Chapter XVII: Letter IV (4)

A general must be a novice indeed, who rushes into battle without reckoning up his own strength or that of the enemy. And then what follows when too late? Why, simply that excuse, unpardonable in a general, which is ushered in by the words, ‘But I never thought’[271]....

It makes an enormous difference what enemy we have to encounter; I should not ask you to accept this assertion if it were not supported by the evidence of the greatest generals. Cæsar, indeed, the greatest master of the art of war that ever existed, has abundantly demonstrated how much depends on this, and has ascribed to the good fortune of Lucullus and Pompey that they met with such cowardly enemies, and on this account won their laurels at a cheap and easy rate. On the only occasion that he met with such a foe in Pharnaces, speaking as if in jest of an exploit, which had cost him no pains, and therefore deserved no praise, he showed the easiness of his victory by his despatch, ‘Veni, vidi, vici.’ He would not say the same thing if he were now-a-days to wage war with those nations; in his time they were enervated and made effeminate by luxury, but now they lead a frugal and hardy life, are enured to hunger, heat, and cold, and are trained by continual toil and a rigorous system of discipline to endure every hardship and to welcome every danger.

It is not without reason that Livy argues, that Alexander of Macedon would have made war with far different results, if he had had the Romans for enemies, instead of the Persians or the unwarlike Indians. It is one thing to make war with warlike nations, and another to fight with peoples ruined by luxury or unaccustomed to arms. Among the Persians mere numbers were much thought of, but in dealing with those same Persians it proved to be more trouble to slaughter than to conquer them. I consider Hannibal’s three victories, at the Trebia, Lake Thrasimene, and Cannæ, are to be placed far above all the exploits of Alexander. Why so? the former won his successes over famous warriors, the latter had the effeminate nations of Asia to contend with.

Fabius Maximus had no less courage than T. Sempronius, C. Flaminius, or Varro, but more sagacity. That prudent general knew that he must not rashly hazard everything against an enemy brought up in the camp, whose whole life had been passed in arms, who had been trained in the school of great commanders, who was distinguished by so many trophies, and attended by some extraordinary destiny or good fortune; delay and opportunity were absolutely necessary to make his defeat a possibility. When he had to contend with such an enemy, the only hope he had left was to avoid a battle, until there was a chance of fighting with success. Meanwhile he had to stand up against the foe, keep him in check, and harass him. In this Fabius was so successful, that perhaps he is entitled to quite as much credit for defeating Hannibal as Scipio himself, although the latter won the final victory. For who can tell whether Scipio would have had an opportunity of conquering at Zama, if Fabius had not checked Hannibal’s victorious career? Nor should a victory won by strategy be thought less of than one gained by force. The former has nothing in common with animals, the latter has.

The Emperor Ferdinand’s plan was the same as that of Fabius Maximus, and accordingly, after weighing his own strength and that of Solyman, he came to the conclusion that it would be the height of bad generalship to tempt fortune, and encounter in a pitched battle the attack of so mighty an enemy. There was another course open to him, namely, to endeavour to check his inroad by the same means as we should use to stay the overflow of a swollen stream, and accordingly he directed all his energies to the construction of walls, ditches, and other fortifications.

It is forty years, more or less, since Solyman at the beginning of his reign, after taking Belgrade, crushing Hungary, and slaying King Louis, made sure of obtaining not only that province but also those beyond; in this hope he besieged Vienna, and renewing the war reduced Güns, and threatened Vienna again, but that time from a distance. Yet what has he accomplished with his mighty array of arms, his boundless resources and innumerable soldiery? Why, he has not made one single step in Hungary in advance of his original conquest. He, who used to make an end of powerful kingdoms in a single campaign, has won, as the reward of his invasions, ill-fortified castles or inconsiderable villages, and has paid a heavy price for whatever fragments he has gradually torn off from the vast bulk of Hungary. Vienna he has certainly seen once, but as it was for the first, so it was for the last time.[272]

Three things Solyman is said to have set his heart on, namely, to see the building of his mosque finished (which is indeed a costly and beautiful work),[273] by restoring the ancient aqueducts to give Constantinople an abundant supply of water, and to take Vienna. In two of these things his wishes have been accomplished, in the third he has been stopped, and I hope will be stopped. Vienna he is wont to call by no other name than his disgrace and shame.

But I return to the point from which I made this digression, namely, that I do not hesitate to claim for Ferdinand a foremost place among generals, inasmuch as, with resources wholly inadequate to the occasion, he has never quailed, but for many a long year has, with marvellous fortitude, sustained the attacks of a foe of no ordinary kind. He has preserved a large portion of Hungary for better days; a greater feat in my eyes than many a triumph won under favourable circumstances over conquered kings and vanquished nations. The greater his need at the critical hour, the brighter his courage shone. Of course I cannot expect those to appreciate his conduct who think that everything ought to be risked in a single action, without the slightest regard to the time, the circumstances, or the strength of the foe. But to anyone else it must seem well nigh miraculous, that a realm so open and exposed as that of Hungary, and one so torn by civil war, should be capable of being defended so long, and should not have altogether passed under the yoke of its powerful assailant. That so much has been done is wholly owing to God’s special mercy, and under Him to the ceaseless toil and anxious care of this most prudent monarch.

In this task what difficulties had he not to encounter, each more grievous than the preceding! The enemy was in sight, his friends were far off; the succours his brother Charles sent came from a distance and arrived too late; Germany, although nearest to the conflagration, was weary of supplying aid; the hereditary states were exhausted by their contributions; the ears of many Christian princes were deaf to his voice when he demanded assistance; though the matter was one of vital importance to them, it was about the last they were likely to attend to. And so at one time, by his own valour, with the forces he could gather from Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia, at another, by the resources of the Empire, at another, by hiring Spanish or Italian troops, he held his ground, though at vast cost. By a line of garrisons he has protected the frontiers of Hungary, which extend for fifteen days’ journey, for he is obliged always to keep some troops embodied, even during a time of truce. For at times there are truces; and he condescends, when there is fear of the Sultan’s attack, and he has no other means of stopping him, to send ambassadors and presents to appease his wrath, as the best chance of saving the necks of the unfortunate Hungarians from the coming storm.

It is ridiculous to suppose that a man thus engaged can enjoy a good night’s rest. For the benefit of the state he must forego sleep. Affairs so weighty demand continual watchfulness, and great anxiety. You may think it is a panegyric I am composing, but I am writing my letter with strict historical accuracy.

To manage these affairs he has ministers, few indeed, but good. The leading men among them, whom perhaps you have heard of, are John von Trautson and Rodolph von Harrach,[274] both of whom are persons of singular loyalty and prudence.

I will conclude with a few details of his private life. He rises at five, even in the severest winter months, and after prayers and hearing mass retires to the council chamber, where he devotes himself to public business until it is time for dinner. He is occupied the same way in the afternoon till supper. When I say supper, I mean, not his own, but that of his councillors, for he never touches supper himself, and does not take food more than once a day and then sparingly; nor does he indulge more freely in drinking, being content to finish his dinner with two draughts of wine. Since he lost his wife, no other woman has been allowed to take her place. He does not care for jests and the amusements by which many are attracted. Fools, jugglers, buffoons, parasites, the darlings, but also the curses, of ordinary courts, are banished from his palace. He avoids leisure, and is never idle. If, which is an unusual event, he has any time to spare from business, he devotes it, as I previously mentioned, to conversations with men of worth and learning, which he greatly enjoys. In particular, they stand by him at dinner, and talk with him on various topics.

You may be sure that not many of his subjects would wish to change their mode of life for his, which is so frugal and severe. For how rarely can you find a man who does not devote some fraction of his life to pleasure? Who would cheerfully endure the loss of all his amusements? Who would not be disgusted at spending his last years in the midst of unceasing business and anxieties—a condition which more resembles slavery than sovereignty? But the Emperor is of a different opinion, and when talking with his friends is wont to say, that ‘it is not for his own sake that he has been appointed by God to so important an office; the helm of empire has not been entrusted to him that he may wallow in pleasures and amusements; the terms on which private fortunes are inherited are far different from those which regulate the succession to kingdoms and empires. No one is forbidden to use and enjoy the advantages of his patrimony, but all these numerous nations have been committed by God to his charge, that he may take care of them and bear the toil, while they enjoy the fruits of his labours; that he may endure the burden and heat of the day, while rest and peace are secured for them.’

Hunting is the only amusement of which he ever partakes, and that not so much for the sake of pleasure as of health. For, when he feels his mind and body require bracing after a long spell of sedentary work, he chooses a day to refresh himself by out-of-door exercise and plenty of fresh air. On such occasions, very early in the morning, in summer at daybreak, in winter some hours before sunrise, he goes out to hunt, whatever the weather may be. Sometimes, however, only the afternoon is devoted to this occupation. I remember once hearing him say, when I was standing by him at dinner, ‘I have done all my work, I have finished all my business, I have come to the bottom of my despatch-box, there is nothing left in the chancery to keep me; the rest of the day I will spend in bodily exercise.’ And so he returns home, when the night is already advanced, delighted at having killed a boar, or a stag, or, sometimes, even a bear, and without taking any food or drink, composes himself to sleep, all wearied by his various exertions.

It is absurd, therefore, for anyone to look back with regret on Trajan, Verus, and Theodosius, and to wish that such wonderful Emperors were living in our times. I seriously and solemnly declare, that I believe there is more real merit in my master than in the three of them put together.

But my admiration for so great a man is carrying me away too far. It is not my design to speak of his merits as they deserve; that would require a volume, not a letter, and would call for talents and faculties that are far beyond me, but, as I have narrated my other adventures to you, I wished that you should not remain in ignorance of the character of the Emperor I serve. I shall conclude with that which is the universal prayer with regard to the saint and champion of our age—‘Serus in cœlum redeat.’

As to your inquiries about Greek books and your writing that you hear I have brought back many curiosities and some rare animals, there is nothing among them that is much worth mentioning. I have brought back a very tame ichneumon, an animal celebrated for its hatred to the crocodile and asp, and the internecine war it wages with them. I had also a remarkably handsome weasel, of the kind called sables, but I lost him on the journey. I also brought with me several beautiful thoroughbred horses, which no one before me has done, and six she-camels. I brought back some drawings of plants and shrubs, which I am keeping for Mattioli,[275] but as to plants and shrubs themselves I have few or none. For I sent him many years ago the sweet flag (Acorus calamus[276]) and many other specimens. Carpets too, and linen embroidered in Babylonian fashion, swords, bows, and horse-trappings, and many nicknacks elegantly made of leather, which is generally horse leather, and other trifling specimens of Turkish workmanship I have, or rather, to speak more correctly, I ought to say, I had. For, as in this great assemblage of Sovereigns, both male and female, here at Frankfort, I give, of my own accord, many presents to many people as compliments, and am ashamed to refuse many others who ask me, what I have left for myself is but little. But, while I think my other gifts have been well bestowed, there is one of which I regret having been so lavish, namely, the balsam,[277] because physicians have thrown doubts on its genuineness, declaring that it has not got all the properties which according to Pliny mark the true balsam, whether because the strength of the very old plants, from which it flows, has been in some degree impaired by age, or for some other reason. This much, at any rate, I know for certain, that it flowed from the shrubs which are cultivated in the gardens of Matarieh, near Cairo.[278]

Before I left Constantinople I sent a Spanish physician, named Albacar, to Lemnos, that he might be there on August 6, at the digging out of that famous earth,[279] and so might write us a full and certain account of its position and source, and the mode of extracting it and preparing it for use; which I do not doubt he would have done, had he not been prevented by circumstances over which he had no control. For a long time I wanted to cross over there, that I might be an eye-witness myself. As the Turks did not allow me to do so, I took pains to make myself, at least, an ear-witness, if I may say so.

I am also bringing back a great medley of ancient coins, of which I shall present the most remarkable to my master.

I have besides, whole waggonfuls, whole shiploads, of Greek manuscripts. There are, I believe, not much fewer than 240 books, which I sent by sea to Venice, to be conveyed from there to Vienna, for their destination is the Imperial Library. There are some which are not to be despised and many common ones. I ransacked every corner to collect, in a sort of final gleaning, all that remained of such wares. The only one I left at Constantinople was a copy of Dioscorides,[280] evidently a very ancient manuscript, written throughout in uncial characters and containing drawings of the plants, in which, if I am not mistaken, there are also some fragments of Cratevas and a treatise on birds. It belongs to a Jew, the son of Hamon, who was Solyman’s physician, and I wanted to buy it, but was deterred by the price. For he demanded 100 ducats, a sum suiting the Imperial purse, but not mine. I shall not leave off pressing the Emperor till I induce him to ransom so famous an author from such foul slavery. The manuscript is in very bad condition from the injuries of age, being so worm-eaten on the outside that hardly anyone, if he found it on the road, would take the trouble of picking it up.

But my letter is too long already; expect to see me in person very shortly; if anything remains to be told, it shall be kept for our meeting. But mind you invite men of worth and learning to meet me, so that pleasant company and profitable conversation may serve to rub off the remains of the rust I have contracted during my long sojourn among the Turks. Farewell.

Frankfort, December 16, 1562.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Prescott, _Philip II._, book iv. chap. i.

[2] The Society of Sciences, Agriculture, and Arts at Lille has for several years been offering a prize for an essay on Busbecq’s life.

[3] See Appendix, _List of Editions_.

[4] _Mêlanges à Histoire et de Littérature_, vol. i. p. 48, edition of 1702. The author is Noel d’Argonne, who wrote under the assumed name of de Vigneul-Marville.

[5] The sweet or aromatic flag.

[6] See Fourth Turkish letter _ad finem_.

[7] Monsieur Rouzière being a complete stranger to the neighbourhood, Monsieur Jean Dalle, the present Maire of Bousbecque, acted as his cicerone. Before going away, Monsieur Rouzière selected an old house in Comines to which he attached his legend; this house is now shown as the birthplace of the Ambassador, on the authority of a man who could have had no acquaintance with the traditions of the place. On the other hand, Monsieur Dalle’s family have resided in the neighbourhood from time immemorial, and Monsieur Dalle himself has for the last twenty years taken the keenest interest in the subject. He tells us that there is not the slightest evidence connecting the house with Busbecq, and that no one ever heard of the story till after the publication of Monsieur Rouzière’s brochure in 1860.

[8] That the name of Busbecq’s father was George—and not, as usually supposed, Gilles (Ægidius)—is established by the deed of legitimation, a copy of which is given in the Appendix.

[9] See letter to Boisschot, appended to the Elzevir edition of Busbecq’s letters from France.

[10] See Appendix, _Patent of knighthood_.

[11] Ogier is the name of an old Norse hero, who figures prominently in the Carlovingian epic cycle. Jean Molinet says of some Burgundian archers, who displayed great courage at a critical moment, ‘Et n’y avoit celui d’entre eux qui ne montrast mine d’estre ung petit Ogier.’ (Molinet, chap. xxx.) It was Latinised into Augerius, hence some write Auger.

[12] Bousbecque takes its name from a tributary of the Lys, which is still called Becque des bois.

[13] For this and other documents quoted in this section see Monsieur Dalle’s _Histoire de Bousbecque_.

[14] Some few traces, showing the high position of the early Seigneurs, are still to be found in Bousbecque; among these is the beautiful cross, of which we have been enabled by the kindness of Monsieur Dalle to give a representation in the frontispiece of the Second Volume. Monsieur Dalle considers it to be ‘la croix d’autel mobile qui était sans pied et sans hampe, qui l’on portait de la sacristie à l’autel au moment du saint sacrifice, et qui se plaçait sur un pied préparé d’avance.’—_Histoire de Bousbecque_, chap. xxxviii.

[15] For the pedigree of the Ghiselins see Monsieur Dalle’s _Histoire de Bousbecque_, chap. iv. In consequence of there being several seigneurs of the same name it will be necessary to speak of them as Gilles Ghiselin I., &c.

[16] Marie, daughter of Gilles Ghiselin I., became Abbess of Messines. The following is an extract from L. Guicciardini’s _Description de tout le Païs Bas_, Antwerp, 1567. ‘Messine ha une tres-bonne et tres-ample Abbaye de femmes, de laquelle l’Abbesse est Dame du lieu, et de sa jurisdiction, tant au temporel qu’au spirituel.’

[17] Jeanne de la Clite was married to Jean Halluin (Halewin), Seigneur of Halluin, the relation and near neighbour of the Busbecqs of Bousbecque. The families had been connected from a very early date by the marriage of Roger Halluin to Agnes de Bousbecque; it will be noticed that the grandmother of George and Gilles Ghiselin was also a Halluin; moreover in consequence of this alliance the Busbecqs quartered the Halluin arms. We should have been afraid, however, to state positively that a relationship existed between them and Jean Halluin, husband of Jeanne de la Clite, had not Monsieur Leuridan, who is the chief authority on genealogies in the North of France, most kindly investigated the question for us. The result of his researches has placed the matter beyond doubt; Jean Halluin and George and Gilles Ghiselin had a common ancestor in Jacques Halluin, Seigneur of Halluin in the fourteenth century. As far as mere cousinship is concerned they were but distant relations, still it is easy to understand that two seigneurs, in the fifteenth century, living within two miles of each other, would value and appreciate any blood relationship however slight.

[18] For this battle see Philippe de Comines, book vi. chap. 5, and Molinet, chap. lxvi. Jean Molinet was chronicler to the Court of Burgundy from 1474 to 1506. He is a most painstaking writer, and of great value on account of the graphic details to be found in his narratives. Unfortunately for his reputation as an annalist, he here and there inserts chapters of pedantic nonsense, in which frequent references are made to the saints of the calendar and the heroes of mythology. But it is only fair to observe that the quantity of wheat to be found is greatly in excess of the chaff, and that he keeps his wheat and chaff separate and distinct. In his historical chapters he never indulges in these vagaries. Possibly the court fashion required him to write such pieces, for Molinet was by no means blind to the faults and errors of his patrons, and could also see the humorous side of their misfortunes. The following description of Maximilian’s imprisonment in Bruges, is to be found in _Recollection des merveilles advenues en nostre temps_, written by Molinet.

‘Les moutons détentèrent
En son parc le berger,
Les chiens qui le gardèrent
Sont constraint d’eslonger.
Le berger prist figure
D’aigneau, mais ses brebis,
Dont il avait la cure,
Devindrent loups rabis.’

[19] See Molinet, chap. clxii.

[20] See Molinet, chap. clxiii.

[21] See Molinet, chap. clxiv.

[22] See De Barante, _Histoire des Ducs de Bourgogne_, vii. 428.

[23] The Flemings having objected to the introduction of German troops into their country this order was most impolitic.

[24] ‘Le bourreau, qui volontiers entendit ces mots pour son gaing, et afin que la chose ne demourast à faire pour faulte de lui, monta soudainement sur le hourd où se firent les executions, et en attendant sa proie, estoit sorti d’espées et de bandeaux.’—Molinet, chap. clxvii.

[25] Those called up were Jehan van Ninove Wautergrave, Victor hoste de la Thoison, Peter d’Arincq et deux autres. Molinet, chap. clxix. A comparison of this list with the names of those brought out for execution will show that the two others (deux autres) were George Ghiselin and Bontemps.

[26] Many expressions used by Philippe de Comines, which are supposed to be obsolete, are simply the idioms of Comines and its neighbourhood, where the historian spent the early part of his life, and may still be heard at Bousbecque, Wervicq, Halluin, and other villages on the banks of the Lys.

[27] ‘Nul prince ne le passa jamais de désirer nourrir grans gens et les tenir bien reglez.’—Philippe de Comines, book v. chap. 9.

[28] See Molinet, chap. i.

[29] The reader will remember Scott’s description of the battle of Nancy in _Anne of Geierstein_; the Burgundians were surprised in the night and cut to pieces by the Swiss.

[30] Another memorial of Gilles Ghiselin II. is to be found in the inscription on the beautiful Bousbecque Chasse, considered by antiquarians to be the work of the twelfth or thirteenth century. ‘En ceste fiertre a de le sainte vraie crois et biaucop d’autres dimtes, laquelle a faict réparer noble homme Gilles Gisselins: proés pour lui.’

[31] For an account of Jeanne de la Clite see page 27.

[32] For an account of the office of _écuyer trenchant_ see page 59.

[33] Leonora (as she is called by Busbecq), otherwise Eleanor, was married, 1519, to Emanuel, King of Portugal, and was left a widow with only one daughter in 1521. She married Francis I., King of France, in 1530, lost her second husband, 1547, and died February 1558.

[34] Elizabeth, or Isabella, married Christian II. of Denmark in 1515, and died 1526.

[35] An interesting document is given by Dupont (_Mémoires de Philippe de Comines_, iii. 180), which connects George Halluin with Philippe de Comines. The latter had been the ward of George Halluin’s great grandfather, but the accounts as regards the administration of his property had never been closed. This no doubt was owing to Philippe de Comine’s desertion, and the disturbed state of Flanders, but on July 7, 1519, George Halluin paid over the balance due, after deducting the expenses of his education, and received an acquittance for the same.

[36] These particulars as to the family of Philippe de Comines, Jeanne de la Clite, and George Halluin, we owe to the kindness of Monsieur Leuridan, Archiviste of Roubaix. The accounts hitherto published contain manifest errors. For instance, Dupont represents Jeanne de Wazières as Dame de Comines et de Halewin, and when the property comes to Jeanne de la Clite she is only Dame de Comines, and as such marries the Seigneur of Halewin (Halluin). Monsieur Leuridan’s account of the Seigneurs of Comines will appear shortly in the fourteenth volume of the _Bulletin de la Commission historique du Nord_, under the title of _Recherches sur les Sires de Comines_.

[37] De Barante, _Histoire des Ducs de Bourgogne_, xi. 196.

[38] Philippe de Comines, book vi. chap. 2.

[39] Molinet, chap. lix.

[40] The Halluins formed a numerous and powerful family, of which the Seigneur of Halluin was the head. At the battle of Gavre, 1453, Jean Halluin, husband of Jeanne de la Clite, is said to have brought forty-four knights on to the field, every one of the blood and every one of the name of Halluin. Le Glay, _Catalogue descriptif des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Lille_, preface, xviii.

[41] Jeanne de la Clite had been created Vicomtesse de Nieuport.

[42] George Halluin was sent on one occasion as Ambassador extraordinary to Henry VIII. of England. Like Veltwick (see p. 54) he was, it would appear, the joint envoy of the brothers Charles V. and Ferdinand. Foppens, in his _Bibliotheca Belgica_, says he was sent by the Emperor. With this statement compare the following extract of a letter from Lord Berners to Wolsey dated Calais, June 29, 1524. ‘On this Wednesday, the 29th, there came to Calais, Mons. de Halwyn from the Archduke of Ostrych (Ferdinand) with 20 horse.’ Halluin asks Berners to inform the Cardinal of his arrival, and intends crossing as soon as he can obtain a safe conduct. See Brewer’s _Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._, vol. iv. part 1, p. 191.

[43] Published at Strasburg, 1512.

[44] The following inscription was placed over the tomb of Despauteres in the church of Comines:—

Epitaphium doctissimi viri JOHANNIS DESPAUTERII,
quondam hujus oppidi ludi-magister.
Hic jacet unoculus visu præstantior Argo,
Flandrica quem Ninove protulit et caruit.
Obiit 1520. Requiescat in pace.

The following is a free translation of his epitaph somewhat amplified.

Underneath this stone doth lie
The famous master of one eye,
That eye it served him for a hundred,
To catch his scholars when they blundered.
His birthplace is at Ninove seen,
His fame and glory in Comines.

[45] The famous Ἐγκώμιον Μωρίας, dedicated to Sir Thomas More. George Halluin published a French translation of the work.

[46] This visit to Erasmus at Louvain is mentioned in Strauss’s _Life of Ulrich von Hutten_, English translation, p. 215.

[47] These notes are still preserved in the library of the cathedral at Arras.

[48] See Monsieur Dalle, _Histoire de Bousbecque_, chap. vi.

[49] See page 141.

[50] The object of this statement is to show that Daniel de Croix had no intention of attacking Desrumaulx. The account is evidently drawn up so as to represent the young Seigneur’s case in the most favourable light possible.

[51] De Lickerke, after the capture of Courtrai (see page 17), slew the Seigneur of Heulle, who had seized the castle while the former was engaged in superintending an execution. Jean Molinet is greatly moved at the thought of his dying before he could be confessed. ‘Lui féru d’une espée trois cops en la teste, tellement qu’il morut illec sans confession, qui fut chose piteuse et lamentable.’—Molinet, chap. clxiii.

[52] This was not the first time that a Ghiselin of Bousbecque had ventured to differ with his Count. See page 25.

[53] A copy of the deed is given in the Appendix.

[54] The monuments in Bousbecque Church show that after Busbecq’s death the Hespiels were in fairly good circumstances; one of them was burgomaster of the village. From this Monsieur Dalle concludes that Busbecq was not forgetful of his mother’s family.—_Histoire de Bousbecque_, chap. xxvii.

[55] See Motley’s _Rise of the Dutch Republic_, i. 6.

[56] ‘Guere loing de Messine sur la Lisse est le village de Commines, avec un bon chasteau, ou y ha une tres-belle et tres-noble librairie, rassemblee par George, Seigneur de Hallewin et de Commines, gentilhomme tres-docte, lequel entre ses autres œuvres plus dignes et louables entretenoit et carressoit continuellement gens doctes et vertueux.’—L. Guicciardini, _Description de tout le Païs bas_, page 311.

[57] An attempt is here made to give the views of Erasmus as they would present themselves to such a mind as George Halluin’s. The ideas are in a great measure adopted from Nisard’s _Renaissance et Réforme_, to which a little local colouring has been added, and are offered as an explanation of Busbecq’s neutrality with regard to the religious differences, which sent his countrymen into opposite camps.

[58] ‘Le moine est inquiet, furieux, au milieu de cette universelle renaissance des lettres et des arts; il baisse sa lourde paupière devant la lumière de l’antiquité resuscitée, comme un oiseau de nuit devant le jour.’—Nisard, _Renaissance et Réforme_, i. 55. ‘Le génie de l’antiquité chassant devant lui les épaisses ténèbres de l’ignorance.’—_Renaissance et Réforme_, i. 66.

[59] ‘Mais ce qui rendit surtout Érasme odieux aux moines ce fut son rôle littéraire, si brillant et si actif. Chose singulière, il excita peut-être plus de haines par ses paisibles travaux sur l’antiquité profane, que par ses critiques des mœurs et des institutions monacales, ses railleries contre l’étalage du culte extérieur, ses insinuations semi-hérétiques contre quelques dogmes consacrés même par les chrétiens d’une foi éclairée. A quoi cela tient-il? Est-ce que la science fait plus peur à l’ignorance que le doute à la foi? Est-ce que la foi des moines, extérieure, disciplinaire, pour ainsi dire, mais nullement profonde, était plus tolérante que leur ignorance? Enfin, y avait-il moins de péril pour eux dans le tumulte des dissensions religieuses, que dans l’éclatante lumière répandue par les lettres sur le monde moderne, rentré dans la grande voie de la tradition?’—_Renaissance et Réforme_, i. 63-4.

[60] Erasmus was by nature extremely timid, ‘animo pusillo,’ as he describes himself to Colet (Ep. xli.). When writing to George Halluin he seems delighted at his having translated the Ἐγκώμιον Μωρίας, but he was by no means willing to stand the odium which arose on the publication of his satire in French. He shifts the responsibility entirely on to his friend. No doubt he thought that the shoulders of the Seigneur of Comines were broader than his own. (See Ep. cclxxxiv. to Abbot Antony de Berges.) ‘Post hæec accepi a nonnullis, quod me vehementer commovit, te mihi nescio quid subirasci, opinor ob Moriam, quam vir clarissimus Georgius Haloinus, me dehortante ac deterrente, fecit Gallicam, hoc est, ex meâ suam fecit, additis detractis et mutatis quæ voluit.’ December 13, 1517.

[61] See Appendix. _Legitimation of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq._ The Patent is dated November 24, 1540. It is interesting to know that just before that date Charles had been making a progress throughout the neighbourhood of Bousbecque. He was at Ghent November 1, at Oudenarde on the 2nd, at Courtrai on the 3rd, at Tournai on the 5th, at Lille on the 7th, and at Ypres on the 9th. (_Journal des Voyages de Charles Quint._ Par J. de Vandenesse.) Probably Ogier’s father took advantage of the opportunity to procure from the Emperor the grant of Legitimation.

[62] One of the most remarkable applications of this theory is with regard to the military art. Busbecq wrote a treatise on the _Art of Warfare against the Turks_. In it he constantly quotes as his authorities the great captains of Greece and Rome; some may smile on reading his work, and imagine that the tactics of Cæsar and Alexander are out of place in the days of gunpowder and cannon balls, but the following passage will show how one of his countrymen successfully followed out the principle, which he may possibly have taken in the first instance from Busbecq’s work. ‘Lewis William of Nassau had felt that the old military art was dying out, and that there was nothing to take its place. He had revived in the swamps of Friesland the old manœuvres, the quickness of wheeling, the strengthening, without breaking the ranks or columns, by which the ancient Romans had performed so much excellent work in their day, and which seemed to have passed entirely into oblivion. Old colonels and ritt-masters, who had never heard of Leo the Thracian or the Macedonian phalanx, smiled and shrugged their shoulders ... but there came a day when they did not laugh, neither friends nor enemies.’—Motley, _United Netherlands_, iii. 4; see also _United Netherlands_, iv. 34.

[63] His contemporary, L. Guicciardini, says of him in his book, published 1567, ‘Il est homme sage et prudent: a cause dequoy il ha este envoyé plusieurs fois ambassadeur par les Princes en divers endroicts, pour tres-grans affaires et mesmes par l’Empereur Fernand, a Soliman Empereur des Turcs, ou il traicta, par l’espace de huict ans continuels les affaires de la Chrestienté, avec telle _fidelité et loyauté_ que outre le gré qu’il acquit empres de son Seigneur, fut surnommé par les Turcs mesmes, _Homme de bien_.’—_Description de tout le Païs bas_, p. 311.

[64] On his way to Constantinople some of his escort complained of his servants not paying proper respect to paper—an unpardonable offence in the eyes of a Turk. Another might have argued the question, but Busbecq thoroughly appreciated the men he was dealing with. He tacitly admitted the heinousness of the offence; ‘but,’ added he, ‘what can you expect of fellows who eat pork?’ This argument was in their eyes unanswerable.

[65] Roostem once sent a fine melon to Busbecq, telling him that there was plenty of such fruit at Belgrade; the melon was supposed to represent a cannon-ball, and the message was tantamount to a threat of war. Busbecq thanked him warmly for his present, and at the same time took the opportunity of observing that the Belgrade melons were very small compared to those produced at Vienna!

[66] Don Pedro Lasso de Castilla was grandson of Don Pedro de Castilla, who claimed to be descended from an illegitimate son of Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile. The grandfather married Catalina Lasso, and was living at Madrid in 1494. His son, Don Pedro Lasso de Castilla, married a lady of the noble family of Haro, and three of their children were in the service of Ferdinand and his son. Francisco was Mayor-domo Mayor of Maria the wife of the Emperor Maximilian, and accompanied his daughter, Anne of Austria, to Spain in 1570. Diego was at one time Ferdinand’s ambassador at Rome, while Pedro served Ferdinand from his childhood, and accompanied him to Germany, when he left Spain after the death of his grandfather Ferdinand. He became his Master of Horse, and governor to his son Maximilian, in whose household he subsequently held the post of Mayor-domo Mayor. He was created a Knight of the Order of Santiago, at Brussels, by a Patent dated March 26, 1549. (See Quintana, _Historia de Madrid_.) This account has been given at greater length because it has been frequently stated that Busbecq’s chief was Pierre Lasso, a native of Lille; we can find no trace of any such person.

On the other hand, Ferdinand’s ambassador is frequently spoken of in the _Calendar of State Papers of the reign of Mary_ (vol. ii. pp. 78, 90, 94, &c.), as Don Pedro Lasso de Castella (Castilla). See also _Viage de Felipe Segundo á Inglaterra_ by Muñoz. This rare work, written by a contemporary, was republished at Madrid 1877, under the supervision of Don Pascual de Gayangos, to whose kindness we are indebted for the reference.

[67] See _Calendar of State Papers of the reign of Mary_, vol. ii. p. 90.

[68] See page 75.

[69] This letter is dated Dover, October 6, 1554. See _Calendar of State Papers of the reign of Mary_, vol. ii. p. 125.

[70] See Appendix. _Sketch of Hungarian History_; see also _Itineraries_.

[71] See _Sketch of Hungarian History_.

[72] Compare the pardon of Jean Dael in the Appendix with the story of the Greek steward and the snails, page 122.

[73] L. Guicciardini says of the Netherlanders, ‘La pluspart des gens ont quelque commencement de Grammaire, et presque tous, voire jusques au villageois, sçavent lire et escrire.’—_Description de tout le Païs bas_, p. 34.

[74] Quacquelben means fowler, or bird trapper; the name is still common at Courtrai.

[75] We take this opportunity of explaining how it comes to pass, that in this Life of Busbecq, in which so much space is assigned to an account of his relations, so small a portion comparatively is devoted to the man himself. Busbecq’s letters are to a great extent an _autobiography_. It would be impossible to anticipate their contents without robbing them of their freshness.

[76] See Appendix _Itineraries_.

[77] He was Ambassador for the two Queens, _i.e._, Mary Queen of Hungary and Leonora Queen of Portugal and France, sisters of Charles V. and Ferdinand, who after their widowhood lived together in the Netherlands till the abdication of Charles V., when they accompanied their brother to Spain.

[78] _Ecuyer (escuier) trenchant._ The first of these words supplies the derivations for two English titles (1) squire, (2) sewer; the first being the equivalent of _écuyer_, and the second of _écuyer trenchant_. The office of sewer (_écuyer trenchant_) is alluded to by Milton, _Paradise Lost_, ix., where the poet speaks of

_Marshall’d_ feast
Served up in hall by _sewers_ and _seneschals_.

‘Here,’ says Todd in his note, ‘is an allusion to the magnificence of elder days; the _marshal of the hall_, the _sewer_ and the _seneschal_ having been officers of distinction in the houses of princes and great men. From Minshew’s _Guide into Tongues_ it appears that the marshal placed the guests according to their rank, and saw they were properly arranged, the sewer marched in before the meats and arranged them on the table, and the seneschal was the household steward, a name of frequent occurrence in old law books, and so in French “le grand Seneschal de France,” synonymous with our “Lord High Steward of the King’s household.”’ Busbecq himself held the offices of sewer and seneschal. See Appendix, _Sauvegarde &c._, where Parma gives him the title of ‘Grand maistre d’hostel de la Royne Isabelle.’

[79] See page 9.

[80] See Lipsius’ Letters, _Centuria_ i. 5: ‘Prandium mihi hodie apud _heroem_ nostrum (non enim virum dixerim) Busbequium. Post prandium longiusculæ etiam fabulæ; sed _de litteris ut apud eum solet_.’ Vienna, June 13, 1572. It was at Vienna that Lipsius first made Busbecq’s acquaintance (Lipsius, _Cent._ iii. 87); they afterwards corresponded with each other (_Cent._ i. 17, 18, 34, 63). Lipsius felt his death deeply, and wrote of him in the strongest terms of affection and regret. (_Cent._ ii. _ad Belgas_, 78). The following inscription is from his hand:—

IN AUGERII GISLENI BUSBEQUII TRISTEM MORTEM ET SITUM.

Augerius istic est situs Busbequius.
Quis ille? Quem virtutis et prudentiæ,
Habuêre carum, gratiâ, ipsi Cæsares.
Hunc aula eorum vidit, aula et extera
Asiæ Tyranni. Quæ viri felicitas!
Probavit hæc et illa: in omni tempore,
In munere omni, Nestorem se præbuit
Linguâ atque mente. Jam quies eum sibi
Et patria hæc spondebat; ecce sustulit
Viam per ipsam miles incertum an latro.
Sed sustulit, simulque sidus Belgicæ,
Quod nunc choreas fulget inter astricas.
Justus Lipsius magno amico exiguum
monumentum P.

[81] Busbecq’s letters to Maximilian appear to have altogether escaped the notice of historians and biographers. They are printed only in one rare book, Howaert’s second edition of Busbecq’s letters from France, 1632. In the same edition are to be found five more letters to Rodolph, written during the wars of the League. It seems impossible to suppose that Motley knew of them, for they contain some of those striking details which the historian of the Netherlands would certainly have appropriated—for example, the chain shot, the musket balls joined together with copper wire, and the fences of rope, with which Parma prepared to encounter the cavalry of Henry of Navarre.

[82] It is impossible to regard Motley as fair in his treatment of Matthias. The historian of the Netherlands evidently considers that he holds a brief for William of Orange; if the great patriot fails to act wisely and rightly, some justification must be made out! Matthias accordingly is treated as a meddlesome interloper, for venturing to accept the invitation of a large body of the leading men of the Netherlands—amongst whom were some of Orange’s friends—to come amongst them as their governor. And yet Matthias was a descendant of their last native sovereign, Mary of Burgundy, and brother of the head of that Empire of which the Low Countries formed part. Motley cannot call in question his courage, his humanity, or his honourable conduct, but he damns him with faint praise, dismissing him with these words: ‘It is something in favour of Matthias that he had not been base, or cruel, or treacherous.’—_Rise of the Dutch Republic_, part vi. chap. 4.

[83] See Fourth Turkish Letter.

[84] The deed by which this transfer was effected is dated December 18, 1587. It will be found in the Appendix.

[85] No doubt the garden was such as Erasmus loved. See Nisard: ‘Au sortir de table, on va s’asseoir dans le jardin, au milieu des fleurs étiquetées, portant des inscriptions qui indiquent leurs noms et leurs qualités médicinales.’—_Renaissance et Réforme_, i. 60.

[86] Elizabeth of Austria having died January 22, 1592, Busbecq’s duties as her seneschal had come to an end, but he was still acting as Rodolph’s representative. It is probable that he took his holiday as soon as he had wound up the affairs of his late mistress.

[87] Large sums were paid on this occasion; the accounts are still preserved among the archives of Bousbecque.

[88] The word used by Busbecq is ‘iter,’ the best equivalent to which in English is perhaps ‘itinerary.’ This first letter was originally published by itself as an itinerary, under the title _Itinera Constantinopolitanum et Amasianum_. The writing of itineraries, which were generally in Latin Verse, was a special feature among the students of Busbecq’s days; for an account of them, see Appendix _Itineraries_.

[89] These letters were written to Nicolas Michault. See page 58.

[90] The wedding took place at Winchester, July 25, 1554. The ambassador was Don Pedro Lasso de Castilla, a Spaniard, who held a high post in Ferdinand’s household. ‘Ajour d’huy (June 26, 1554) sont arrivez en ceste ville (London) dom Pietro Lasso et dom Hernando Gamboa, ambassadeurs de la part des roys des Romains et de Bohesme, lesquelz ont esté saluez de l’artillerie de la Tour, ce quel’on a trouvé fort estrange comme fabveur qui ne fust oncques faicte à aultres ambassadeurs.’—Noailles, iii. 262. See also p. 52.

[91] The Busbecq family had a magnificent hotel at Lille; his grandmother, Agnes Gommer, had lived there after the death of her husband, and his aunt, Marie Ghiselin, was probably living there at this time.

[92] Veltwick (Velduvic) went as ambassador to Constantinople A.D. 1545. An account of his embassy is given in the _Iter_ of Hugo Favolius. See Appendix _Itineraries_.

[93] For an explanation of these transactions, see _Sketch of Hungarian History_.

[94] Here and elsewhere Busbecq calls Ferdinand ‘Cæsar.’ He was not Emperor till 1558, but the title of Cæsar belonged to him as King of the Romans; so also at the end of the Fourth Turkish Letter Maximilian is spoken of as ‘Cæsar’ on his election as King of the Romans.

[95] Busbecq’s miles are German Stunden, each equal to about 2-1/2 English miles.

[96] Busbecq’s explanation is correct. The word may possibly be a corruption of the Latin signum. It is now applied to the district which was formerly governed by a Sanjak-bey, i.e., Lord of the standard. Busbecq writes the word Singiaccus, Von Hammer uses the form Sandjak, while Creasy prefers Sanjak.

[97] See Creasy, _History of the Ottoman Turks_, chap. ii.: ‘The name of Yeni Tscheri, which means “new troops,” and which European writers have turned into Janissaries, was given to Orchan’s young corps by the Dervish Hadji Beytarch. This Dervish was renowned for sanctity; and Orchan, soon after he had enrolled his first band of involuntary boyish proselytes, led them to the dwelling-place of the saint, and asked him to give them his blessing and a name. The Dervish drew the sleeve of his mantle over the head of one in the first rank, and then said to the Sultan, “The troops which thou hast created shall be called Yeni Tscheri. Their faces shall be white and shining, their right arms shall be strong, their sabres shall be keen, and their arrows sharp. They shall be fortunate in fight, and shall never leave the battle field save as conquerors.” In memory of that benediction the Janissaries ever wore as part of their uniform a cap of white felt like that of the Dervish, with a strip of woollen hanging down behind, to represent the sleeve of the holy man’s mantle, that had been laid on their comrade’s neck.’ See also Gibbon, chap. lxiv.

[98] At Mohacz, A.D. 1526. See _Sketch of Hungarian History_.

[99] The Princes of Servia were styled Despots in Greek, and Cral in their native idiom. See Gibbon, chap. lxiii. note.

[100] ‘A little below Orsova the Danube issues from the Iron Gate, and at a village called Severin, where it expands to a width of 1,300 yards, the foundations of the piers, corresponding in number with the statement of the historian, have been seen when the water was more than usually low. Here, then, as is now generally agreed, stood the bridge of Trajan’s architect, Apollodorus.’—Merivale, _History of the Romans_, chap. lxiii.

[101] Galen, the great physician, who flourished in the second century of our era. Busbecq’s allusion to him is quite in accordance with the fashion of his day. See Ranke’s _Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, chap. xix. ‘Peter de la Ramée wished to forsake in all things the path hitherto trodden, to alter the entire system of doctors and professors in the university, and to make the works of the ancients the immediate text-books of the different branches of study,—the codex of the civil law in jurisprudence, Galen and Hippocrates in medicine, and in theology the Old and New Testaments.... Physicians arose who brought into practice once more the deserted rules of Hippocrates; and it soon went so far, as Ambrose Paré, the reformer of surgery, said, that people were not content with what they found in the ancients, but began to regard their writings as watch-towers, from which more might be discovered.’ For Busbecq’s application of these principles see the Life.

[102] An ‘aspre’ or ‘asper’ is still the lowest coin in Turkey. At the present rate of exchange a penny is worth nearly 100 aspres, but in Busbecq’s time the Turkish coinage had a considerably higher value.

[103] See Ranke’s _Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, chap. xiv. ‘As he (the Prince of Condé) had distinguished himself by his bravery in the field, he now desired to shine through his versatility, by taking part in the knightly festivities of the court, in which it was the fashion to _represent the heroic fables of the Greeks_.’ It would seem that it was the fashion in high circles to appear on certain occasions in the dress and character of Greek heroes and heroines.

[104] John Cantacuzenus became Emperor 1341, and abdicated 1354. His son Matthew was associated with him. His descendants have given many princes to Moldavia and Wallachia. The Palæologi held the Empire 1282-1453 (see Gibbon, chap. lxii., and following chapters). Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, when banished from his kingdom became a schoolmaster at Corinth.

[105] See Freeman’s _Essays_, Series iii. p. 418. ‘The Bulgarian land on the Volga—Great Bulgaria—kept its name long after the New or Black Bulgaria arose on the Danube. It remained Turanian; it became Mahometan; it flourished as a Mahometan state, till in the 15th century, it yielded to the advance of Russia, and gave the Russian Czar one of his endless titles.’ Mr. Freeman here quotes ἡ πάλαι καλουμένη μεγάλη Βουλγαρία from Theophanes. This is an oversight, the words are not taken from Theophanes, though he uses a similar expression, but from Nicephorus of Constantinople.

[106] Baldwin, tenth Count of Flanders, was elected Emperor 1204, and taken captive by Bulgarians 1205. He died a prisoner, but that he was put to death is by no means certain. He was succeeded by his son Baldwin, eleventh Count and second Emperor of that name. See Gibbon, chap. lxi. Busbecq would naturally take great interest in the Sovereign of his ancestors.

[107] The Rascians and Servians were distinct tribes in Busbecq’s time and long afterwards; see page 165, where he notices that at Semendria the Servians leave off and the Rascians begin; they are now both included under the name of Servians.

[108] This pass is commonly known as ‘Trajan’s Gate,’ or the ‘pass of Ichtiman.’ It is a point on the frontier between Bulgaria and East Roumelia.

[109] For an account of Selim, who at last succeeded in dethroning his father, see Creasy, _History of the Ottoman Turks_, chap. vii., and Von Hammer, book xxi. He was father of the Sultan to whose court Busbecq was accredited. His successful rebellion against his father has an important bearing on the events of which Busbecq was about to be a spectator.

[110] Buyuk Tchekmedjé and Kutchuk Tchekmedjé. The bridges were constructed by Solyman.

[111] Of the two women mentioned here, one is called Bosphorana by Busbecq and the other Roxolana. Bosphorana means a native of the kingdom of the Bosphorus—not the Thracian Bosphorus near Constantinople, but the Cimmerian Bosphorus, now called the straits of Caffa—which included the Crimea and the Caucasus. Roxolana means Russian; she was always spoken of by contemporaneous Venetian ambassadors as ‘la Rossa,’ and Creasy in a note (p. 184), says that ‘La Rossa’ was euphonised into Roxolana; the mistake is obvious, for Roxolana is the classical equivalent for a Russian woman (see Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, s.v. Roxolani), and it is to Busbecq that she owes the name by which she has become famous. Her real name was Khourrem, i.e., ‘the joyous one.’ See Von Hammer, book xxxi. vol. v. p. 538. A curious story is told of how Roxolana prevailed on Solyman to make her his wife. Having borne a son to the Sultan, she became entitled, according to the Mahometan law to her freedom; this she claimed, and then refused to allow Solyman the rights of a husband unless he married her. She cleverly pointed out to the Sultan, that though she had lived with him _as a slave_ without the bond of marriage, _as a free woman_ she could not feel justified in doing so any longer. Solyman, as Busbecq’s letters will show, was the very man to be influenced by such an argument, and being unwilling to give her up, he consented to her taking the position of a lawful wife.