Chapter XVII: Geuzna. Fever Epidemic in Mersina (3)

“In passing out from the town in that direction, you cross a handsome stone bridge of fifteen arches. On the right side towards the west are some great aqueducts, at the bottom of which are to be seen a number of wheels, which draw the water of the river something like the wheels of the machine at Marly. These aqueducts carry the water of the Chaquet all over the town by means of different water conduits, and there is no place where there are more or finer fountains than Adana.

“I found only two inscriptions ... the second, which is in hexameter and pentameter verses, seems to have been set up in honour of some great personage who had secured the town against the inundations of the river. The inscription wishes for that personage a glory as immortal as those had acquired for themselves who had caused the canals of the Nile to be constructed.”[47]

Of these works not a trace could I discover. The subjoined is the inscription referred to. The text amended by Boeckh, iii. p. 212.

“Οντως σης αρετης Αυξεντιε και τοδε θαυμα
δειμασθαι ποταμου χειμεριοισι δρομοις
αρρηκτον κρηπιδα σιδηροδετοισι θεμειλοις
ων υπερ ευρειην εξετανυσσας οδον
ην πολλοι και προσθεν απειρειησι νοοιο
Κυδναιων ρειθρων τευξαν αφαυροτερην.
σοι δ’ υπερ αψιδων αιωνιος ερριζωται
και ποταμος πληθων πρηυτερος τελεθει
αυτος τηνδε γεφυραν ανασχομενος τελεσασθαι
ηγεμονος πειθου του διασημοτατου
οφρα σε και μετοπισθεν εχοι κλεος ισον εκεινοις
οι Νειλου προχοας ζευξαν απειρεσιους.”

“Of a truth, Auxentius, this also is a wondrous work of your ability, to have constructed for the winter floods of the river an embankment that cannot be broken, on foundations secured with iron, above which you extended a wide roadway—and this many before you, owing to their inexperience (want of skill) had made too weak (to resist) the Cydnean stream, but by you it has been fixed firm and enduring above its arches, and the swollen stream becomes (thus) more gentle. Yourself, too, in obedience to the command of the most illustrious prince, patiently completed the bridge, so that hereafter a glory will be yours equal (to the fame of) those who dyked the vast streams of Nile.”

The prince is no doubt Justinian; and his engineer Auxentius, besides repairing the bridge, seems to have also constructed solid quays along the banks of the river, which preserved the town of Adana from inundations. The sixth line presents a difficulty, the river is not the Cydnus, but the Sarus, and although at various periods the Sarus and Pyramus have formed one stream, owing to changes in the respective course of these rivers, it does not appear that the Cydnus and Sarus ever flowed together.

MESSIS.—Its ancient name was Mopsuestia, but the Byzantine Arab and Armenian writers name it very variously, e.g. Mopsistea, Mampsysta, Mamista, Mamistra, Masissa, &c., &c.

It was founded after the Trojan war by Mopsus. An Argive colony, under Amphilochus, afterwards settled here, but a dispute having arisen between the two chiefs, a single combat took place between them, in which both fell. Mopsus afterwards was worshipped in Cilicia, on account of the celebrity of his oracles. Of the early history of Messis there is no trace whatever. Like many other Asiatic cities, it took the name Seleucia in honour of the Greek kings of Syria. It is mentioned by Strabo, and as a free state under the Romans by Pliny. It would seem to have been benefited by Adrian, whose name it bore, and who probably built the first bridge over the Pyramus. Later it assumed the name ΔΕΚΙΑΝΩΝ ΜΟΨΕΑΤΩΝ, from the Emperor Trajan Decius. Justinian also was its benefactor, and repaired the bridge.[48] In A.D. 950, Mopsuestia was captured by the Saracens, but in 965 recaptured, after a long siege, by Nicephorus Phocas. William of Tyre says of it,[49] “Erat autem Mamistra una de nobilioribus ejusdem provinciæ civitatibus, muro et multorum incolatu insignis, sedet optimo agro et gleba ubere et amœnitate præcipue commendabilis.” It was here that a fierce battle occurred between the troops of Baldwin and Tancred during the first Crusade. It was captured by the Crusaders in 1097. The town was often taken and retaken in the wars between Greeks, Saracens, and Armenians, and changed hands repeatedly during the Crusades and the later invasions of Cilicia by the Sultans of Egypt. Willibrand, canon of Oldenburg, visited it in the thirteenth century. According to him “Manistere” was a fine town, situated on a river, having ramparts flanked with towers, but ruinous by reason of their age. It had only a few inhabitants, and was subject to the king of Armenia. Near the town was the castle, held by a Byzantine garrison, although the town itself belonged to the Armenian king, Leo II. Both town and citadel often changed hands during the wars between Greeks and Armenians, until finally the Greeks abandoned the place.

Pierre Belon visited Messis in the sixteenth century. He also mentions the castle, and the khan at the east extremity of the bridge. The latter, a large and solidly-built edifice, was erected in 1532, and is one of the numerous khans constructed by order of the sultans Selim I. and Suleiman during the first half of the sixteenth century. It was repaired in 1830 by Hassan Pasha. In Pierre Belon’s time Messis and the Pyramus were the limits which separated the Arabic and Turkish languages, and divided the Ottoman empire from the dominions of the sultans of Egypt. The town was then what it is now, viz. a great mass of ruins, with a few wretched cottages scattered amidst it.

The only celebrated name connected with Mopsuestia is that of Bishop Theodore. He held that see for thirty-six years, and was considered as “primarily responsible” for all the theological commotions associated with the names of Nestorius and Pelagius, for it was under these names that the opinions of Theodore came before the notice of the world. Nestorius was said to have stopped at Mopsuestia as he went from his monastery at Antioch to take possession of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and there to have been imbued with heresy by the aged, and then almost dying, Theodore, and this story, though doubtful in itself, embodies an unquestionable truth. It was the influence of Theodore’s episcopate, extending over thirty-six years, during which he was a most popular preacher, which brought to a head those tendencies of Antiochene thought, whose inevitable issue was Nestorianism. And we have fragments of his writings containing the principles and many even of the very phrases of that which was afterwards known as Nestorian heresy. Thus he has been justly called “a Nestorian before Nestorius.”

In like manner as to Pelagianism. Rufinus, the Syrian monk, who first led Pelagius into heresy, openly boasted that he was the personal disciple of Theodore; and the diocese of Mopsuestia was treated by the leading Pelagians as the natural head-quarters of their party. There are even extant fragments of a book of Theodore in which he attacks S. Jerome on the question of Original Sin. Our knowledge of the man himself is as fragmentary as the remains of his voluminous works. Of his life we know only two or three episodes, derived chiefly from some letters of S. Chrysostom. Of his commentaries on the greater part of the Old Testament none remains entire, except those on the twelve minor prophets. The rest, like his great dogmatic works, exist only in scattered fragments, preserved by his theological opponents as testimony against their author, and yet they were esteemed—by friends and foes alike—as the greatest exegetical works which the school of Antioch had produced.

Theodore of Antioch, as he is commonly called, when the works written before he became bishop are quoted, was born at Antioch, about A.D. 347, being thus the fellow-townsman and contemporary of S. Chrysostom. His parents were wealthy, but beyond this we know nothing of his family history. Another brother of the same family, Polychronius, was well known as a bishop and a commentator, and his work on the ‘Prophecy of Daniel’ is still extant.[50]

We first hear of Theodore when, at about the age of twenty, he was studying rhetoric with S. Chrysostom, under the sophist Libanius. Shortly after, Chrysostom retired from the world, and persuaded Theodore to follow his example. A violent reaction followed. Theodore left his solitude determined to marry, upon which Chrysostom addressed to him one if not two letters of remonstrance; perhaps, however, the longer of the two, in which mention is made of a lady, Hermione, is addressed to some other Theodore. The result of Chrysostom’s eloquent pleading was that Theodore remained constant to his vows. Again he studied with Chrysostom, and their master having been made Bishop of Tarsus, Theodore followed him there, was ordained by him, and remained in the diocese until his death. In 393 he was himself made Bishop of Mopsuestia, the third town in what was then known as Cilicia Secunda, and under the Metropolitan See of Anazarba.

In 404 S. Chrysostom, then for the second time in exile, writing to Pœanius, a cousin of Theodore, styles the latter “his master.” In the same year he writes to Theodore himself, who, with the tact which must have been habitual to him, had managed to aid S. Chrysostom without offending the opposite party. He wishes it were possible to come to him and enjoy in person his affection, but since this cannot be he must discharge the same duty by letter. “For if I were carried to the ends of the earth never could I forget your affection, genuine, warm, sincere, and guileless, both as it used to be from the very first and as you have displayed it now. For it is no small consolation that I have received even here ... the affection of your watchful and generous soul.”

Theodore’s whole life was one of ceaseless literary and theological activity, “prope infinita scripsit Theodorus.” He wrote against the Dualism of Zoroaster. He cleared his diocese of Arianism. His work against Apollinaris belongs to the latest period of his life. His death occurred in 429.[51]

Immediately beyond Messis commences the border country of the Amanus. Writing of this district, Ritter[52] says, “The struggles, lasting for centuries in this western border country between the Byzantine emperors and the Arab khalifs, were so full of changes, so sanguinary, and so exciting for the populations engaged in them, that these mountaineers may be said to have lived in a state of constant warfare, without ever arriving at a state of rest.” At the time of the Khalif Haroun er Rasheed the whole country as far as Tarsus had come under the power of the Muslim, for this khalif built the fortresses in the passes of the Amanus, and in 758 made Adana and Tarsus into border fastnesses. Similarly Messissa was made into a border fortress by the Khalif el Mansour; all three were to serve as bulwarks for Syria, and Tarsus was still further strengthened by Khalif el Maamoun to such a degree that it “might have resisted the Christians for centuries.” Yet Abulfeda says that in his time these very towns had been wrested from the Muslim by the Armenian Christians, and that Tarsus, Ayas, Adana, and others were held by the kings of Lesser Armenia who ruled at Sis, and he prays Allah that they may soon return into the possession of the faithful. “These holy wars,” says the gloss to Abulfeda, “exist no longer, what has become of them and of their work?”

Abulfeda himself made two campaigns in company with his father. The first, in 1298, was against the Armenians of Cilicia. The Muslim army entered the country by the passes of “Marra” (Marash?) and the Pass of Scanderoun, but the only result was the devastation of the land as far as the army advanced, the killing of the men, the distribution of the women and children as booty, and their sale as slaves. In the second campaign, in 1302, Abulfeda penetrated, by way of Bagras and the Pass of Beilan, as far as Sis itself.

“It is not astonishing that such a warlike existence of populations, enflamed by fanaticism, should have led them to a constant life of plundering and robbery, which under a hated Turkish rule would be intensified through the attraction of revolt against tyrannical, and at the same time cowardly, mercenaries and feeble pashas. Nor, again, is it astonishing that such a condition of things should have prevailed even till now (1855), for besides the encouragement afforded by mountain fortresses naturally strong; there were the constant intrigues and quarrels of the pashas of Cilicia and Syria almost always ill-disposed towards each other, and thus the Amanus remains what it has ever been, the asylum of every robber, rebel, or deposed pasha.

“Under such circumstances it is not wonderful that scarcely any place of importance, except Beilan, is known to us in the interior of the mountain ranges and the valleys of the Amanus. The others that may exist are probably only ruins, or the haunts of brigands; and even the coast towns exhibit a sad picture of decay and wreck, in the midst of which every temporary improvement can but sink and fall into oblivion.”

But of late years a vast improvement has taken place (1878).

MARASH.—On the site of ancient Germanicia. There seems to be no mention of this place in any writer of classical times, nor even under any Roman emperor, though it is mentioned by Byzantine writers. Under Alexis Comnenus it was the seat of a patriarch, whose authority extended to Edessa. At the end of the eleventh century it was held by the Armenian kings of Cilicia. The Crusaders under Godfrey de Bouillon, on their march from Koniah past Eregli, lost their way in the high ranges of Taurus, and after much wandering came to Marash. After various changes of masters, it fell into the power of Masaoud, Sultan of Koniah, in 1147, but was afterwards recovered by the Armenian kings, and remained in their possession till the end of the Roupenian dynasty.

Michaud[53] gives a description of the difficulties endured by the Christian army whilst crossing the Taurus, between “Cocson” (the ancient Cucusus, place of exile of S. Chrysostom) and “Maresia” (Marash), which was about ten hours to the S.W. The chroniclers declare “that there was no path in these mountains except fit only for reptiles or beasts of prey, and so narrow that there was scarcely room to place the foot; the knights carried their arms hung round their neck; the animals could not bear their burdens, which had to be carried by hand. No one could halt or sit down, no one could help his companion, only the man behind could give assistance to his comrade in front, and the latter could only turn with much difficulty.” Maresia was the limit to these difficulties. It was inhabited by Christians, and the Turkish garrison that had held the citadel had fled on the approach of the Crusaders. Here the wife of Baldwin died, and her remains were buried in the town, &c., &c.

SIS.—On the site of Flavias, or Flaviopolis. Barker[54] supposes this to be the Pindenissus which Cicero besieged during his proconsulate of Cilicia. By Strabo it is called Πιδνίδισσος, by Stephan. Byzantin., Πιδνήδισσος. Cicero,[55] after noticing some severe losses inflicted on the Roman army by the mountaineers of the Amanus, mentions the surrender to himself of the “Pindenissæ.” Pindenissus, he says, was a city of the independent Cilicians (Eleuthero-Cilices). Its inhabitants were brave, warlike, and well provided with means for defending their city. He mentions the operations of the army. They surrounded the city with a ditch and breastwork, employed a large “agger” with a very lofty tower, a great abundance of artillery (tormenta), and many archers. After a stubborn resistance, which seems to have caused severe loss to the Romans, Pindenissus surrendered on the forty-seventh day of the siege.

This Pindenissus of Cicero, however, can hardly have been the tremendous rock fortress of Sis, which is naturally almost impregnable.

Probably there was a fortress here at a very early period, but the old city of Sis, if any existed, has utterly disappeared, and the first time the town is mentioned is towards the end of the twelfth century. The seventh thakavor, and first king of the Roupenian line in 1183, was Leo II. He was crowned by Conrad, Bishop of Moguntia, through the influence of the Emperor Henry II. with the Pope. This monarch either founded or rebuilt Sis, commencing the work in 1186, and after this time it continued to be the capital and burial place of the Roupenian kings till 1374, when the Egyptians, after a siege of two months, captured and destroyed it.

It had been besieged many times before by the sultans of Koniah and of Egypt, but owing to its great natural strength, never captured, though the rest of the country, except some of the strongholds, fell into the hands of the invaders. Of the buildings of Sis, only one or two ruined churches remain, as the town was repeatedly destroyed.

The Armenian patriarchate was established here under the protection of the Roupenian kings, after the patriarch had been forced to quit Roum Kalah in consequence of the conquests of the Egyptians. In 1441, Etchmiazin, in Greater Armenia, became the chief Armenian patriarchate, but the ancient patriarchate of Sis is still maintained, although the patriarch seldom resides there.

ANAZARBA.—Several accounts are given of the origin of its name—either from زرب “zarb” (yellow), referring to the colour of its rock; or from its founder (whether mythical or real) “Azarbas.” Another account is that the place was destroyed by an earthquake during the reign of Nerva, and that he sent Anazarbus, a senator, to restore it: hence its name. Zonarus[56] and Philostratus[57] call it Anabarzus and Anabarza, and the Armenians of the country call it “Anawàrza.”

The Emperor Augustus visited it, favoured it much, and gave it the name of Cæsarea ad Anazarbum. It continued to receive many benefits from succeeding emperors. Under Commodus it became “αυτονομος”; under Caracalla, “μητροπολις”; under Macrinus, “ενδοξος”; under Philip the Arabian, “libera.” In the Museum of the Louvre there is a large bronze medal of Alexander Severus, inscribed ΑΝΑΖΑΡΒΟ ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΩΝ.

About the middle of the fifth century it became the capital of Cilicia Secunda. A terrible earthquake ruined it in the reign of Justin, A.D. 525. The emperor restored it, and called it Justinopolis, but the former name prevailed. Another earthquake, in the reign of Justinian, almost utterly destroyed it. This emperor also restored the city, and the existing walls belong to that period. Towards the end of the eighth century it fell into the hands of the Muslim; and in 802 Haroun er Rasheed placed in it a Khorassani garrison. About 1100, the Armenians acquired Anazarba, and it continued to be the capital and residence of their thakavors till the foundation of Sis. After that time it gradually lost its importance, and fell into decay.

Near Anazarba occurred a great battle in 1130, in which Bohemond, Prince of Antioch, defeated Redouan, Sultan of Aleppo and Damascus, but was himself slain in the fight. In 1136 it was captured, after a most obstinate defence, by the Byzantines, under their brave and generous emperor, John Comnenus, who had been provoked by the encroachments of the Armenians on Isauria. The Armenian king, Leo I., was captured, and all Cilicia reduced. In 1183 it was visited and described by Willibrand, Canon of Oldenburg. Very few travellers have seen it, and the remote position of the old city has saved what remains of it from destruction. In all probability it has continued waste and uninhabited for many centuries until quite a recent period.

PYLÆ CILICIÆ.—Although this pass must have always formed the chief passage from the interior of Asia Minor to the sea-coast, it is strange how very scanty are the notices of it to be found in the Greek or Roman historians. Xenophon mentions the march of Cyrus the younger through it. Then the next incident, after an interval of more than five centuries, is the death, in A.D. 174, of the Empress Faustina at Halala, whilst traversing the Pylæ. She was accompanying her husband, Marcus Aurelius, into Syria. The emperor raised a temple to her memory, and founded a town, to which he gave the name Faustinopolis.

In the contest for the empire between Septimus Severus and Percennius Niger, one of Niger’s generals, Æmilianus, had erected fortifications to the north of the pass; but a violent storm and inundation destroyed all the works, and the army of Severus marched through without being resisted.

During the first Crusade, a division of the Crusaders under Tancred made their way through this pass to Tarsus. Albert d’Aix calls it “porta de Judas,” and the defile to the north he names “Butrente,” derived, without doubt, from the ancient city once existing in it, “Podandus.”

The strong works erected by the Egyptian Ibrahim Pasha, for the defence of Cilicia against the Sultan’s army, still extend across the valley to the north of the pass itself.

EREGLI.—On the site of an ancient town, which has been variously named (1) Herculis vicus, hence Heraclea; or (2), according to Colonel Leake, Archalla; or (3) Cybistra. Strabo’s account of Cybistra agrees very well with the present position of Eregli. Cicero stationed his army here in order to resist a threatened invasion of the Parthians.

A bishop of Cybistra is mentioned as present at the Council of Nice, in 325; another at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451. The last mentioned is under Isaac Angelus, in 1195.

KARAMAN occupies the site of ancient Laranda. There is no account of its foundation or early history. It probably yielded only a nominal allegiance to the kings of Persia, for at the time of Alexander’s invasion it was held by the Isaurians, and even during Alexander’s lifetime it revolted, in company with Isaura, against the Macedonians. Laranda, however, was stormed and captured by the troops of the regent Perdiccas, all the adult males were slain, and the rest of the population sold into slavery; the town was destroyed. Long afterwards it was held by the Cilician and Isaurian pirates on account of the fertility of its soil.

From that time forwards there is a long blank in its history. It reappears at the time of the third Crusade, when the great German Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, after defeating, near Koniah, the Seljouk sultan, Kilidj Arslan, made his triumphant entry into Laranda on May 30, 1190. Michaud[58] says, “The army of the Cross only remained two days in the capital of Lycaonia. It marched to Laranda—now Karaman.” Ansbert[59] writes: “If I desired to describe all the miseries and persecutions which the pilgrims endured for the name of Christ and for the honour of the Cross, without murmurs, and even joyfully, my efforts, even though I could speak the tongue of the Angels, could not attain to the truth. Near Laranda the crusaders were aroused in the night by a sound like the clash of arms. It was an earthquake. In this the wise saw a sinister presage of what was to come.” The pilgrims had no more to fear the attacks and surprises of the Turks, but the difficult passage through the Taurus was a great trial of their patience and their courage. The army was marching down the course of the Selef, called in Turkish Gieuk Sou, a river which rises a few hours from Laranda, and enters the sea not far from the ruins of Seleucia (now Selefke). The Emperor Frederic was marching with the van of the army, and the catastrophe which occurred is thus described by the chronicler who was a witness of it: “Whilst the rest of the pilgrims,” says Ansbert, “rich and poor, was advancing through precipices scarcely accessible to wild goats or to birds, the emperor, who wished to refresh himself (it was then in the month of June), and to avoid also the perils of the mountains, tried to cross the rapid stream of Seleucia by swimming. This prince, who had escaped so many perils, entered the water contrary to the advice of all his suite, and was piteously drowned. Let us be resigned to the secret judgment of that God to whom none dare say, ‘Why hast Thou done this? Why hast Thou made so great a man die so soon?’ Several of the nobles who were present hastened to succour the emperor, but they brought him back to the shore dead. His loss troubled the army deeply, some expired of grief, others, in despair, were persuaded that God did not protect their cause, and renouncing the Christian faith, embraced the religion of the gentiles. Mourning and unbounded grief filled all hearts.” The Crusaders might exclaim with the prophet, “The crown is fallen from our head, woe unto us sinners.” All the chroniclers of the time deplore the death of the Emperor Frederic, and express the same sentiment. They do not venture to scrutinize this terrible mystery of Providence. “God,” says the chronicler Godefroy, “did that which pleased Him, and He did it with justice, according to His unchanging and inflexible Will, but not with mercy (if it be permitted to say so) considering the state of the Church and of the Land of Promise.”

On the contrary, the Muslim chroniclers thank Providence, and regard the death of Frederic as one of the Almighty’s great mercies. “Frederic,” says Boha-ed-deen, “was drowned in a place where the water was only as deep as up to the waist—a proof that God willed to deliver us from him.” What great results might have arisen from an expedition such as the third Crusade—the reunion of the most warlike nations of the West, and of the three most powerful monarchs of that age! “Unless the Almighty, as a mark of His bounty towards us,” says Ibn Alatir, “had caused the German emperor to perish at the moment he had crossed the Taurus, later on it might have been said of Syria and of Egypt, ‘Formerly the Muslimin were masters here!’”

When the great empire of the Seljouks of Iconium came to an end, in 1308, ten emirates arose from its ruins. Laranda was already in possession of a chief belonging to the Turkman tribe of Karaman, who increased his power by encroachments upon all his neighbours.

It was during the reign of this prince that the celebrated traveller, “Ibn Batuta,” visited Laranda, in 1332. He says the town was governed by Sultan “Bedr-ed-Deen”—“Karaman Oglou”—who had seized upon it by force, and built there a royal palace. The traveller was received with great honour by the sultan—who was returning from the chase—and rode with the prince into the town as his guest. Food, fruit, and sweetmeats in silver dishes, with wax candles, were sent to him in abundance, and when he took his leave he was presented with a dress of honour, riding-horses, and other gifts. The dynasty of Karaman, at first powerful and enterprising, gradually merged in the rising house of Othman. First Mourad, and then his son, Bayazid Ilderim, established the supremacy of the Ottomans over their Seljoukian cousins. Nor, although the royal houses were united by marriage, did the Karamanian princes cease to intrigue and revolt against the house of Othman, till, in 1466, Mohammed II., the conqueror of Constantinople, extinguished the remains of their independence, and caused the last prince of the house of Karaman to be put to death. The result would have been the same even under Bayazid, had not his overthrow by Timour Lenk (Tamerlane) at Angora checked for a while the rising fortunes of the Osmanlis.

DERBE.—Serpek, the supposed site of ancient Derbe, is about 60 miles S.E. of Koniah, about 30 N.W. of Laranda, about 5 miles distant from the lake “Ak Göl”; thus agreeing with the description of Steph. Byz., ad vocem “Derbe”; only in this passage λιμνη (lake) must be substituted for λιμην (port). He calls the place Delbeia.

Derbe was the residence and seat of government of Antipater, the friend of Cicero. He also possessed Laranda, but was deprived of his possessions and slain by Amyntas Tetrarch of Galatia, to whom the Romans had given Isaura. Derbe seems to have gradually fallen into decay.

LYSTRA.—The site of Lystra has not yet been exactly ascertained; but the ruins at Maden Shehir, in Kara Dagh, probably mark the place. They are very extensive, and prove that the city flourished for many centuries after our era.

A bishop of Lystra sat in the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

MOUT.—On the site of Claudiopolis, which was a colony established by the Emperor Claudius.

The valley of the Calycadnus, in which it is situated, is the only large and fertile level in Cilicia Trachœa. From its remains, it must have been a considerable city. Very few historical events are related as occurring at this city. In the year 492, Claudiopolis, which had been recently recovered from the Isaurians by Diogenes, the general of the Emperor Anastasius, was suddenly besieged by them and reduced to the utmost extremity, but was relieved by John Cyrtus and Conon, Bishop of Apamea, who crossed the Taurus by the passes to the south of Laranda, and being aided by a sortie of the garrison, completely defeated the Isaurians; but the bishop received a wound in the battle, of which he died.

Near Claudiopolis, also, the Isaurians, and all the brigand tribes of Cilicia, who had revolted, were defeated with great slaughter by the Imperial general, John the Scythian. The survivors, and their chiefs, Ninilingis, Indes, and Conon, were besieged in Antioch of Cragus, and all destroyed.

The castle of Mout was built by the sultans of Karaman, and in the mosque are some tombs of the Karaman princes.

ISAURA.—Of the history of this city before the expedition of Alexander the Great, nothing seems to be known. Probably its people, like the Pisidians, a cognate race, maintained a virtual independence, and were never reduced to subjection by the Persian Government. They seem to have submitted without resistance to Alexander, but even before his death Isaura and Laranda had revolted, and slain the Macedonian garrison and their governor, Balacros, son of Nicanor. Perdiccas, who was regent for the young king Alexander Ægos, speedily recovered Laranda, but Isaura, which for a long period had been a rich and prosperous place, offered a desperate resistance. After two days’ unsuccessful assault, the besiegers had suffered severe loss, but the townspeople saw that they could hold out no longer, and formed a dreadful resolution; they shut up their women and children in the houses, set all on fire, and proceeded to throw into the flames all their treasures and rich possessions. On seeing this the troops of Perdiccas returned to the assault, but were again repulsed with great loss, and retired to a distance. Then the Isaurians threw themselves into the flames. When day came the troops of Perdiccas entered the town and gathered from the ashes much molten gold and silver.[60]

For a period of nearly two and a half centuries there seems to be no record of the history of Isaura. Then it reappears as one of the chief towns of the Piratic Confederacy of Cilicia. The Roman Consul Servilius (B.C. 75), in his campaign against this enemy, destroyed Isaura for the second time. Later it was given by the Romans to Amyntas Tetrarch of Galatia, who had long carried on war against the Isaurians, and he determined to make it his capital. It was Amyntas who began the splendid fortifications of the city, the ruins of which still remain. He destroyed for this purpose the old Isaura, but did not live to finish his undertaking, for he was killed by the Cilicians whilst attacking the people of Homona.[61] Strabo says there were two towns, one called the “old,” the other “euerkes” (the well-fortified), and subject to them many other smaller towns, but all addicted to piracy.

About the year 258 A.D., Trebellianus, one of the many pretenders called the Thirty Tyrants, during the reigns of Valerian and Gallienus, was proclaimed emperor at Isaura, but he was slain, and the city probably again destroyed, but[62] “this obscure rebellion was attended with strange and memorable consequences.

“The pageant of royalty was soon destroyed ... but his followers, despairing of mercy, resolved to shake off their allegiance, not only to the emperor but to the empire, and suddenly returned to the savage manners from which they had never perfectly been reclaimed.... In the heart of the Roman monarchy, the Isaurians long continued a nation of wild barbarians. Succeeding princes, unable to reduce them to obedience, either by arms or policy, were compelled to acknowledge their weakness by surrounding the hostile and independent spot with a strong chain of fortresses, which often proved insufficient to restrain the incursions of these domestic foes. The Isaurians, gradually extending their territory to the sea-coast, subdued the western and mountainous part of Cilicia, formerly the nest of those daring pirates, against whom the republic had once been obliged to exert its utmost force, under the conduct of the great Pompey.”

Ammian says that in his time Isaura retained but very few traces of its ancient splendour.

Few further notices exist concerning it, but it continued to be the capital of the Isaurian nation for many centuries more. In Byzantine times, Ætius, Bishop of Isauropolis, was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and Illuarius, of the same place, at the Council of Constantinople. Its present state of utter solitude and desolation is beyond description!

ISAURIA.—Of this rugged and mountainous district, only the north part seems to have been well known to the ancient writers, and to have contained towns and cultivated lands. The south part was almost unknown, and so indeed it has remained even to the present day. Strabo names the latter division Isaurike, the former Isauria.

Its people were of the same race as the Pisidians; they were ugly, ill-grown, and barbarous, but very brave, and extremely skilful in guerilla warfare and in the use of missile weapons. Their country though mountainous was fertile, especially in grapes,[63] and this is one of its characteristics now. Though at times reduced by the Roman arms, they contrived to maintain their freedom and their savage, piratical habits. So much annoyance did they cause to the neighbouring provinces, that towards the beginning of the third century a circle of fortresses was constructed around their country to keep them in check, but it proved ineffectual to restrain them.

The Emperor Probus reduced many of their towns, and checked them for a while by planting colonies among them, but soon these became as bad as the natives.

After the third century, the Isaurians united with the people of Cilicia Trachœa, and both countries took the name of Isauria. An account is given of their plundering excursions by Ammian.[64] In A.D. 367 they cut to pieces a Roman army under Musonianus; in 376 they overran Syria and Pamphylia; and every year extended their ravages farther and farther. S. Basil, in a letter addressed to Eusebius when in exile, mentions the dangers of travel in the provinces. “Having heard,” he writes, “that all the roads swarm with brigands and runaway slaves, we were afraid to entrust anything into the hands of our brother [the messenger] lest we should even cause his death thereby. But if the Almighty should vouchsafe us a little tranquillity, if indeed we hear of the arrival of troops, we will take care to send one of our people to visit you, and inform you of all that concerns you.”

From A.D. 404-409, during the feeble reign of Arcadius, their ravages were dreadful. The emperor issued the most severe edicts against them, ordering that they should be slain whenever and wherever they could be found—and even during Lent and Easter. A different policy was tried by his successor, Theodosius II. A large number of Isaurians was brought to Constantinople under one of their chiefs, Zeno, who was a pagan, and they formed the garrison of Constantinople. Zeno died high in position and honour under Marcian, successor of Theodosius II.

Leo I., the next emperor, brought a large number of Isaurians to Constantinople, under a chief who bore the barbarous name of Trascaliseus, or Taracondiseus. He had no merit to recommend him, is even said to have been without courage, was vicious, ignorant, and rude. Yet he gained the emperor’s favour; was made by him a patrician, Captain of the Imperial Guard, General of the Armies of the Empire, and at last was married to the emperor’s eldest daughter, Ariadne, upon which he took the name Zeno. He was detested by the people, who revolted in 472, and slew many of the Isaurians. The emperor made Leo the younger, the son of Zeno and Ariadne, “Augustus;” and a few months before his own death appointed the young prince his successor. But Leo the younger only reigned six days alone after his grandfather’s death. Zeno became guardian of his son, and joint emperor. The death of the young emperor soon followed, it was supposed by poison. The reign of Zeno was one long course of cruelty, avarice, and debauch, varied by fits of devotion. His rapacity was extreme; yet at times, seized with a passing compunction, he would distribute in alms the sums he had wrung from his subjects by confiscations and heavy taxation.

He became at last so odious that a revolt broke out, headed by his mother-in-law, Verina, and her brother, Basiliscus. The empress however remained faithful, and fled with him into Isauria, taking with them all the money that could be collected. The Isaurians in Constantinople were cut to pieces, but the revolution was short lived. Illus, the general sent to attack Zeno in Isauria, was won over, and brought him back to Constantinople. Verina was reconciled to him, Basiliscus was forced to surrender, and, though a promise had been given that his life should be spared, he, with all his family, was sent to Cucusus in Cappadocia, the place of exile of S. Chrysostom, and there, in the castle of Busama, these unfortunate creatures were thrown naked into an empty cistern, and so died of cold and hunger (A.D. 477).

Restored to the throne, the emperor seemed for a brief period inclined to better courses, but soon gave himself up to fresh acts of cruelty and debauch. In consequence, fresh disturbances broke out in 481. Marcianus, brother-in-law to the empress, revolted; but after many vicissitudes, the emperor prevailed. In 484 Leontius, also an Isaurian, conspired with Verina and Illus, and proclaimed himself emperor at Tarsus; nearly all Asia Minor was gained over by the rebels, but Zeno was saved by the Goths in his service, who defeated Illus at Seleucia of Isauria. Leontius and Illus were besieged in the fortress of Papyrium; after a siege of three years the fortress was betrayed, and Illus and Leontius were beheaded.

Soon after this, the emperor, during one of his fits of excessive drunkenness, was buried alive, by order of the Empress Ariadne. He was succeeded, in 491, by Anastasius, who married Ariadne, and, to put an end to the constant revolts which occurred in Constantinople, the emperor ordered all the Isaurians to quit the capital, upon which a general revolt of them and the other associated brigand communities broke out; but the Goths, under John the Scythian, defeated them at Claudiopolis (Mout).

The survivors and their chiefs were blockaded in Antioch of Cragus, the place was stormed, and the Isaurian generals taken to Constantinople and there tortured to death.

The Isaurian forts in the Taurus were all captured, many of the people were transported to Thrace, the rest submitted, the emperor placed Isauria under the government of a “comes” (military governor), Lycaonia and Pisidia under “prætors,” with strong garrisons of troops to keep order.

The Isaurian power was thus crushed, they were never again formed into a separate corps d’armée, and were henceforward confined to their mountains; but though their brigandage ceased, they always continued barbarous and savage.

In A.D. 717, Leo, an Isaurian of low extraction, whose previous name was Conon, became emperor. He is better known as Leo the Iconoclast. In his reign occurred the famous schism between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, caused in great measure by the emperor’s hatred of sacred images, and his persecution of those who venerated them. Although Italy was lost to the Byzantine Empire in this reign, Leo seems to have been an able, and, on the whole, a successful monarch. It is said that in his youth his future greatness was foretold to him by some Jews, and that he promised them, in case he came to the imperial power, he would put an end to the worship of images in the Christian Church. From that time forward Isauria and its people are not mentioned in history.

ITINERARY.

_Hours of riding; easy pace, and exclusive of halts._

Mersina to Pompeiopolis 1¼
Mersina to Tarsus 3
Tarsus to Asaab-el-Kef 1½
Tarsus to Adana 5
Adana to Giamli Keui 7
Giamli Keui to Osmanieh 4½
Osmanieh to Kizil Aghadj 11
Kizil Aghadj to Marash 7
Marash to Tchairlan Tchiftlik 7
Tchairlan Tchiftlik to bivouac 11½
Thence to Ajemli 10
Ajemli to ford on the Kayish and back 6
Ajemli to Kars 6½
Kars to Boudroum 5½
Boudroum to Hemita 1½
Hemita to Anazarba 8½
Anazarba to Sis 4
Sis to bivouac 9½
Thence to Adana 10
Adana to Kazouk Bash 7½
Kazouk Bash to Geuzlük Khan 7
Geuzlük Khan to Kulek Boghaz 7
Kulek Boghaz to Tchifteh Khan 6
Tchifteh Khan to Oloukishla 8
Oloukishla to Eregli 8
Eregli to Ibreez 3¼
Eregli to Devleh 8
Devleh to Serpek 6
Serpek to Karaman 8½
Karaman to Maden Shehir 7½
Karaman to Geuèzz 4
Geuèzz to Kestel 9½
Kestel to Mauga 6½
Mauga to Mout 5
Mout to Bejeh 7
Bejeh to Balabolu 7
Balabolu to Ermenek 8
Ermenek to Altoun Tash 6
Altoun Tash to Yenikishla 9
Yenikishla to Nounou 7
Yenikishla to Durgèller 4
Durgèller to Alata 6
Alata to Mernak 8½
Mernak to Khadem 2
Khadem to Ashikler 8
Ashikler to Isaura or Aijilar 1½
Aijilar to Elmasun 8
Elmasun to Karaman 8
Karaman to Ibrala 6
Ibrala to Kara Koyu 8½
Kara Koyu to Efrenk 9½
Efrenk to Geuzna 8¼
Geuzna to Mersina 5½

FOOTNOTES

[1] The myrtle along this coast is quite a large shrub, growing to twice or more than twice the height of a man.

[2] Peasant cultivators.

[3] Ædif. lib. v. cap. 5.

[4] The name given to a tomb of any holy personage.

[5] Procopius, Ædif. lib. v. cap. 5.

[6] This was written before the Russian invasion and the fighting in Bulgaria, &c.

[7] ‘Voyages,’ iv. 19.

[8] Resinous wood used for flambeaux, &c.

[9] Curdled milk, a very common article of food amongst the Turks.

[10] The reception room in a Turkish house for male visitors.

[11] It would appear, however, that _practically_ the Protestant Armenians here enjoy complete religious freedom, as was evident from what I saw on the following Sunday in their schools and churches, and their fears of a Muslim outbreak against Christians, if not groundless, were certainly exaggerated.

[12] Also called by the people of the country Saureen.

[13] Called in Kiepert’s map “Kermes Dagh,” but the Adaniots always called it Kizil Dagh. Both words mean “red.”

[14] I was told at Adana that there is a colony of mining people at Kursanti, a place N.E. from Kulek Boghaz, under Allah Dagh, said to be descendants of the old Genoese. They speak Turkish, but among themselves they use a language very like Latin, probably the Genoese dialect.

[15] The “zarf” is in shape like an egg-cup, and the “finjan,” a small coffee-cup without handle, is placed in it when used, so as not to burn the fingers. In a wealthy house the zarf is often of silver filigree work, or of gold, and set with diamonds or other precious stones.

[16] In the immediate neighbourhood of the town are a number of stagnant pools full of marsh vegetation, these alone would suffice to render Eregli an unhealthy place.

[17] These men were the personal friends of Mohammed, and from them the “Sunneh,” or “Traditions” of the Muslim Law, were derived.

[18] Compare Deuteronomy xxii. 12, and Numbers xv. 38; also the dress of Aaron as it is described in Exodus xxviii.

[19] It may be interesting to compare some of the prices of times past with those of the present day in Turkey.

The Baron de Tott, who wrote his ‘Mémoires sur la Turquie,’ about a century back, informs us that the “asper,” of which there were three to the “para,” was worth six deniers or one demi sol of France, equal to 2½ centimes; but that a deduction of 20 per cent. must be made in consequence of debasement.

The “asper,” therefore, was worth 2 centimes, and the piastre 2 francs 40 centimes. A hundred years earlier the piastre was worth nearly the double of this. This we learn from a traveller named Poullet, who published an account of his travels in 1668. “Thirty-five or forty ‘aspers’ made at most from 25 to 30 French sols.” He says that at Van he expended for himself and his horse one piastre per week.

The physician, Paul Lucas, who travelled in the Levant by command of Louis XIV., in the years 1705-6-15, says that at Smyrna partridges were sold at 1 sol each; woodcocks at 1½ sol. At the village of Kourou Kaidji, not far from Baluk Hissar, the “katerji,” who accompanied the traveller, bought a fine horse for 16 piastres.

The “seymens” (foot soldiers) who were stationed in the forests for the protection of travellers, used to exact 4 paras from every Christian.

When Paul Lucas was leaving Cavalla, he met, at some 200 paces from the town, a janissary, who attacked him, pistol in hand. “I drew out,” he says, “one of my own pistols in order to obtain satisfaction for this affront, but my valet, who was a sworn enemy of firearms, gave him 3 paras, with which the rascal was so well contented that he went off at full gallop, firing his two pistols in the air.”

One may perceive what influence “paras” could exert in Turkey in those days.

The same traveller writes, “At a village five hours from Ferré, six of us dined for 4½ sols, and even filled our flasks. It may be imagined that we did not fare luxuriously; but is it possible to obtain at less cost eggs, butter, cheese, and above all good wine, of which we were not sparing?”

About the middle of last century, when the piastre was worth about 3 francs, the following were the prices of certain articles:—

At Trebizonde, wrought copper cost 30 paras the “oke” (2¾ lbs. avoirdupois); walnuts, 7 or 8 paras per thousand.

At Rizeh, in the same province, Egyptian rice cost 60 paras per “kileh” of 40 okes; the rice of Philippopoli, 40 paras; “Pastourma” (dried and spiced beef) cost 10 paras per oke, sold by retail; black olives, 4 to 5 paras per oke; green olives, 13 to 14 paras; Crimean butter of first quality, 20 to 22 paras per oke; filberts, 90 to 100 paras per “quintal.”

At Guerzeh, a place seven to eight hours from Sinope, planks of walnut wood 8 feet long, 2½ feet wide, and 6 inches thick, cost 25 to 30 paras each. Similar planks of plane wood cost 15 to 16 paras.

Joists of oak 8 feet long and 3 inches in diameter cost 3 to 4 paras each. Planks of fir wood, narrow and thin, for constructing ceilings, cost from 40 to 50 paras per hundred.

The authority for these prices is a book on the commerce of the Black Sea, written by Peyssonel, a French traveller, in about 1750.

The same writer says that at Sinope a ship of war of two decks, pierced for seventy cannons, and launched with her masts, but without rigging, sails, or guns, cost only 15,000 to 16,000 piastres. A trading vessel of three masts could be built for 1800 piastres.

In 1657 a Turkish galleon was wrecked in the harbour of Alexandria. It was secured by fourteen anchors; the cables parted, as they had become rotten from having been left nine months in the water. “The Turks,” says Thevenot, “had never built so fine a galleon as this, not even that of the Sultana, which was captured a few years ago by the Knights of Malta, and which was so lofty that the cross-trees (?) of the Maltese galleys did not come up to her deck.” She had been built at Constantinople, and had cost about 38,000 piastres, but was already old. “She was armed with 40 guns, and could carry 3000 men. On her first voyage from Constantinople to Alexandria, this galleon had on board 2500 people.”

In 1820 a vessel built at Sinope cost 225,000 francs, without cannon or rigging.

The same traveller, Thevenot, tells us what was the rent of rooms in the khans at Constantinople.

“These khans,” he says, “are for lodging the merchants. If you wish for any of the rooms in them you must speak to the porter of the khan (the Oda Bashi), who keeps the keys of them; you must give him a ¼ or ½ piastre for the ‘opening,’ as they call it; and as long as you remain you pay an asper, or two or three per day, according to the rent fixed. Store-rooms for goods are let in the same way.” Thevenot died in 1667.

The freight of shipping seems also to have been very low. The Rev. Father Doubdan, a canon of S. Denis, who made a journey to Jerusalem in 1651, chartered a small vessel to convey him from Sidon to Jaffa, a distance of some 120 miles, at a cost of 9 piastres!

[20] The Turks give the title of Sultan to princesses of the Imperial family, but the title always follows the proper name. In the case of a Sultan the title always precedes, e.g. Sultan Abd-el-Aziz. This princess, daughter of Sultan Mourad I., was married to the Emir of Karaman. But during Mourad’s absence from Brusa, on the campaign which added Thrace and Adrianople to the Osmanli Empire, the Karamanians invaded his dominions. The Sultan hastened to resist this aggression. On the plain of Dorylæum the Karamanians were defeated, and their prince taken prisoner. But the entreaties of his daughter whom Mourad loved, induced him to spare his son-in-law, and even to restore to him his dominions, an instance of generosity extremely rare in the history of the Osmanli Sultans. Hammer Purgstall names this Princess Nefiseh, and the Prince Ala-ed-deen.

[21] The point in the mosque towards which the Muslim turns in prayer. It is in the direction of Mecca.

[22] But, on the contrary, I do not consider it at all difficult. It seemed an open, easy road, and I am convinced that, excepting at one or two spots, which might easily be rendered practicable, even heavy artillery could be transported by this pass in its present state.

[23] The thunderstorms in Northern Europe are but slight in comparison with them.

[24] Essaad Pasha married a niece of Sultan Abd-el-Aziz, was Grand Vizier for a short period, and was then sent as Governor of Syria to Damascus. He died there very suddenly in 1876, in the very council room. As usually happens in such cases, there were suspicions, probably groundless, of poison.

[25] Used instead of “Istighfar Allah” (استغفر ﷲ), “I beg pardon of God,” a common form employed to express _surprise_ and, at the same time, _expostulation_.

[26] The additional visitors had not been expected, and therefore no extra provision had been made, but the rule of Turkish hospitality demanded that they should be invited to partake.

[27] To prove that brigandage is at times rife in Asiatic Turkey, and that the danger from it is really very great, I quote the following from the ‘Levant Herald’:—

“Smyrna, March 9, 1877.—Owing to the exertions of his Excellency Sabri Pasha, our Wali, the hydra-headed monster of our vilayet—brigandage—has received a severe check, no less than twenty-eight brigands of different bands having been recently either killed or captured. Sabri Pasha, tired of the continual acts of rapine daily reported, resolved to finish with these wretches, and for this purpose he divided the police into four bodies, one of which was sent into the Saroukhan, the second took up its position in the mountain gorges of Dalidja, in the sandjak of Aidin, the third went to the Yundagh, while the fourth remained near Koula. In about a week, they had captured or slain the greater part of the brigands. A band that had been seen in the environs of Bournabat, having robbed a zeybek of Kavali Dere, he with seven of his companions went after them, and succeeded in shooting the chief and his ‘aide-de-camp.’ He wounded another, took a fourth prisoner, but the remainder escaped. The head of the chief, a Yourouk named Moussa, and the two prisoners, were brought into Smyrna by their captors, who are to be rewarded for their victory.

“The following is a list of the brigands who have been killed:—The Yourouk chief, Moussa, Keloglan, his ‘aide-de-camp’ (and five others, all Muslim).

“The prisoners captured are Theodori, Costi, and Yiorghi, the receivers of the different bands; Athanasi, Lambo, Christo Lako, all Christians; Kanli Mehemet Ali, his ‘aide-de-camp,’ and eleven of their band; Ali, the brother of Keloglan, and three others, all Muslim.