(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 be wondered
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 to A.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 bridge for 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.