(1.) “Marburtirudt.”—These measurements agree so exactly with the
dimensions to be found in Herodotus, who gives the height of the walls
of Babylon at 200 cubits and their thickness at 50 cubits, that the
extent of the city, 480 stadia, was probably obtained from the same
source. But four stadia do not make one Italian mile. The Italian
mile is equal to eight stadia, 480 stadia are, therefore, 60 Italian,
or 55-1/5 English miles, no great difference from the 75 miles or 25
leagues noted in the text as being the extent of the wall of Babylon.
The Tower of Babel, represented as being 54 stadia from the city,
must have been distant 6.75 Italian, or 6.21 English miles, precisely
the position of Birs Nimroud—Prison of Nimrod—called “Marburtirudt”,
for Marbout Nimroud. It was to these ruins that Benjamin of Tudela
(Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., x, 263) referred when describing the
tower constructed before the dispersion of the people, situated on the
right bank of the Euphrates, and one and a half hour’s journey from
Hillah; it measured 240 yards in diameter, and was about 100 canna
in height; a gallery conducted to the summit, whence the view around
extended over the plain to a distance of eight leagues. Schiltberger
expresses himself to the same effect when he says, “in several places
it is x leagues in length and in breadth”. In adding that the tower
stood on the Chaldæan side of the Arabian desert, he has no intention
of directing us to Arabia proper, but to Irak Araby, the country of the
ancient Chaldæans.—BRUUN.
(2.) “And one inch is the first member of the thumb.”—Schiltberger fails
to distinguish the Italian from the Lombard mile; we are therefore at
liberty to conclude that he here alludes to the ancient Roman mile,
.75 of a degree, which consists of 59,800 untz or zoll, the zoll being
equal to the English inch. In saying that the Italian or Lombard mile
consists of 45,000 inches only, Schiltberger gives us to understand
that the “schuch” was one-fourth shorter than the foot; in other words,
he refers to the palma, an Italian measure of his day. It follows,
therefore, that the pace of five palmas must have measured 3 ft. 9
in.—BRUUN.
(3.) “Schatt.”—The Tigris is still known as the Schat (Ritter,
_Die Erdkunde_ etc., xi, 4), not only from its junction with the
Euphrates, but also along the whole of its upper course (Rachid-Eddin
by Quatremère, xxix), which justified Barbaro in having said that
Hassanchiph was near the Set.—BRUUN.
(3A.) This is confirmed by Colonel Chesney (_Exped. to the Euphr.
and Tigris_, i, 60), who writes that Shatt, or more correctly
Shatt-el-Arab, is the name given to the rivers Euphrates and Tigris
after their junction at the walled town of Kournah; but that the
designation belongs properly to the Tigris. This river is clearly
called Schot by Olearius.—ED.
(4.) “Kinna.”—This fruit, called “kurnia” in Penzel’s edition, is
probably the khourmà, date-plum—Diospyros lotus—an ebanaceous tree
growing plentifully in Persia and Transcaucasia, and perhaps the
kheilan of Ibn Batouta. The berry is largely imported into Russia, and
a favourite spirit distilled from it. It is totally distinct from the
date-palm—Phœnix dactylifera—called in the East, taltal. Marco Polo
(Yule, i, 110) speaks of a very good wine made from dates, mixed with
spices.—ED.
(5.) “In this kingdom the people are not warlike.”—It is not surprising
that Schiltberger should have been struck by the pacific disposition
of the people of Baghdad, a city that owed its opulence to industry
and commerce. Baghdad was reconstructed by Ahmen ben Oweis after
its destruction by Timour (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v, 98). The
inhabitants were Arabs and Persians, as they are now. That a large park
and menagerie should have existed is in the highest degree probable,
for we read in Zosimus (_Hist. Rom._, iii, 23), that the troops of the
emperor Julian discovered a royal garden in Mesopotamia, in which wild
beasts were kept: εἰς περίβολον ὃν Βασιλέως θήραν ἐκάλον. The Greeks
of Heraclius’s expedition, A.D. 627, found a large park close to the
residence of Chosroes (Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_ etc., ix, 503), in which
were many ostriches, wild boar, peacocks, pheasants, lions, tigers,
etc. Another instance was the residence, near Baghdad, of the caliph
El-Harim, which stood within grounds wherein were wild beasts of every
description (_ibid._, x, 258).—BRUUN.
(6.) “It has long fore-legs, and the hinder are short.”—Soon after the
battle of Angora, the sultan Faradj sent two ambassadors with rich
presents to Timour, one being a giraffe (Weil, _Gesch. der Chal._, v,
97), which Clavijo, who met the Egyptian envoys at Khoi, designated
a gornufa. Schiltberger must have originally written surnofa, rather
than “surnasa”. The giraffe he saw in Timour’s possession was probably
one of the finest of its species, so that allowance should be made for
his ascribing to its neck a length of four fathoms; indeed, we learn
from Clavijo that this very animal was able to extend its neck so as to
reach herbage at a height of 30 feet to 36 feet.
Schiltberger was under the impression, as was his contemporary De
Lannoy (_Voy. et Ambass._, 88), that the Nile traversed India before
entering Egypt,[1] which accounts for his supposition that the giraffe
was indigenous to the former country.—BRUUN.
[1] That Ethiopia was called India, and thus confounded
with real India, is fully set forth by Colonel Yule in a
note to Marco Polo, ii, 426.—ED.
(6A.) Zerypha—yellow-coloured—is the Persian for giraffe, from
zerd—yellow—and fam—colour; a name corrupted by the Turks and Arabs
to zerafè, whence “surnasa”. The giraffe at the British Museum could
have reached food at a height of at least twenty feet, as Dr. Günther,
Keeper of Zoology, has been good enough to inform me. The finest
specimen at the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, at Paris, is even inferior
in size, according to the measurements kindly supplied by Professor
Milne-Edward of that institution. Schiltberger must have greatly
miscalculated the proportions of the animal he saw, allowing even for
probable degeneration; large giraffes having now become very scarce.
(7.) “Zekatay.”—Jagatai owes its name to the second son of Jengiz Khan,
who received in appanage the countries to the east and south-east
of the Oulons of Jujy, that is to say, from the limits of Khorasan
(until taken from the Jujy by Timour) on both sides of the Amu-Darya,
to Turkestan. All those territories were included under the name
of Jagatai, as were also the dialects of the inhabitants. The last
princes of the house, and in whose name Timour ruled, were Suurgatmysh
and Mahmoud; their coinage was struck at Bokhara, Samarkand, Termed,
Kesh, Badakshan, and Otrar; but their residence was at Besh balyk—Five
Cities—until transferred by Timour to Samarkand, which the despot
sought to place at the head of all cities in Asia, by means of the
vigorous measures to which Clavijo bears witness.