CHAPTER VII.
[(1.)] “city of Samson.”—This is the ancient Amisos, still called Samsoun by the Turks. Fallmerayer (Gesch. d. K. v. T., 56, 289) observes, that the Byzantines frequently added a prefix to a name, such as εἰς, which, in time, became contracted to ες and σ, and in this way Ἄμισον was turned into σ' Ἄμισον—Σάμσον. This city, the chief town of Janyk, was then under the dominion of another Bajazet, surnamed the Impotent, who perished in his struggle with Bajazet about 1392.—Bruun.
(1A.) Fallmerayer’s explanation may be further illustrated, by quoting the names of ancient cities in the Morea and in the island of Crete, that have undergone change through the probable corruptions of a prefix. Hierapytna has become Tzerapetra; Itanus is now Tzetana, Tsitana, and even Sitana. Etea has become Setea, while Stamboul, Istamboul, itself is a corruption of Εἰς τὴν πόλιν. The modern Greeks would also appear to be in the habit of thus corrupting words in ordinary use, as, for instance, ampelon, vineyard, they call tsembela; kampos, a field, tzecampo, etc. (Spratt, Researches in Crete, i, 55, 200).—Ed.
CHAPTER VIII.
[(1.)] “Italians of Genoa.”—It is not known when the Genoese founded a colony at Samsoun, which they called Simisso. Heyd (d. Ital. Handelscolon, etc., in the Zeitschrift f. d. gesam. Staatswissenschaft., xviii, 710) justly observes, that they must have been there previously to the year 1317, because the existence of a Genoese consul at Simisso at that date, is proved by the records of Gazaria. In the Regulations for Gazaria, 1449 (Zap. Odess., v, p. 629), no mention whatever is made of a consul being at Simisso; I cannot therefore agree with M. Heyd that the consulate was maintained until 1461, when Mahomet II drove the Genoese out of Samastris (Amastris), their principal port, and took possession of Sinope, where, to the year 1449, those Italians still had a consul (ibid., 809). The Genoese were driven out of Samsoun, in all probability in 1419, when that quarter of the town “occupied by infidels” was taken by Mahomet I (Hammer, ii, 180, 472, note xiv). At this period Schiltberger was still in Asia, and he appears to have been aware that the Genoese were obliged to quit the town. At any rate, in saying that the Italians of Genoa were still in possession of it, in the reign of Bajazet, he probably wished to intimate that they had quitted it at a later period.—Bruun.
[(2.)] “Ternowa.”—Trnovo or Ternov, the capital of Eastern Bulgaria, was taken and destroyed by the Turks in 1393, at a moment that Shishman happened to be absent. Turkish authors have recorded, that at Nicopolis he surrendered at discretion, and died, according to some, in confinement, and at an advanced age; others, however, state that he was beheaded, which, judging by the narrative in the text, would appear doubtful. Alexander, Shishman’s eldest son, having turned Mahomedan, was appointed governor of Saroukhan, as we are informed by Rehm (Gesch. d. Mittelalt., iv, 2, 584); and it is possible that he was transferred to Samsoun after the conquest of the province of Janyk, in the province-general of Trebizond. His younger brother Fruzin remained a Christian, and died at Kronstadt in 1460.—Bruun.
CHAPTER IX.
[(1.)] “Wurchanadin.”—It has already been noticed that Bourhan uddin was prince of Sebaste or Sivas. The Turkish lord named Otman in this chapter, was Kara Yelek, chief of the Turkoman Horde of the White Sheep.—Bruun.
[(2.)] The death of Bourhan uddin.—Oriental writers are at issue as to the date of the death of Bourhan uddin, and of the incorporation of his domains with those of Bajazet. Saad uddin (Weil., Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 60, note i) observes, that various dates are given, from the year 794 to 799 of the Hegira = 1391–96. In his History of the Ottoman Empire (i, 226), Hammer expresses himself in favour of the opinion of Nishandi, an Arabian author, who fixes the date at 795 = 1392. This opinion is supported by Zinkeisen (Gesch. d. O. R., i, 353), who states he has no doubt that “the course of events and the most reliable authorities testify in favour of the year 1392”, although Weil makes it clear, that the death of Bourhan uddin could not have taken place before the year 800 = 1398. German historians are guided by the statements of Oriental writers, who have apparently confounded two wars between Bajazet and the sovereign of Sebaste, the one having taken place before, and the other after the battle of Nicopolis. Indeed we learn from Schiltberger, that previously to the war in which he himself was engaged (see [page 17]), the younger son of Bajazet had driven Bourhan uddin out of “Marsüany”, a city which, from being situated on the borders of Karaman, must have been identical with Marsivan (Viv. de Saint-Martin, Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 448) or Merzyfoun, as it was called by Hadjy Khalpha (Jihan-Numa, etc., ii, 407), and was perhaps the village of Morivazou, the birth-place of St. Stephen of Sougdaia (Zap. Odess., v, 625). In the introduction to his edition of 1859, Neumann submits that Amasia is here intended; but he is in error, because that place had already been taken by Bajazet, not from Bourhan uddin, but from Bajazet the “Impotent”, together with Samsoun, Kastamouny, and Osmandjyk (Hammer, i, 312–315).