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.