this city, and then Satalia, near the ruins of the ancient Attalia in Pamphylia, in which Neumann fancies that he recognises the Adalia of Schiltberger, because it was situated on the sea-shore opposite to the island of Cyprus. In support of this, the esteemed editor of the edition of 1859 might have quoted another passage, from the _Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani_ (_Zap. Odess._, v, 966), wherein we find it asserted, that the city of Satalia, having been occupied by the Infidels in 1400, the bishop of that city took his departure for Aenos. Notwithstanding these arguments, it appears to me that the Adalia of Schiltberger could not have been Satalia, but rather Adana in Cicilia, for the following reasons. This city of Adana, Adena, or Adan, is nearer to the island of Cyprus than is Satalia, although not actually on the sea-shore, a situation not attributed to his Adalia by Schiltberger. It belonged to the sultans of Egypt, which was not the case with Satalia, a city that from the year 1207 had been subject to the sultans of Iconium, to the Seljouk principality of Tekke, and to the kingdom of Cyprus, and was already incorporated in the Ottoman Empire (Weil, i, 505; Heyd, xviii, 714). Finally, Schiltberger’s notice that the people about Adalia were exclusively employed in the rearing of camels, is applicable to Adana rather than to Satalia; for in those days it was one of the chief centres of commerce in the East, and was encircled by the superb gardens for which it is so celebrated in our own times. It may, I think, be conceded that Saad uddin, or Bratutti his translator, have possibly confounded Athens with Attalia or Adana, and that this very city might have been subjugated by Timour Tash, soon after his reduction of Behesna, Malatia, and other cities in Cilicia.—BRUUN. CHAPTER XI. (1.) “Thus Joseph expelled his rival, and became a powerful king.”—Upon the death of the Sultan Barkok, his son Al-Melyk Al-Nazr Abou-Saadat Faradj, aged thirteen, ascended the throne. Schiltberger pronounces one of the names of this monarch after his own fashion, and calls him Joseph, and elsewhere Jusuphda, evidently in place of Abou-Saadat. This prince, soon after his accession, was under the necessity of contending in arms with Itmish (who has already been noticed), one of his father’s dependants, as Schiltberger represents Joseph to have done. Faradj perished, as did Jusuphda, for he was made a prisoner and beheaded in 1412 (Weil, _Gesch. d. Chalifen_, ii, 124).