OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

in his iron cage. 5. The last evidence, in everysense, is that of the Turkish annals, which havebeen consulted or transcribed by Leunclavins,Pocock, and Canteinir. 1 They unanimously de-plore the captivity of the iron cage; and somecredit may be allowed to national historians,whocannot stigmatize the Tartar without uncoveringthe shame of their king and country.

From these opposite premises, a fair and mo-derate conclusion may be deduced. I am satis-fied that Sherefeddin Ali has faithfully describ-ed the first ostentatious interview, in which theconqueror, whose spirits were harmonised bysuccess, affected the character of generosity.But his mind was insensibly alienated by theunseasonable arrogance of Bajazet; the com-plaints of his enemies, the Anatolian princes,were just and vehement; and Timour betrayeda design of leading his royal captive in triumphto Samarcand . An attempt to facilitate hisescape, by digging a mine under the tent, pro-voked the Mogul emperor to impose a harsherrestraint; and in his perpetual marches, an ironcage on a waggon might be invented, not as awanton insult, but as a rigorous precaution.Timour had read in some fabulous history a si-milar treatment of one of his predecessors, aking of Persia ; and Bajazet was condemned torepresent the person, and expiate the guilt of theRoman Caesar. 1 " But the strength of his mind

1 Anuales Lcunclav. p. 321. Pocock, Prolegomen. ad Abulpharag,Dynast. Cantemir, p. 55.

m A Sapor, a king of Persia , had been made piisoncr, and inclosed

in

3 £

CHAP.

LXV.

5. Jly theTurks.

Probable

conclusion