If any reliance is to be placed in a MS. marginal note that appears on a page of an old edition of the Travels of Schiltberger, presumed to be of the year 1551, and preserved at Wels in Austria,1 then the author of the work before us was born at mid-day on the 9th day of May—in the year 1381, according to his own showing, because he states in the opening of his narrative, that he had not yet attained his sixteenth year when at the battle of Nicopolis (Sept. 28, 1396). So completely does Schiltberger eschew all reference to himself, that he leaves us quite in the dark even with regard to the place of his birth; for, in addressing the Reader, he states that his home was near the city of Munich; but upon his return to Bavaria, he proceeds to Frisingen, near which town he was born. Nothing whatever is known of his parentage or childhood; and that he has not remained entirely neglected and forgotten is owed to Thurnmaier, better known as Aventinus, who states, that upon his return from bondage, Schiltberger was taken in hand by the duke Albrecht III., and nominated his Chamberlain, an appointment that was probably made, in Neumann’s opinion, before the duke’s reign began, in 1438. This is all the Bavarian annalist has to say of his interesting countryman.

In the Introduction to his edition, Neumann offers a few particulars on the Schiltberge family, as they were communicated to him by CÖlestin von Schiltberg, Manager of the Royal Salt Mines at Reichenhall.

The origin of the ancient name of Schiltberger, or Schiltberge, is not known, but it is, in all probability, composite, from Schild—a coat of arms—and Berg, the mount on which the arms were raised. A certain Berchtholdus Marescalcus de Schiltberg is mentioned in a document of the year 1190, and others of the name appear at later dates as burghers, and marshals to the dukes of Bavaria.2

The Schiltberges of to-day trace their pedigree to our author, who is styled Chamberlain and Commander of the Body-guard to Albrecht III. Several of their ancestors, during the 18th century, were Counsellors in the Bavarian Electorate, and two Schiltberges, Johann Peter and Franz Joseph, were Professors of Law at the University of Ingolstadt. An Imperial decree, dated March 27, 1786, raising three brothers of the “ancient and noble lineage of Schiltberg” to the dignity of nobles of the State, having been confirmed by the Bavarian Electorate, the Schiltberges have ever since been included in the peerage of Bavaria.

Neumann’s complaint that our author has never been fully appreciated by his countrymen, appears to be only too true; but the same cannot be said of aliens. Leunclavius has availed himself largely, in his Pandects,3 of the information supplied by an eye-witness, for the purpose of illustrating the history of the Turks; and in later times, such men as J. R. Forster, M. C. Sprengel, J. Chr. von Engel, Hugh Murray, Hammer, Scheiger, Aschbach, Vivien de Saint-Martin, Fallmerayer, D’Avezac, Bruun, and Yule, have borne witness to the worth of what Schiltberger has left behind. If he is charged by Karamsin with making confused and senseless statements, the historian at least believes him to be truthful, and to have really been at all the places he claims to have visited.

Johann Schiltberger left his home in the year 1394, as he himself informs us, with his master, Leonard Richartinger. That was two years before the battle of Nicopolis was fought, ten months of which time be spent in Hungary, where his lord was in all probability serving in the auxiliary forces under Sigismund, king of that country. He must therefore have been launched into the world when in his fourteenth year only, and whatever the state of his education at that early age, certainly no opportunities could have been afforded him for improving it, during his long term of servitude. The composition of his work, throughout, and the diversified and undetermined mode of spelling Proper and Geographical names, show that the scribe was not a careful one, and tends to prove Schiltberger’s inability to read what was written, and correct the mistakes that were made; it is thus fairly conclusive, I venture to say, that his book, like so many other narratives of the Middle Ages, was written under dictation, a fact exhibiting marvellous retention of memory, when it is considered that the incidents extend over the space of about thirty-three years. That no journal was kept, is apparent from errors in computation of time. Of this there are two striking instances; the first, in the estimate of length of service under Bajazet, from September 1396 to July 1402, which is calculated at twelve years; and the author’s statement that he was six years with Timour, when, as a matter of fact, the actual period extended from July 1402 to February 1405.

Schiltberger no doubt dictated his adventures soon after his return to his native country, because in the concluding chapter he explains “how and through what countries I have come away”. The various incidents of his career in the East are recorded without method, and were evidently related just as the recollection of them occurred to him, so that the attempt to follow in his footsteps, with any precision, becomes a hopeless task; and irregularly interspersed with his narrative, are descriptions of places and events, that he learnt from hearsay only, not having been either a spectator or participator. This inconsistent and incongruous style, again, betokens the man wanting in instruction; but every page affords evidence of the intelligence, veracity, modesty, and high principles of the honest-minded Bavarian; indeed the whole, so straightforward, truthful, and certainly useful, will compare favourably with the most trustworthy of mediÆval writers, not excepting even Marco Polo. “Notwithstanding a few historical and geographical errors,” says Hammer, “this book of Travels remains a precious monument of the history and topography of the middle ages, of which Bavarians may be as justly proud as Venice is of her Marco Polo.”4 There is nothing to show that Schiltberger was a reading man, or that he availed himself of the writings of others, except in one instance, in which it can scarcely be doubted that he had recourse to some authority when giving the dimensions of the walls of Babylon, which coincide so exactly with what is found recorded in Herodotus. How otherwise could the poor slave have traced and verified such measurements?

Schiltberger has wisely distinguished what he heard from what he himself saw, and therefore does not hesitate to indulge in the recital of the marvellous and ridiculous, without, however, the least touch of humour or criticism. A battle was fought between serpents and vipers, near Samsoun on the Black Sea coast; not whilst he was in the city, but “during the time I was with Bajazet”. Entering with childlike pleasure into the fullest particulars on the Castle of the Sparrow-hawk, he takes care to say, that when one of his companions wanted to visit it and see the virgin who resided there, nobody could be found to show the way, because the castle was hidden by trees, and the Greek priests also forbade approach to it. Then there is the story of the destruction of the mirror at Alexandria, related in the most perfect simplicity, and, as is his custom, without a word of comment; but that the Pope’s conduct was iniquitous in the sight of good Schiltberger is very certain, for he seeks to excuse his lesson of dissimulation to the priest, on the plea that all was done “for the sake of the Christian faith”. Vera sunt vera et falsa sunt falsa; sed si ecclesia dicit vera esse falsa et falsa esse vera, falsa sunt vera et vera sunt falsa. If Bellarmine was really the first to pen these lines, verily it was no new precept that he was promulgating. Another instance of Schiltberger’s appreciation of the truth is to be found in his relation of the tale of the saintly man in Khorasan, who had attained his three hundred and fiftieth year. “So the Infidels said,” are the words added. Such is the manner in which Schiltberger treats these and all the other absurd inventions to which he listened in his leisure hours.

When the text is largely illustrated with Notes—in the present work they form the greater part of the volume—little room is left for introductory remarks; nor is it necessary to recapitulate the substance of the text. It will therefore suffice to give a rapid outline of the author’s movements during his lengthened captivity.

The battle of Nicopolis is the most important episode in the busy and eventful career of Schiltberger, whose circumstantial account of the action fully agrees with what we learn from other sources. He escaped the general massacre of prisoners, upon the defeat and flight of Sigismund, through the timely intervention of Souleiman, the eldest son of Bajazet. Thurnmaier says that Schiltberger was spared on account of his good looks, and at once appointed page to the Sultan;5 but this is probably a fancy of the Bavarian annalist, because it is very distinctly asserted in the text that none under twenty were executed, and the youthful captive was barely sixteen years of age. He suffered considerably from the effects of three wounds, a circumstance to which he casually and most modestly refers in a subsequent chapter. Whilst in the service of Bajazet, he was employed as one of his personal attendants in the quality of runner; he possibly took part in the siege of Constantinople; was in an expedition sent to Egypt for the relief of the sultan Faradj, when he probably embarked at some port in Cilicia; and in various expeditions in Asia Minor.

Upon the fall of Bajazet at the battle of Angora, July 20th, 1402, our runner became the prisoner of Timour, with whom he remained in Asia Minor; the Sultan himself being a captive in the camp. The fable of the iron cage is scarcely worth recalling to mind; but had there been a shadow of truth in it, Schiltberger would not have failed to notice the circumstance of the powerful monarch he had served so long being thus ignominiously treated.

Schiltberger’s first acquaintance with Armenia and Georgia was made upon the occasion of Timour’s invasion of those countries after his conquests in Asia Minor. Then followed the expedition to Abhase, the period of rest in the plain of Karabagh, and the return to Samarkand across the Araxes and through the kingdoms of Persia.

As the victories of the invincible Timour in India, Azerbaijan, and Syria, were related to him by his new comrades, so has Schiltberger recorded them, with some fresh details on the horrible atrocities committed.

Upon the death of Timour, at Otrar, in 1405, our author passed into the hands of his son, Shah Rokh, probably taking part in the expeditions of that monarch into Mazanderan and the Armenian provinces, Samarkand, and the territories about the Oxus, spending his winters in the plain of Karabagh, where good pasturage was to be found; but after the defeat of Kara Youssouf, Chief of the Turkomans of the Black Sheep, he remained in the contingent left by Shah Rokh, at the disposal of his brother, Miran Shah. This amir was afterwards himself overthrown by Kara Youssouf, and Schiltberger became subject to Aboubekr, a son of Shah Rokh, under whom he served for some time, first at Kars6 and then at Erivan, where he had frequent opportunities for again enjoying the society of his friends and co-religionists, the Armeno-Catholics, and perfecting himself in their language.

From Erivan, Schiltberger was dispatched with four other Christians as part escort to the Tatar prince, Tchekre, recalled to assume the supreme power in the Golden Horde. Traversing the provinces on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, and passing through Derbent into Great Tatary, they reached a place that we find named “Origens”, and which Professor Bruun is at some pains to prove was no other than Anjak, at one time a port on the Caspian, near Astrahan. Some curious details are given on the succession to the Khanate of the Golden Horde, which serve to authenticate historical accounts, as will be found on reference to the Notes thereon; and we also read of the warlike qualities of the Tatars of the Horde, of their hardy mode of living, eating meat raw and drinking the blood of their horses, a custom of war mentioned by Marco Polo.

We now come to what may be considered to be about the most interesting portion of the travels before us, viz.: the expedition to Siberia for the purpose of conquest. The customs, religion, food, mode of travelling, and clothing of its inhabitants, are so circumstantially laid before the reader, that it cannot be doubted Schiltberger saw with his own eyes all he recounts; he would never otherwise have observed that there were many wild beasts in the country, the names of which he could not tell, because they did not exist in Germany; nor would he have concluded the chapter in which he speaks of these things, by saying: “All this I have seen, and was there with the above-named king’s son, Zeggra.”

In alluding to the sledge-dogs of Great Tatary and Siberia, Rubruquis, Marco Polo, and Ibn Batouta, dwell upon their large size. It is not a little remarkable that Marco Polo, who never saw those animals, should have heard that they were as big as donkeys; the very simile employed by Schiltberger. They now are certainly much inferior in size.

The conquest of Siberia by Ydegou, was followed by that of Great Bolgara; after which, Tchekre returned into Great Tatary, and in due course became ruler of the Horde. Upon his death, the author fell into the hands of one of his counsellors, named “Manstzusch”, who, being forced to flee, traversed the kingdom of Kiptchak, and arrived at Kaffa in the Crimea. It was when upon this journey that Schiltberger saw the river Don; the city of Tana, Solkhat the capital of Kiptchak, and the cities of Kyrkyer and Sary Kerman.

In Chapter 37, the author says that he was present at the marriage festivities of a daughter of the sultan, BoursbaÏ, a monarch who ascended the throne in 1422; and as he did not lose his lord, Tchekre, until about the year 1424 or 1425, it follows that he must have gone to Egypt, at least for the second time, subsequently to the latter date, but by what route and for what purpose there are no means of determining; although this was probably the occasion of his passing the island of Imbros, and touching at the port of Salonica. During his sojourn in Egypt, the author was afforded the opportunity of witnessing the reception of foreign ambassadors at the Court of the Mamelouk monarch, some portion of the ceremonial observed upon those occasions reminding us of the brilliant doings in the palace of the Greek Emperors, amongst whose earliest predecessors those magnificent state formalities were introduced by the Romans, who had themselves adopted them from the Kings of Persia, after their conquests in the far East.

From Egypt, Schiltberger was sent into Palestine, when he visited several of the holy places, and to Arabia, where it may be taken for granted that he assisted at one of the customary Mahomedan pilgrimages. Being too devotedly attached to his own Church to entertain the least sympathy for Islamism, our traveller is careful to avoid saying anything that might be construed into a semblance of his having renounced his religion, under whatsoever circumstances; but that he must have done so, inevitably, may be accepted as an unquestionable fact, for where is the page in the history of Bajazet, of Timour, and of his successors, that tells of a Christian having been spared persecution, followed by torture and death? Nor is it credible that the presence of a slave, professing Christianity, would have been at all tolerated in the camps of those barbarous and fanatic rulers. Schiltberger has taken delight in supplying all the information he was able to obtain on the forms and solemnities of the Armenian and Greek Churches, showing at the same time the respect in which he held Saints in general, by never failing to relate the miracles attributed to them, for

but he has equally proved his proficiency in Mahomedanism, in devoting no less than eleven chapters to an exposition of its history, doctrines, and legends.

Whether or not Schiltberger traversed the Hyjaz of Arabia, will possibly remain a controverted point; the probability is that he did do so, not from the shores of the Red Sea, but from Syria and Palestine. We find him describing from personal observation, first, the pelican, a bird which, according to Buffon, frequents the borders of Palestine and Arabia, and even the arid wastes of Arabia and Persia; then the “giant’s shin-bone”, that spanned a ravine between two mountains and served as a bridge; an indication that leads Professor Bruun to the neighbourhood of Kerak and Shaubek, on the beaten track to the Hyjaz. More than this, mention is made of the tomb of the prophet at a place called “Madina”, its situation and ornamentations being clearly explained; accuracy that is quite exceptional, as nearly all mediÆval notices of the tomb of Mahomet place it at Mecca. If our author did indeed travel into Arabia from Palestine, he would have been the predecessor of Varthema (1503) by that route, and he is also the first European known to have visited the holy places of Islam.

Quitting Egypt, Schiltberger returned to the Crimea, afterwards accompanying his lord, “Manstzusch”, to the Caucasus, where he found the slave trade in full swing, a traffic he vigorously condemns by saying of the people, who sold even their own children, that they were “bÖs lÜt”. Whilst in Circassia, at that time tributary to the Golden Horde, the Great Khan required of its ruler that “Manstzusch” should be expelled his territory. That prince being thus forced to change his residence, proceeded to Mingrelia, through Abhase and Soukhoum its chief town. An unhealthy country, says our author, when describing the peculiar customs, dress, and religion of the people.

It is singular that, although Schiltberger notices the existence of Christians at Samsoun, Joulad, in Georgia, the Crimea, and other places, he makes no mention of the large European community at Savastopoli, as Soukhoum was called by the Genoese, who, especially, were very numerous, and had had a consul at that port from the year 1354. That there were many Roman Catholics at Savastopoli is very certain, for the place was constituted a bishop’s see, a condition not at all gratifying to the native population which belonged to the Greek Church, as would appear from the following circumstance:—

In 1330, Peter, bishop of Senascopoli (sic) or Savastopoli, addressed a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England, collectively, in which he complains of the oppression practised on Christians in the East, who were carried off into slavery; an infamous traffic he was unable to suppress because the local authorities, who belonged to the schismatic Greek religion, were inimical to him. He entreats the bishops of England to present the bearer of the letter, one Joachim of Cremona, to the warriors of England, who fight for God and aspire to power! That letter is preserved in the public library at Ratisbon, and can scarcely be supposed to have reached its destination at any time.

Being in Mingrelia, Schiltberger was in a Christian country temptingly situated on the borders of the Black Sea. It is most likely that he received sufficient encouragement from the people to induce him to attempt to regain his liberty, and, at a favourable moment, he and four of his Christian comrades made their escape and succeeded in reaching the coast at Poti,7 where they had hoped to find some friendly vessel that would receive them. Failing in this, they rode along the shore to the hills in Lazistan, and one evening, after dark, had the good fortune to communicate, by means of signal fires, with a European ship off the land. Our traveller and his companions were obliged to prove their identity by repeating the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo, before the boat’s crew could be prevailed upon to take them off to the ship; and after a tedious voyage of many weeks, during which the vessel was chased by pirates and detained by contrary gales, and the crew had suffered from want of provisions, Constantinople was reached. There the runaways were kindly received and cared for by the emperor (John VIII. PalÆologos), who placed them in charge of the patriarch, in whose house they lived. Schiltberger is full of admiration for the great palaces, the church of St. Sophia, and the magnificent walls of the imperial city; but not being free to move about as he pleased, during his long stay in it, the account of Constantinople and of its marvels is exceedingly meagre, when compared with the descriptions left by other visitors. Indeed, what little Schiltberger was able to do in the way of sight-seeing was effected surreptitiously, with the connivance of the patriarch’s servants, whom he accompanied on their errands as opportunities offered.

At the expiration of three months, our author and his comrades were sent to Kilia at the estuary of the Danube. Hence Johann Schiltberger easily found his way to his native country, where he arrived some time in the year 1427, offering thanks to Almighty God for his escape “from the Infidel people and their wicked religion”, and for having preserved him from “the risk of perdition of body and soul”.

---

---