CHAPTER XLIII.
[(1.)] “those from Venice likewise.”—In his admirable treatise on the establishment of Italian commercial depôts in Egypt, Heyd (d. Ital. Handelscolon., etc., in the Zeitschrift f. d. gesammte Staatswissenschaft, xx, 54–138) confirms the statement that of the several Italian Powers, the Venetians and Genoese were at that time the most interested in trade with Alexandria. Their predecessors the Pisans, who had taken an active part in the eastern trade, were forced at the commencement of the 15th century to abandon their interests in favour of the Florentines, and in great measure also of the Anconitans, Neapolitans, and citizens of Gaeta; but the Catalans, equally with the Italians, kept up extensive commercial relations with Egypt.—Bruun.
[(2.)] “the king of Zipern.”—Allusion is made to the taking of Alexandria, Oct. 10th, 1365, by Peter of Lusignan, king of Cyprus, and his allies the Genoese, Venetians, and knights of Rhodes. De Lannoy (Voy. et Ambass., 70) records that the allied forces landed near the old port, the entrance to which was ever afterwards closed against all vessels of Christian nationalities. Upon the approach of the Egyptians on the above occasion, the Franks re-embarked after having pillaged the city and carried off five thousand captives (Weil, Gesch. der Chal., iv, 512). This expedition, in which twenty-four Venetian, two Genoese, ten Rhodian, five French, and several Cyprian vessels took part, was completed in the space of a week, so that allowing the requisite time for landing and re-embarking, the occupation of the city would most probably have lasted three days, the period indicated by Schiltberger.—Bruun.
[(3.)] “took Alexandria, and remained in it three days.”—This tower must have been either the pharos of Alexandria, or some tower on the islet that had become united to the mainland by the sands of the Nile; otherwise, De Lannoy, to whom we are indebted for a detailed description of the port of Alexandria under a strategic point of view, would not have failed to notice it. He simply mentions a long spit, one mile wide, between the old and new ports which both reached to the walls of the city. This islet is now occupied by one of its finest quarters.
Makrizi describes the pharos at Alexandria (S. de Sacy, Chrestom. Arabe, ii, 189) as having at the top a large mirror, around which criers were seated. Upon perceiving the approach of an enemy through the agency of this reflector, they gave warning to those in the immediate neighbourhood by loud cries, and flags were displayed to apprise others at a distance, so that people in all parts of the city were immediately on the alert.
De Sacy (Abd-Allatif, 239) is of opinion that the large circles employed in astronomical observations and which were placed on the highest part of such lofty buildings as the pharos, may have led Arabian writers, who usually delighted in the relation of all that was marvellous, to represent that the mirror at the top of the Alexandria lighthouse was placed there for better observing the departure of Greek vessels from their ports. The tower described in the text was no doubt designed for this purpose, because Ijas an Arabian author (Weil. l. c., v, 358) relates, that in 1472 the sultan Kaïtbaï caused a new lighthouse to be constructed near the old one; it communicated with the city by means of a dyke, and was provided with a chapel, a mill, and a bakehouse; also a platform from which strange vessels could be seen at the distance of a day’s sail, so that time was afforded for preparing the guns with which the tower was supplied, to resist their approach. Schiltberger was right in saying that there was a temple in the tower, because Abd-Allatif speaks of a mosque as being at the top of the pharos at Alexandria.
Apart from the possibility of there having been a traitor amongst them who ministered in that temple, the Egyptians may have invented the tale narrated in this chapter, in extenuation of their negligence in suffering themselves to be taken by surprise by the Crusaders.—Bruun.
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.