Thursday, December 12, 2013

Commissioning a Helmet Across the Border

On April 17th, 1560, Murad the Ottoman janissary aga of Buda, wrote a letter to István Dobó thanking him for the delivery of a set of helmets he had commissioned for the amount of 25 gold thalers. After expressing his eagerness to return the favor, he sends his regards to another individual and proceeds to brag about sultanic gifts to his supervisor and his own promotion to head aga. Along with his payment, he also sends Dobó a wedding gift in the form of a blue Persian carpet. Signing with "God bless you" and dating it using the Christian calendar, our sixteenth century Muslim military official seems to wield both the Hungarian language and a cosmopolitan understanding of religious difference. One is hard pressed to find even the slightest trace of the clash of civilizations that characterizes much of the literature on this border region in the mid-sixteenth century. 

The helmets commissioned were likely of the "Ottoman" type: bulbous bowls that rose to a point with a row of holes along the bottom rim used for attaching the accompanying plate or mail neck and cheek guards, occasionally with a long nose guard in the front topped by a decorative piece of metalwork bearing an inscription. These "turban helmets" varied widely in decoration and were produced throughout the region, both in Ottoman and Habsburg lands. A number of the surviving examples bear armorer's marks from Nuremberg. I am currently in the process of collecting references to similar commissions and hope to have a more detailed and comprehensive post on them soon. Until then, I have attached my translation of the document below, along with the original and some examples of similar helmets. 


"Greetings to you sir, my good neighbor. They gave me the two helmets which you sent me for my money. Thank you for your service my sir. I promise you that if you should ask for anything of this type from me, I will acquire it for you. Do not send me money bravely just to tell me what you want, as I can find the money later with you. I sent you the price of the helmets: 25 gold and new thalers, which should cover the price of the helmets. Send my greetings/thanks to Sir Domokos. The great emperor [sultan] gave Wely Szu Pasha [should be referring to Güzeldzse Rustem Pasha] 52 thousand in cash as a present, and also a beautiful horse with fittings. On top of that he also gave the head janissary of Upper Turkey the appointment of head aga. Please accept the beautiful blue mahraman I have sent you as a wedding present. Please send me a response assuring me that you received all of the money and the mahraman. May God bless you. Written in Buda, on Easter Wednesday 1560.

Murad, Janissary Aga of Buda"

Exterior: "Give this letter to the gracious Dobó István, my sir and good neighbor."

"Köszünethemet mynt yo szomszed vramnak. Meg attak a kett sysakot kiket keg ennekem kẅldött penzemre Köszönöm kegdnek szolgalattyait mynt vrammnak: yghyrem ismeg magamat hog kegmed valamire engemet ker e fele dolognak meg szerzesere meg szerzem kegdnek. Keged ennekem bator penszt ne kẅlgyon czyak hog kẅlgi hyrt mytt kewansz  meg szerzem kegdnek a penzt az vtan enis meg talalom kednel. Meg kẅltem az szsakoknak az arrat kegdnek: 25 aranyatt es uj tallert, mely az szsakok arrat szynte meg teszy. Damokos vramnak keged en tölem mongyon köszömtetett. Wely Szẅ passanak az haralmas chyaszar 52 ezer orzporatt adott kesz penzẅl azandekon. Ismeg egy fö loẅat mynden szerewel szamaẅal, Annak felette a felsö török orszagba az fö janczyar aga vtan fö agasagot. Kẅldöttem te nads azandekon egy igen szep kék mahramant kit keged vegyen yo newen tölem. Mynd a penz felöl smynd az mahraman felöl en nekem byzonnyos valaszt tegyen keged ha meg attake veg nem. Isten tarcza meg kg : Költ Budan Hẅswet szerdan anno 1560.

Mẅratt janczar aga 

exterior: "Adassek ez lewel az Nadsagos Dobo Istwannak Lewaba nekem wramnak, es yo szomszedomnak."

Published in: Takáts, Sándor, Ferenc Eckhart, and Gyula Szekfu, eds. 1915. A Budai basák magyar nyelvu levelezése. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, #10.
Archive: Magyar Országos Levéltár - Dobó levéltár, I csomó 

"Ottoman Helmet," 16th century,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 04.3.456a
"Ottoman Style Helmet," 16th century,
Walters Art Museum, 51.72

"Ottoman Style Helmet," probably Nuremberg,
16th century, Hungarian National Museum, inv. 55.3346

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Tarih-i Ungurus

            The Tarih-i Ungurus, written between 1543 and 1566, tells the history of the lands of Hungary from the conquest of the region by Alexander the Great to the death of King Louis II at the Battle of Mohács in 1526. The only known copy is held in the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, where it arrived after its rediscovery and initial publication by Ármin Vámbéry in 1860.[1] The 210 folios of unillustrated text are composed of a combination of Ottoman Turkish prose and verse. The title page reads Tarih-i Ungurus with the partially rubbed out subtitle Iskendername, or history of Alexander the Great. The page also includes the signatures of two previous owners, one Muhammed Amin Abu l'Is'ad Tusturzade[2] and the other of the nineteenth century scholar Vámbéry. Hazai, the publisher of the critical edition, found no evidence to suggest it exists in other forms, concluding that this was the autograph copy.[3]
            The author reveals his name, clues towards a date range, and claims a specific purpose in the dedication on folios 2b-3a:

“When Sultan [Suleiman]’s sword took Hungary, a few people from the fortresses fled to the King of Vienna and did not listen to the commands of the padisha, that is why he sent a sea of soldiers against them and with one motion conquered them. At that time, in a castle known as Ustulni Belgırad [Székesfehérvár], a Latin language book found its way into our hands. Its contents explored, it was revealed that it contained the history of Hungary starting from the ancient days.  It sought to explain how the land flowered, why it was named Hungary, how its capitol city, Buda, was given the name Buda, what was the name of its earlier capitol, what types of kings followed each other, when, and with whom they fought battles, how long they ruled, and lived. That is why I, the weak and poor servant, Tercüman Mahmud, decided that I would translate it. Perhaps the day will come when the current padisah and those that follow will turn their noble attention and happen upon this unworthy poor man’s present, and will with good-nature tolerate and be gracious to this pious submissive servant.[4]

Thus, the text cannot have been created before the capture of Székesfehérvár in 1543, given the reference to the event, and its dedication to Sultan Suleiman provides it with a terminus ante quem of 1566, the year the sultan died on the battlefield in Szigetvár.  The self depreciating request for favor from the “current padisah and those that follow” seems to be a formulaic request for support. Given the date range and the information contained within, it seems quite plausible that the work operated in dialogue with the ongoing consolidation of power in the conquered portions of the fragmented Hungarian territories.
            The author, Tercüman Mahmud, was a well known dragoman (translator) at the Ottoman court of Sultan Suleiman. His unusually prolific diplomatic career has been reconstructed by scholars from archives in Vienna and Istanbul.[5] Captured during the Battle of Mohács, he came from a Viennese Jewish family. Before his conversion, his name was Sebold von Pibrach, the son of a burgher merchant, Jacob von Pibrach. He was well educated and arrived in the palace schools reading and writing in Latin, German, and Hungarian. During his tenure he served in diplomatic missions to Transylvania (1550 and 1554), Poland (1543 and 1554), Paris (1569), Venice and Cypress (1570), Vienna (1550, 1574) and finally Prague (1575) where he died.[6] Some scholars question if Tercüman Mahmud composed the Tarih-i Ungurus, based primarily on the fact that tough while only one dragoman by the name of Mahmud operated at the time, he left no evidence that he wrote works of history outside of this volume. This led Hazai to suggest that he commissioned the work, or at the very least worked closely with a secondary author more well versed in Ottoman Turkish and Arabic.[7]
            Hazai’s critical edition includes a philological study of the quality and character of the Ottoman Turkish and Arabic quotations used throughout the text. Looking for traces of the author’s German roots in syntax errors, he concludes that text suggests multiple authors who wielded Ottoman Turkish and Arabic as native speakers.[8] Identifying few mistakes and few loan words, Hazai also suggested that the deformed names suggested the hand of a non-German speaker. In an earlier publication, Hazai also suggested that the missing words were probably meant to be written in a different color, and thus blames errors on a scribe rather than hypothesizing about a secondary author.[9]
            The sources of the work have been identified as a history of Alexander the Great, from the popular Ottoman Iskendername genre;  a corrupt late medieval version of M. I. Iustinus's World History; the Hungarian historical medieval chronicle Chronicon Pictum compiled by Mark of Kalt;[10]  an altered European edition of Johannes de Thurocz’s Chronica Hungarorum (used for all information post 1000 information); [11] and some early scholars took his introduction literally and believed there was a single mysterious Latin chronicle in Szekesfehervar combining the history of Alexander the Great with that of medieval Hungary that is no longer extant.
            Following its initial rediscovery, scholarship on the Tarih-i Ungurus centered largely on identifying this fictitious Latin source it purported to reproduce which would have provided information on the early history of the Magyar people and their settlement in the Carpathian Basin not available elsewhere.[12] The first person to put forth a serious alternative to the search for the Latin chronicle was István Borzsák, who showed that much of Alexander the Great material was derived from Iustinus's 44 volume Historiae Philippicae embellished with motifs borrowed from the widely popular Iskendername, or Alexander Romance.[13] The critical edition appeared in 2009 and led to a major growth in awareness of the manuscript and interesting new hypotheses about its origins and meanings. Balázs Sudár included it in his short analysis of the mental occupation of Hungary by the Ottomans to show how acquiring the territories went hand in hand with acquiring the past through rewriting it.[14] Specifically, Sudár argues that the focus on fictitious anecdotes from the life of Alexander the Great served to show that the Ottomans were heirs to the Alexandrine empire and thus rightfully in possession of the lands of not only the Kingdom of Hungary, but also the lands of Europe that lay beyond it. Sudár situates this within a context of other legitimizing actions, such as the appropriation of religious and ceremonial spaces and the creation of a new Eastern pedigree for the royal accouterments.

[1] Ármin Vámbéry, “Tarihi Engerusz, azaz Magyarország története czimű török kézirat ismertetése Vámbéri Armintól,” ed. Antal Csengery, Magyar akadémiai értesítő. Philosophiai, törvény-és történettudományi osztályok közlönye 1 (1860): 360–362.
[2] Unidentified. Needs archival research.
[3] Hazai 1996.
[4] “(2b) O zaman kim zarb-ı teğiyle fetheylediği Ungurus vilayeti kalelerınden birkaç kalenin ehalisi Bic kıralına itaat edip emr-i padişahiye imtisal ve inkıyad eyelemedikleri ecilden üzerlerine deryamisal asker çekip varıp cüzvi işaretle fetheyleyip Ustulni Belgırad nam kalede Latin ibaretince bir kitab ele girip mefhumuna nazar olundukta, Ungurus vilayetinin kadimü’l-eyyamdan tevarihi olup o vilayet ne vechile mamur olup  ve Ungurus dediklerine sebeb ne vechile olmuştur, ve tahtgahı olan Budine niçin Budin demişlerdir, ve kadim tahtlarının adı nedir, ve ne denlu kırallar gelip gitmişler, ve ne zamanlarda kimler ile ceng ü cıdal eylemişlerdir, ve ne miktar kırallık sürüp zindegani kırmışlardır beyan olunmağa sayedip (3a) bu biçare-i zayıf Tercüman Mahmud bende tercüme eylemeğe kasdeyledimç Vakat olda padişah-ı devranın ve sahibkıran-ı devr-i zamanın bu fakir-i hakirin tuhfesine nazar-ı şerifleri mukarin olup bendeleri hakkında himmeti ve inayeti mebzul buyurıla.” Transcription published in Hazai 2009, 13-14. Translation is my own based partially on the Hungarian translation in Hazai 1996, 26.
[5] Josef Matuz, “Die Pfortendolmetscher Zur Herrschaftszeit Süleymans Des Prächtigen,” Südost-Forschungen 34 (1975): 26–60. Hazai expanded on this work with archival research conducted by Petritsch. Some of this archival work was partially published in E. D. Petritsch, “Der habsburgisch-osmanische Friedensvertrag des Jahres 1547,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 38 (1985): 49–80.
[6] Hazai 2009, 12.
[7] Hazai 1996, 11.
[8] Ibid., 15.
[9] Ibid., 13.
[10] The manuscript is housed in the Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Budapest (shelf mark Cod. 404) and dates between 1330 and 1360. The 147 illuminated illustrations represent a high point in Eastern European medieval art. It is rather curious that the Tarih-i Ungurus does not attempt to reproduce any images.
[11] Hazai 1996.
[12] József Budenz, “Tarihi Engerusz, azaz Magyarország története czimű török kézirat ismertetése Budenz Józseftől,” ed. Antal Csengery, Magyar akadémiai értesítő. Philosophiai, törvény-és történettudományi osztályok közlönye 2 (1861): 261–316.
[13] István Borzsák, “A ‘Hungarian History’ Through Turkish Eyes and the Alexander the Great Tradition,” in Occident and Orient: a Tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber, ed. Sándor Scheiber and Róbert Dán (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 31–38.
[14] Balázs Sudár, “Az oszmánok és Magyarország mentális meghódítása [The Ottomans and the mental occupation of Hungary],” in Identitás és kultúra a török hódoltság korában, ed. Pál Ács and Júlia Székely (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2012), 40–49.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The Ottoman and Habsburg Frontier in Hungary and the People Who Crossed it: Between Komárom and Esztergom, 1550 to 1591

Fig. 1 - As the envoy to the Turks was received below Komárom [Wie der herr Legat von den Turcken unterhalb Comorra angenommen worden.], 1608, woodcut, insert following page 8 in the 1608 publication of Salomon Schweigger’s travelogue.

“The hither and tither of the stairwell, the temporal movement and passage that it allows, prevents identities at either end of it from settling into primordial polarities. This interstitial passage between fixed identifications opens up the possibility of a cultural hybridity that entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy.”
~ Homi Bhabha[28]

Nestled between pages 8 and 9 in the 1608 edition of Salomon Schweigger's travelogue[1] chronicling his 1577 trip from Vienna to Istanbul, the woodcut image of the frontier between Christian Europe and the Muslim East seems to be a rather peculiar and modest representation of the most volatile border of sixteenth-century Europe (fig. 1). The tripartite fold-out landscape depicts the Habsburg controlled fortress of Komárom[2] on the far right, an island in the middle of the Danube with bubbles of smoke emitting from the cannons positioned along the ramparts as they salute the delegation. A fleet of eighteen oared ships with flags waving above allow the water to carry them towards the Ottoman realm. A cluster of ships on the far left indicate a time lapse, with the delegation’s arrival at their first and most critical destination: the encounter with their Muslim neighbors. The image encourages the reader to sink into the empty space of the Ottoman-Hungarian-Habsburg frontier, the central panel of the triptych highlighting the psychological aspects of the crossing. Here tufts of vegetation dot a desolate landscape and the meandering lines of the choppy waters of the Danube lead the eye from right to left and back again. This liminal space between two scenes is the focal point of my current research, and this post.

                  Traditionally scholars read this European frontier of the Ottoman Empire as an open zone of incessant warfare providing a space for the continuation of the Ghazi tradition, or holy-war against the infidels, in which short-term treaties were only a brief respite when both sides “recuperated militarily, [until] they would again be ready for the formal resumption of hostilities."[3]  While some scholars have nuanced this approach, my current work aims to complicate our understanding of this zone between the 1550s and 1591. I am gathering evidence that suggests that just as often as raids reached across the boundaries, so too did correspondence, gifts, chivalric spectacles involving parties from both sides, and a great deal of men and women moved securely throughout the frontier. It suggests that a fixed border system emerged during the second half of the sixteenth century in which individuals, letters, and goods moved in the liminal spaces of the contact zone. The movement discussed here took place between two fixed portals into their respective worlds: Komárom and Esztergom. This highway of cultural exchange, though sometimes strained, remained open for non-hostile movement between to the outbreak of the Long War.

                  The first part post in this series surveys the primary source literature produced by official delegations and individuals writing travelogues. And so, down the rabbit hole we go: diving right into the flowing waters of the Danube as it hurries downstream from Komárom to Esztergom, and sometimes traveling back again on the footpath running beside it. I begin with the end, a quote from Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw von Mitrowitz’s border crossing trip in 1591.

"Thus we voyaged some hours down the Danube, till we espied the Turkish boats, which were ten in number. The Turkish boats were exactly similar to ours in all respects, except in carrying only one gun each. On land about one hundred very fine-looking and well appointed Turkish horsemen rode towards us, and, on perceiving us, set spurs to their horses and galloped to the very brink of the Danube. Herr von Kregwitz then ordered the boats to cast anchor. We disembarked in the bank and welcomed and were welcomed by out Turkish friends, and ere long partook of dinner together in the boats. It was certainly matter of wonder, to a person who had never beheld anything of the kind before, to see the beautiful horses, the lances with streaming pennons, the sabers inlaid with silver, gold, and precious stones, the magnificent cloths of blue and red, the gilded saddles and caparisons of the Turks; and I think they must have equipped themselves in this manner on purpose."[4]

Members of delegations.[5] By the time Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw von Mitrowitz crossed the threshold of the Ottoman Empire somewhere along the 30 mile stretch of the Danube between Komárom and Esztergom on September 4, 1591, the set of processional motions and moments of the imperial delegation’s route to Constantinople were already fixed in tradition. Some eighteen travelers[6] penned descriptions of the journey between the two fortress-cities between 1550 and 1591; many undertaking the trip as part of similar missions to the Porte, carrying the tribute or accompanying ambassadors to their new posts in Constantinople. The first to record the expedition,[7] a wealthy merchant attached to Ferdinand I's delegation to Sultan Suleiman by the name of Hans Dernschwam, crossed the border in July of 1553.[8] His short description of the riverboat voyage recalls the moment he encountered the 200 Turkish escorts and his impressions of the old city of Esztergom, remarking on the Christian visual elements of the cloister and church visible from the water.[9] One year later, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq made the journey as ambassador, crossing the frontier in November or December of 1554 and returning at the same time as Dernschwam in August of 1555.[10]  Busbecq provides a more detailed and nervous account of how he expected the Habsburgs and Turks to attack each other and did not allow them to get too close, only to later discover that his enormous Turkish escort was fully dressed for a ceremonial procession, and not war.[11] Following these men were Jacob von Betzek (crossed in 1564-1565),[12] Marcantonio Pigfetta (1568-88),[13] Hans van den Braden (1570),[14] a member of David Ungnad’s entourage (1572),[15] Sefan Gerlach (1573),[16] Salomon Schweigger (1577),[17] Henricus Porsius (1579),[18] Francois de Billerbeck (1582),[19] Wolf Andreas von Steinach (1583),[20] Levyn Rym (1583),[21] Melchior Besolt (1584),[22] Jacob Furer von Haimendorff (1587),[23] Ludwig von Lichtenstein (1587),[24] Reinhold Lubenau (1587),[25] Friedrich Seidel (1591),[26] and lastly Wenceslas Wratislaw von Mitrowitz (1591).[27] From Dernschwam to Mitrovitz, each traveler crossed between Komárom to Esztergom by the Danube or on a well trodden path next to it, recording their experiences.

[1] Salomon Schweigger, Ein newe Reyßbeschreibung auß Teutschland nach Constantinopel und Jerusalem... (Nürnberg: Lantzenberger, 1608).
[2] Toponyms are intimately connected to nineteenth-century nationalist politics. In dealing with these issues, I elected to use the current Hungarian name of both cities. This is despite the fact the a majority of what was Komárom now lies in Slovakia and goes by the name Komárno. Other variations of the name Komárom include Comorra and Gomarom. Esztergom sometimes went by its Latin name, Strigonium, or by its German name, Gran.
[3] Rifaat A. Abou-el-Haj, “The Formal Closure of the Ottoman Frontier in Europe: 1699-1703,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89, no. 3 (July 1, 1969): 467–475. 467.
[4] Václav Wratislav z Mitrovic and Albert Henry Wratislaw, Adventures of Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw of Mitrowitz. What he saw in the Turkish metropolis, Constantinople; experienced in his captivity; and after his happy return to his country, committed to writing in the year of our Lord 1599. (London: Bell & Daldy, 1862), 4.
[5] What is presented here is merely a preliminary sketch of what could be done with this vast amount of literature in relation to the crossing.
[6] My list is compiled from the longer list of travelogues discussing the Ottoman empire in the sixteenth century by Stefanos Yerasimos, Les voyageurs dans l’Empire Ottoman, XIVe-XVIe siècles : bibliografie, itinéraires et inventaire des lieux habités (Ankara: Société turque d’histoire, 1991).
[7] Of course, others recorded travel on this major highway prior to Dernschwam. His importance lies in the fact that he traveled after it became the crossing point between the Habsburg and Ottoman territory. For earlier travelers see Yerasimos 1991 and István Czagány, “A budai várra vonatkozó történetíras és művészettudomány története [History writing and art historical knowledge pertaining to the Buda castle],” Tanulmányok Budapest múltjából 22 (1988): 9–59.
[8] For each of the authors, I cite only the most accessible version of their work. Here, Hans Dernschwam and Heinrich Kiepert, Hans Dernschwam’s orientalische Reise, 1553-1555 aus Handschriften im Auszuge mitgetheilt von H. Kiepert. (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, 1887).
[9] (Dernschwam and Kiepert 1887, 1).
[10] Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, Charles Thornton Forster, and Francis Henry Blackburne Daniell, The life and letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, (London: C.K. Paul, 1881).
[11] (Busbecq et al 1887, 82-85).
[12] Original manuscript version transcribed and published in Jakob von Betzek and Karl Nehring, Gesandtschaftsreise nach Ungarn und in die Türkei im Jahre 1564/65 (München: Finnisch-Ugrisches Seminar an der Universität München, 1979).
[13] Published in Marco Antonio Pigafetta and Daria Perocco, Itinerario da Vienna a Costantinopoli (Padova: Il poligrafo, 2008).
[14] Original manuscript version transcribed and published in S. de Vriendt, Karel Rijm, and Levinus Rijm, Reyse van Bruussele vut Brabant te Constantinopels in Thracyen en Reyse van Weenen in Hoosteryc te Constantinopels in Thracyen. Twee reisjournaals uit de jaren 1570-1585. (Gent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde (Koningsstraat, 18), 1971).
[15] Franciscus Omichius, Beschreibung Einer Legation und Reise von Wien aus Ostereich auff Constantinopel... (Güstrow: Ferber, 1582).
[16] Stephan Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs dess aeltern Tage-Buch: Der von zween ... an die Ottomannische Pforte zu Constantinopel abgefertigten..., ed. Samuel Gerlach and Tobias Wagner (Franckfurt am Mayn: In Verlegung Johann-David Zunners. Getruckt bey Heinrich Friesen, 1674).
[17] Salomon Schweigger and Heidi Stein, Zum Hofe des türkischen Sultans (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1986).
[18] Henricus Porsius, Historia belli Persici, gesti inter Murathem II. Turcarum, et Mehemetem Hodabende, Persarum regem... (Francofurti: Excudebat Iohannes Wechelus, impensis Sigismundi Feyrabendt, 1583).
[19] Franciscus de Billerbeck, Newe Schiffart: Darinnen eigentlich vnd auffs kürtzest beschriben wirdt die Reise, einer Schiffart, auß Constantinopel... (Nürnberg: Heußler, 1584).
[20] Original manuscript version transcribed and published in Andreas Wolf von Steinach, “Beschreibung Oder Verzaichnusz Des Wegs, Der Stätt, Orth Und Fleckhen Von Steinach Aus Dem Enstall Im Lande Styer Auf Constantinopel Zue, Wie Ichs, Wolf Andre Von Stainach, Anno 1583 Geraist Mit Dem Wolgeboren Herrn Herrn Pauln Freiherrn Von Eytzing,” Steiermärkische Geschichtsblätter 3, no. 4 (1881): 193–234.
[21] Original manuscript version transcribed and published in (S. de Vriendt et al. 1971).
[22] Saad Ed-Din et al., Neuwe Chronica Türckischer nation... (Franckfurt am Mayn: Wechel, 1595).
[23] Christoph Fürer von Haimendorff and Georg Richter, Christoph Fürers von Haimendorff, Ritters, Deß Eltern geheimen Rahts... Reis-Beschreibung... (Nürnberg; Nürnberg: Endter ;, 1621).
[24] Original manuscript version transcribed and published in Hans-Ludwig von Lichtenstein, Große Reisen und Begebenheiten der Herrn Wolf Christoph von Rotenhan, Herrn Hannß Ludwig von Lichtenstein, Herrn Christoph von Wallenfelß, Herrn Hannß Ludwig von Münster nach Italien, Rhodus, Cypern, Türkey, besonders Constantinopel, nach Asien, Syrien, Macedonien, Egypten, in das gelobte Land etc. etc. etc. Berg Sinai etc. : 1585-1589 (München: Hafner, 1902).
[25] Original manuscript version transcribed and published in Reinhold Lubenau and Wilhelm Sahm, Beschreibung der Reisen des Reinhold Lubenau (Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 1912).
[26] Friedrich Seidel and Salomon Haussdorff, Denckwürdige Gesandtschafft an die Ottomannische Pforte, Welche ehmahls auf Röm. Kays. Maj. Rudolphi II. Hohen Befehl Herr Fridrich von Krekwitz ... verrichtet : Nebst ausführlichem Bericht/ was hierbey so wohl mit dem Herrn Oratore selbst, als denen Seinigen vorgelauffen (Görlitz: Laurentius, 1711).
[27] (Mitrovic and Wratislaw 1862).
[28] Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 2nd ed. (London; New York: Routledge, 2004), 5.