There can indeed be no doubt that elephants from the countries on the west of the Red Sea were caught and tamed and used for war, systematically and on a great scale, by the second and third Ptolemies, and the latter (Euergetes) has commemorated this, and his own use of Troglodytic and Ethiopic elephants, and the fact of their encountering the elephants of India, in the Adulitic Inscription recorded by Cosmas.

This author however, who wrote about A.D. 545, and had been at the Court of Axum, then in its greatest prosperity, says distinctly: "The Ethiopians do not understand the art of taming elephants; but if their King should want one or two for show they catch them young, and bring them up in captivity." Hence, when we find a few years later (A.D. 570) that there was one great elephant, and some say thirteen elephants,* employed in the army which Abraha, the Abyssinian Ruler of Yemen led against Mecca, an expedition famous in Arabian history as the War of the Elephant, we are disposed to believe that these must have been elephants imported from India. There is indeed a notable statement quoted by Ritter, which if trustworthy would lead to another conclusion: Already in the 20th year of the Hijra (A.D. 641) had the Nubas and Bejas hastened to the help of the Greek Christians of Oxyrhynchus (Bahnasa of the Arabs). . . . against the first invasion of the Mahommedans, and according to the exaggerated representations of the Arabian Annalists, the army which they brought consisted of 50,000 men and 1300 warelephants." The Nubians certainly must have tamed elephants on some scale down to a late period in the Middle Ages, for elephants,-in one case three annually,formed a frequent part of the tribute paid by Nubia to the Mahomedan sovereigns of Egypt at least to the end of the 13th century; but the passage quoted is too isolated to be accepted without corroboration. The only approach to such a corroboration that I know of is a statement by Poggio in the matter appended to his account of Conti's Travels. He there repeats some information derived from the Abyssinian envoys who visited Pope Eugenius IV. about 1440, and one of his notes is: "They have elephants very large and in great numbers; some kept for ostentation or pleasure, some as useful in war. They are hunted; the old ones killed, the young ones taken and tamed." But the facts on which this was founded probably amounted to no more than what Cosmas had stated. I believe no trustworthy authority since the Portuguese discoveries confirms the use of the elephant in Abyssinia; ‡ and Ludolf, whose information was excellent, distinctly says that the Abyssinians did not tame them. (Cathay, p. clxxxi.; Quat., Mém., sur l'Égypte, II. 98, 113; India in xvth Century, 37; Ludolf, I. 10, 32; Armandi, H. Militaire des Éléphants, p. 548.)

NOTE 5.-To the 10th century at least the whole coast country of the Red Sea, from near Berbera probably to Suákin, was still subject to Abyssinia. At this time we hear only of "Musalman families" residing in Zaila' and the other ports, and tributary to the Christians (see Mas'udi, III. 34).

According to Bruce's abstract of the Abyssinian chronicles, the royal line was superseded in the 10th century by Falasha Jews, then by other Christian families, and three centuries of weakness and disorder succeeded. In 1268, according to Bruce's chronology, Icon Amlac of the House of Solomon, which had continued to rule in Shoa, regained the empire, and was followed by seven other princes whose reigns come down to 1312. The history of this period is very obscure, but Bruce gathers that it was marked by civil wars, during which the Mahomedan communities

Muir's Life of Mahomet, I. cclxiii. Ritter, Africa, p. 605. The statement appears to be taken from Burckhardt's Nubia, but the reference is not quite clear. There is nothing about this army in Quatremère's Mém. sur la Nubie. (Mém. sur l'Egypte, vol. ii.)

Armandi indeed quotes a statement in support of such use from a Spaniard, Marmel, who travelled (he says) in Abyssinia in the beginning of the 16th century. But the author in question, already quoted at pp. 368 and 407, was no traveller, only a compiler; and the passage cited by Armandi is evidently made up from the statement in Poggio and from what our traveller has said about Zanjibar. (Supra, p. 422. See Marmol, Desc. de Affrica, I. f. 27, v.)

that had by this time grown up in the coast-country became powerful and expelled the Abyssinians from the sea-ports. Inland provinces of the low country also, such as Ifat and Dawaro, had fallen under Mahomedan governors, whose allegiance to the Negush, if not renounced, had become nominal.

One of the principal Mahomedan communities was called Adel, the name, according to modern explanation, of the tribes now called Danákíl. The capital of the Sultan of Adel was, according to Bruce at Aussa, some distance inland from the port of Zaila', which also belonged to Adel.

Amda Zion, who succeeded to the Abyssinian throne, according to Bruce's chronology, in 1312, two or three years later, provoked by the Governor of Ifat, who had robbed and murdered one of his Mahomedan agents in the Lowlands, descended on Ifat, inflicted severe chastisement on the offenders, and removed the governor. A confederacy was then formed against the Abyssinian King by several of the Mahomedan States or chieftainships, among which Adel is conspicuous. Bruce gives a long and detailed account of Amda Zion's resolute and successful campaigns against this confederacy. It bears a strong general resemblance to Marco's narrative, always excepting the story of the Bishop, of which Bruce has no trace, and always admitting that our traveller has confounded Aden with Adel.

But the chronology is obviously in the way of identification of the histories. Marco could not have related in 1298 events that did not occur till 1315-16. Mr. Salt however, in his version of the chronology, not only puts the accession of Amda Zion eleven years earlier than Bruce, but even then has so little confidence in its accuracy, and is so much disposed to identify the histories, that he suggests that the Abyssinian dates should be carried back further still by some 20 years, on the authority of the narrative in our text. M. Pauthier takes a like view.

I was for some time much disposed to do likewise, but after examining the subject more minutely, I am obliged to reject this view, and to abide by Bruce's Chronology. To elucidate this I must exhibit the whole list of the Abyssinian Kings from the restoration of the line of Solomon to the middle of the 16th century, at which period Bruce finds a check to the chronology in the record of a solar eclipse. The chronologies have been extracted independently by Bruce, Rüppell, and Salt; the latter using a different version of the Annals from the other two. I set down all three.

Bruce checks his chronology by an eclipse which took place in 1553, and which the Abyssinian chronicle assigns to the 13th year of Claudius. This alone would be scarcely satisfactory as a basis for the retrospective control of reigns extending through nearly three centuries; but we find some other checks.

Thus in Quatremère's Makrizi we find a correspondence between Sultan Bibars and the King of Habasha, or of Amhara, Maḥar AMLÁK, which occurred in A.H. 672 or 673, i.e. A.D. 1273-1274. This would fall within the reign of Icon AMLAK according to Bruce's chronology, but not according to Salt's, and à fortiori not according to any chronology throwing the reigns further back still.

In Quatremère's Egypte we find another notice of a letter which came to the Sultan of Egypt from the King of Abyssinia, IAKBA SIUN, in Ramadhan 689, i.e. in the end of A.D. 1289.

Again, this is perfectly consistent with Bruce's order and dates, but not with Salt's. The same work contains a notice of an inroad on the Mussulman territory of Assuan by David (II.), the son of Saif Arad, in the year 783 (A.D. 1381-1382).

In Rink's translation of a work of Makrizi's it is stated that this same King David died in A.H. 812, .e. A.D. 1409; that he was succeeded by Theodorus, whose reign was very brief, and he again by Isaac, who died in Dhulkada 833, i.e. July-August 1430. These dates are in close or substantial agreement with Bruce's chronology, but not at all with Salt's or any chronology throwing the reigns further back. Makrizi goes on to say that Isaac was succeeded by Andreas, who reigned only four months, and then by Hazbana, who died in Ramadhan 834, i.e. May-June 1431. This last date does not agree, but we are now justified in suspecting an error in the Hijra date,* whilst the 4 months' reign ascribed to Andreas shows that Salt again is wrong in extending it to 7 years, and Bruce presumably right in making it 7 months.

These coincidences seem to me sufficient to maintain the substantial accuracy of Bruce's chronology, and to be fatal to the identification of Marco's story with that of the wars of Amda Zion. The general identity in the duration of reigns as given by Rüppell shows that Bruce did not tamper with these. It is remarkable that in Makrizi's report of the letter of Igba Zion in 1289 (the very year when according to the text this anti-Mahomedan war was going on), that Prince tells the Sultan that he is a protector of the Mahomedans in Abyssinia, acting in that respect quite differently from his Father who had been so hostile to them.

I suspect therefore that Icon Amlak must have been the true hero of Marco's story, and that the date must be thrown back, probably to 1278.

Ruppell is at a loss to understand where Bruce got the long story of Amda Zion's heroic deeds, which enters into extraordinary detail, embracing speeches after the manner of the Roman historians and the like, and occupies some 60 pages in the French) edition of Bruce which I have been using. The German traveller could find no trace of this story in any of the versions of the Abyssinian chronicle which he consulted, nor was it known to a learned Abyssinian whom he names. Bruce himself says that the story, which he has "a little abridged and accommodated to our manner of writing, was derived from a work written in very pure Gheez, in Shoa, under the reign of Zara Jacob”; and though it is possible that his amplifications outweigh his abridgments, we cannot doubt that he had an original groundwork for his narrative.

Of

The work of Makrizi already quoted speaks of seven kingdoms in Zaila' (here used for the Mahomedan low country) originally tributary to the Hati (or Negush) of Amhara, viz., Aufat,† Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiah, Shirha, Bali, Darah. these Ifat, Dawaro, and Hadiah repeatedly occur in Bruce's story of the war. Bruce also tells us that Amda Zion, when he removed Hakeddin, the Governor of Ifat, who had murdered his agent, replaced him by his brother Sabreddin. Now we find in

Makrizi that about A.H. 700, the reigning governor of Aufat under the Hati was Sabreddin Mahomed Valahui; and that it was 'Ali, the son of this Sabreddin, who first threw off allegiance to the Abyssinian King, then Saif Arad (son of Amda Zion). The latter displaces 'Ali and gives the government to his son Ahmed. After various vicissitudes Hakeddin, the son of Ahmed, obtains the mastery in Aufat, defeats Saif Arad completely, and founds a city in Shoa called Vahal, which superseded Aufat or Ifat. Here the Sabreddin of Makrizi appears to be identical with Amda Zion's governor in Bruce's story, whilst the Hakeddins belong to two different generations of the same family. But Makrizi does not notice the wars of Amda Zion any more than the Abyssinian Chronicles notice the campaign recorded by Marco Polo.

(Bruce, vol. III. and vol. IV., pp. 23-90, and Salt's Second Journey to Abyssinia, II. 270, etc.; both these are quoted from French versions which are alone available to me, the former by Castera, Londres, 1790, the latter by P. Henry, Paris, 1816; Fr. Th. Rink, Al Macrisi, Hist. Rerum Islamiticarum in Abyssinia, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1798; Rüppell, Dissert. on Abyss. Hist. and Chronology in his work on that country; Quat. Makr. II. 122-123; Quat. Mém. sur l'Égypte, II. 268, 276.)

NOTE 6. The last words run in the G. T.: Il ont gat paulz (see note 2, ch. xxiii. supra), et s'en faut de tiel hi a qe ne senblent a vix d'omes." I suppose, Guinea fowl.

“Il ont singles de plosors maineres. autre gat maimon si devisez qe pou The beautiful cocks and hens are,

[We read in the Si Shi ki: "There is (in Western Asia) a large bird, above 10 feet high, with feet like a camel, and of bluish-grey colour. When it runs it flaps the wings. It eats fire, and its eggs are of the size of a sheng (a certain measure for grain). (Bretschneider, Med. Res., I. pp. 143-144.) Dr. Bretschneider gives a long note on the ostrich, called in Persian shutur-murg (camel-bird), from which we gather the following information: "The ostrich, although found only in the desert of Africa and Western Asia, was known to the Chinese in early times, since their first intercourse with the countries of the far west. In the History of the Han (T'sien Han shu, ch. xcvi.) it is stated that the Emperor Wu-ti, B.C. 140-186, first sent an embassy to An-si, a country of Western Asia, which, according to the description given of it, can only be identified with ancient Parthia, the empire of the dynasty of the Arsacides. In this country, the Chinese chronicler records, a large bird from 8 to 9 feet high is found, the feet, the breast, and the neck of which make it resemble the camel. It eats barley. The name of this bird is ta ma tsio (the bird of the great horse). It is further stated that subsequently the ruler of An-si sent an embassy to the Chinese emperor, and brought as a present the eggs of this great bird. In the Hou Han shu, ch. cxviii., an embassy from An-si is mentioned again in A.D. 101. They brought as presents a lion and a large bird. In the History of the Wei Dynasty, A.D. 386-558, where for the first time the name of Po-sz' occurs, used to designate Persia, it is recorded that in that country there is a large bird resembling a camel and laying eggs of large size. It has wings and cannot fly far. It eats grass and flesh, and swallows In the History of the Tang (618-907) the camel-bird is again mentioned as a bird of Persia. It is also stated there that the ruler of T'u-huo-lo (Tokharestan) sent a camel-bird to the Chinese emperor. The Chinese materia medica, Pen ts'ao Kang mu, written in the 16th century, gives (ch. xlix.) a good description of the ostrich, compiled from ancient authors. It is said, amongst other things, to eat copper, iron, stones, etc., and to have only two claws on its feet. Its legs are so strong that it can dangerously wound a man by jerking. It can run 300 li a day. Its native countries are A-dan (Aden) Dju-bo (on the Eastern African coast). A rude but tolerably exact drawing of the camel-bird in the Pen-ts'ao proves that the ostrich was well known to the Chinese in ancient times, and that they paid great attention to it. In the History of the Ming Dynasty, ch. cccxxvi., the country of Hu-lu-mo-sz (Hormuz on the Persian Gulf) is mentioned as producing ostriches."--H. C.]

men.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

CONCERNING THE PROVINCE OF ADEN.

You must know that in the province of ADEN there is a Prince who is called the Soldan. The people are all Saracens and adorers of Mahommet, and have a great hatred of Christians. There are many towns and villages in the country.

This Aden is the port to which many of the ships of India come with their cargoes; and from this haven the merchants carry the goods a distance of seven days further in small vessels. At the end of those seven days they land the goods and load them on camels, and so carry them a land journey of 30 days. This brings them to the river of ALEXANDRIA, and by it they descend to the latter city. It is by this way through Aden that the Saracens of Alexandria receive all their stores of pepper and other spicery; and there is no other route equally good and convenient by which these goods could reach that place.1

And you must know that the Soldan of Aden receives a large amount in duties from the ships that traffic between India and his country, importing different kinds of goods; and from the exports also he gets a revenue, for there are despatched from the port of Aden to India a very large number of Arab chargers, and palfreys, and stout nags adapted for all work, which are a source of great profit to those who export them.2 For horses fetch very high prices in India, there being none bred there, as I have told you before; insomuch that a charger will sell there for 100 marks of silver and more. On these also the Soldan of Aden receives heavy payments in port charges, so that 'tis said he is one of the richest princes in the world.3