CHAPTER XLIV.
[(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.