Neumann is certainly not justified in supposing that Schiltberger would have alluded upon two occasions to the campaign in which he took part—first, in chap. 5, casually; again in chap. 9, wherein we have all the details as they are related by an eye-witness; for, in reference to this, the second campaign, we are informed that it was conducted by the eldest son of Bajazet, and that this son was not Mouhammed; indeed, we are previously told by Schiltberger, that Mouhammed was appointed by the sultan to command the forces sent to “Marsüany”, it being the first expedition of that prince, who was aged 14 in 1392, for he died in 1421, in his 43rd year.—BRUUN. CHAPTER X. (1.) “Malathea.”—Malatia, the ancient Melitene, on the Euphrates, was the station of the xiith Legion. Marcus Aurelius surnamed it “Fulminatrix”, in consequence of a miracle that was there operated (Ritter, _Die Erdkunde_, etc., x, 860). Hammer (_Hist. de l’E. O._, 345), and Zinkeisen (_Gesch. d. O. R._, 356), assert, on the authority of Saad uddin, that the Ottomans took this and other cities subject to the sultans of Egypt, between the years 798 and 800 of the Mahommedan era. Weil (_Gesch. d. Chalifen_, 70–73), however, does not think that this occupation could have taken place earlier than 801, founding his opinion on the authority of Arabian writers, who have recorded Turkish aggression as having occurred after the advent to the throne, of Faradj, who succeeded his father in 801 = 1399 (June 20). In support of this argument, Weil quotes the testimony of one of those writers who had himself seen the letter, in which was announced to Itmish, the atabek of the new sultan, the capture of Malatia; but it is also possible that the great dignitary had received this same letter in the time of Barkok, by whom he must have been highly esteemed, for, when on his death-bed, the sultan nominated him his executor. This view of the case agrees with Schiltberger’s recital, whilst his observations, towards the end of this chapter, on the taking of Adalia, will serve to explain the strange passage that occurs in the Italian translation of the book of Saad uddin. “Et havendo spedito al Conquisto di Chianchria” (Kiankary the ancient Gangra) “Timurtas-Bassa” (Bajazet’s general) “però tutto quel Paese insieme con la Città d’Atena (la qual’ è patria de’ Filosofi) col suo Distretto pervenne in poter del Rè; il quale prese anco dalle mani de’ Turcomani la Città di Bechsenia” (Behesna) “e di Mallatie”, etc. “There is clearly a mistake in the text or in the translation”, says Weil (70), after showing that Hammer and Zinkeisen are greatly in error in supposing, upon the authority of this defective passage, that the city of Socrates could have been taken by the Turks in the course of the same campaign as that in which Malatia fell into their hands; but there would have been nothing extraordinary in the fact of their attacking Angora after the fall of