that after having subdued the White Tatars and other Turk people, the Black resumed their ancient name of Mongols, and extended their sway to Eastern Europe, including under the name of Tatars even the Turks in the West, with the exception of those by whom they were opposed in Asia Minor, and who afterwards became known in Europe as the Ottoman Turks.

This, however, does not explain to us where the White Tatars, repeatedly mentioned by Schiltberger, dwelt. We learn from him, first, that a powerful lord from their country was the son-in-law of Kady Bourhan uddin, sovereign of Sebaste, who was put to death by Kara Yelek or Oulouk, chief of the Turkomans of the White Sheep: secondly; that, having laid siege to the city of Angora, which belonged to Bajazet, they were forced to yield to him; and, thirdly, that at the battle of Angora, 30,000 of them went over to Timour, and were the cause of his gaining the day.

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

It is, nevertheless, no easy matter to reconcile this hypothesis with the statement made by Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 75). After alluding to the capture of Sebaste by Timour, the Spanish envoy continues:—“Before he arrived there, he met with a race called the White Tartars, who always wander over the plain; and he fought and conquered them, and took their lord prisoner; and took away as many as fifty thousand men and women with him. He then marched to Damascus,” etc., etc.

In another passage, he returns to the Tartaros Blancos subdued by Tamerlane, and says that they were encamped between Turkey (Asia Minor) and Syria. These White Tatars were evidently identical with the White Tatars of Schiltberger, who had nothing in common with the Tatars of the White Horde, frequently designated as being of “Great Tartary”. It may therefore be assumed that the White Tatars mentioned by both travellers, were Turkomans, inhabitants of the eastern parts of Asia Minor, whose descendants have to this day preserved the Mongol type, and the same mode of living as the White Tatars of Schiltberger and Clavijo (Viv. de Saint-Martin, Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 429). East Cilicia was at that time actually divided between two Turkoman dynasties, which had not been vanquished by the Ottoman arms; small states that had existed from the year 1378, the date at which the Lusignans, who had succeeded the Roupenian dynasty of Little Armenia in 1342, were expelled from Cilicia by the Baharite Mamelouks of Egypt. The one reigned at Marash, the other at Adana; the latter being known as the Ben Ramazan, the former as the Soulkadyr or Joulkadyr, the name by which Marash was afterwards known amongst Turkish geographers. Both dynasties were in existence until 1515, when they were subjugated by the sultan, Selim, and their territories incorporated with the empire (Viv. de Saint-Martin, Desc. de l’A. M., i, 529).

It would appear that the rulers of the White Tatars, alluded to by Clavijo, belonged to the family of the Joulkadyr. It was, at any rate, against that dynasty, Timour despatched a force after the capture of Sivas, to punish it for its hostility towards himself, when besieging that city (Weil., Gesch. d. Chalifen, v, 82); and the Mongols soon afterwards carried off all the herds belonging to a prince of this house, whose encampment was near Palmyra (ibid., 91). As was the case with the White Tatars of Clavijo, those mentioned by Schiltberger drew their rulers, at least in part, from princes of this house. It was Bajazet’s desire, that his son should marry the daughter of Nazr uddin Joulkadyr, who would not have been forgotten at the distribution of prisoners taken at Nicopolis. This Nazr uddin had received his fugitive relative, the son of Bourhan uddin, the brother-in-law, according to Schiltberger, of the ruler of the White Tatars. It appears to me that the seeming diversity in the statements made by various authors, with regard to the nationality of the troops who went over to Timour at the battle of Angora, is to be explained by admitting, that the Tatars who betrayed the cause of Bajazet, were Turkomans who acknowledged the authority of the Ben Ramazan and the Joulkadyr; that is to say, that their rulers were princes holding possessions in Asia Minor. Our author’s recital enables us to understand, why Oriental writers would seem to be at issue as to the nationality of the “Tatar Regiments” (Weil., Gesch. d. I. V., 437) which deserted their colours at the battle of Angora.—Bruun.

(6.) “Greater Armenia.”—Armenia proper is here called Greater, to distinguish it from the Lesser, which was understood to be the eastern part of Cappadocia, near the Euphrates. In the middle ages, the denomination Lesser Armenia included the whole of Cappadocia, inasmuch as it was inhabited by Armenians who had been expelled from their own country by the Seljouks and Turkomans (11th and 12th centuries). At a subsequent period, the Armenians occupied nearly the whole of Cilicia and the west of Syria, anciently called Commagen, and afterwards known as Euphrates. All these new acquisitions were included under the name of Lesser Armenia.—Bruun.

(1.) “Karanda.”—This city, on the site of ancient Laranda, is now known as Karaman, so named after the son of a certain Sophy, upon whom it was bestowed (1219–46) by Ala uddin, sultan of Iconium, together with a portion of Cappadocia and of Cilicia, that is to say, of Lesser Armenia. Mohammed, the son of Karaman, extended the limits of his states in every direction, and even took possession of Iconium or Konieh. His son Ali Bek, surnamed Ala uddin, was married to Nefise, the sister of Bajazet, an alliance, however, that did not restrain him from invading Ottoman territory, an act which resulted in war between the brothers-in-law, and he was made a prisoner by the Turks after the fall of Iconium, in 1392. According to Saad uddin (Zinkeisen, Gesch. d. O. R., i, 350), Karaman was killed by Timour Tash, governor of Angora, without the knowledge of Bajazet, who would have spared his brother-in-law. Ahmed and Mohammed, the sons of Karaman, were afterwards reinstated by Timour in their possessions, which included, besides Laranda, evidently the “Karanda” in the text, the cities of Alaïa, Derendeh, Sis, Veysheher, Konieh, Aksheher, Akseraï, and Anazarba.—Bruun.

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

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

(1.) “city of Samson.”—This is the ancient Amisos, still called Samsoun by the Turks. Fallmerayer (Gesch. d. K. v. T., 56, 289) observes, that the Byzantines frequently added a prefix to a name, such as εἰς, which, in time, became contracted to ες and σ, and in this way Ἄμισον was turned into σ' Ἄμισον—Σάμσον. This city, the chief town of Janyk, was then under the dominion of another Bajazet, surnamed the Impotent, who perished in his struggle with Bajazet about 1392.—Bruun.

(1A.) Fallmerayer’s explanation may be further illustrated, by quoting the names of ancient cities in the Morea and in the island of Crete, that have undergone change through the probable corruptions of a prefix. Hierapytna has become Tzerapetra; Itanus is now Tzetana, Tsitana, and even Sitana. Etea has become Setea, while Stamboul, Istamboul, itself is a corruption of Εἰς τὴν πόλιν. The modern Greeks would also appear to be in the habit of thus corrupting words in ordinary use, as, for instance, ampelon, vineyard, they call tsembela; kampos, a field, tzecampo, etc. (Spratt, Researches in Crete, i, 55, 200).—Ed.

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