35. Foreshadowed by the ‘fore-runner’ Rec., iii, p. 218, 1. 1.
36. See the remarks on the introduction of the khan title in my ‘Notes sur la tughra ottomane [II]’ in Byzantion, xx, 1950, pp. 279-282.
37. In Der Islam, xxx, p. 203, I have presented Yazijioghlu ‘Ali and the famous mystic writer Yazijioghlu Mehmed (and implicitly also the latter’s brother Yazijioghlu Ahmed Bijan) as ‘brothers’, in the belief (1) that Yazijioghlu ‘Ali wrote in the later years of Murad II’s reign, and (2) that Yazijioghlu Mehmed was, as Evliya, Seyahatname, iii, p. 366, says, the author of a risale on Sari Saltiq, which seemed to me to explain the interest his ‘brother’ ‘Ali took in this holy man. Both assumptions have proved to be wrong. It is obvious that Evliya has mistakenly attributed our ‘Ali’s account, which he like Loqman (see above, p. 641, n. 1) calls a ‘Saltiq-name‘, to the much better known Yazijioghlu, i.e. Mehmed. It remains nevertheless true that all three have in common a family name of great distinction which was probably reserved for the members of one family, that all were literary people though in very different fields, and that they were contemporaries, for Mehmed and Ahmed were well advanced in age when they began writing about 1450, almost a generation after ‘Ali had composed his Oghuzname. Still another Yazijioghlu is known: Neshri (Gihannüma, ed. F. Taeschner, i, p. 65 ; edd. F. R. Unat and M. A. Köymen, i, p. 239) mentions a Yazijioghlu as ambassador to Egypt in the later years of Murad I’s reign — a mission often entrusted to a high divan official. This ambassador could well be our ‘Ali himself or his father, just as the two mystic writers could be his brothers or his sons (that Katib Salaheddin has been regarded as their father [cf. Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry, i, p. 390 seq.] is obviously nothing but an inference from katib). As matters stand one can at best speak of a certain probability that the four Yazijioghlus belong all to one and the same family.
38. Text (MS. Berlin) and German translation in H. W. Duda, Zeitgenossische islamische Quellen, etc., p. 143 seq.
39. Text (MS. Berlin) and German translation in Duda, op. cit., p. 144.
40. MS. Revan K. 1391, f. 411b:
41. Cf. the last chapter in Rec. IV.
42. ; this name was known to Yazijioghlu from Ibn Bibi who, however, writes it ; missing in Rec., iv, p. 334, 1. 15, where the original, MS., p. 735,1. 6, reads as follows:
Could the change into (bela ‘calamity’) be meant as a pun?
43. MS. Revan K. 1391, f. 415a:
44. For this comparison see my ‘Islam und Kalifat’ in: Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, liii, 1925, p. 412, especially n. 82. The anonymous history of the Rum Seljuqs there referred to (MS. Paris, suppl. pers. 1553) has ; see Feridun Nafiz Uzluk, Anadolu Selguklari tarihi, Ankara, 1952, facsimile, p. 42, 1. 6.
45. MS. Revan K. 1391, f. 415a:
46. MS. Revan K. 1391, f. 415b:
47. MS. Revan K. 1391, f. 444a:
( The passage has been quoted in transcription by Aurel Decei in his article ‘Dobruca’ in Islam Ansiklopedisi, iii, p. 632b.)
48. See above, p. 646.
49. Dobruja-eli is one of the numerous designations of countries formed by a name + el-i, the possessive suffix indicating that the country is regarded as belonging (or having belonged) to the person or people named in the first element; thus it means ‘Land of Dobruja (Dobrotitsa)’, as Chalkokondylas, ii, p. 98, 1. 15 Darko, says: .
That ‘Dobruja’ = ‘Dobrotitsa’ becomes quite clear from Neshri (ed. Taeschner, p. 68,1. 13; edd. Unat-Koymen, p. 249, 1. 15: where Dobrotitsa’s son and successor Ivanko appears under the name of ‘Dobruja oghlu’.
50. Rec., iv, p. 296, 1. 1-p. 297, 1. 12.
51. Georgius Pachymeres, i, p. 130, 1. 17-p. 132, 1. 16, and ii, p. 609, 1. 12-p. 611, 1. 15, Bonn. Nicephorus Gregoras, i, p. 82, Bonn.
52. Rec., iv, p. 298, 1. 11, the epitomist speaks of the episode as an efsane but this expression is not to be found in the original.
53. H. W. Duda, Zeitgenossische islamische Quellen, etc. (see above, p. 641, n. 2), p. 145.
54. See V. Laurent, ‘La domination byzantine aux Bouches du Danube sous Michel VIII Paleologue,’ in Revue du Sud-Est europeen, xxii, 1945, pp. 184-198.
55. Pachymeres, i, p. 133, 11. 3-15, is, however, explicit at least about the fact that at the time ‘of ‘Izzeddin’s stay in the empire Turkish nomads () appeared on the Eastern frontier: hating all discipline, loath to submit to the Tatars, and anxious to be left alone, they infiltrated into the Byzantine defences, proclaiming themselves to be allies of the emperor but none the less plundering under the cover of darkness, though the frontier people were able to hold them in check. Finally the emperor bound them closely to his service, i.e. used them for military purposes. This measure, which meant the settlement of these nomads in the Eastern frontier zone, was designed to strengthen that frontier against the Tatars who, in spite of the prevailing good relations, had nevertheless to be deterred from all aggressive intentions. The dangers inherent in the measure may soon have become apparent, since there was no guarantee that at a given moment these Turks might not make common cause with nomads beyond the frontier. Besides the European campaigns drained off from Anatolia all available reserves for service in the Balkans. The soldiers levied among the newly arrived nomads may, sooner or later, have also been sent there — and their kinsfolk with them. It is not impossible, therefore, that Pachymeres’ nomads and those of Yazijioghlu’s account are one and the same.
56. Cf. Rec., iv, pp. 297, 1. 12—298, 1. 2. The original, MS. p. 639, 1. 2, is still more explicit:
57. Pachymeres, I, 131, 1.2: . See also EI., s.v. ‘ Kaika’us II’, where on the testimony of Frater Simon in Vincentius Bellovacensis, lib. xxxi, cap. 26, she is said to have been the daughter of a Greek priest. 58. Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, vol. ii, p. 208, in the Tributa Lampsacenorum, of 1219: de CXX plinthis de vineis quas receperunt pro anacapsi pp. (= perpera, hyperpers) VIII annuatim. The term anacapsi of this Latin text can be regarded as a perfect rendering of the vernacular form for , the annual payment due by a special category of tenants, the . It was good luck, indeed, to come across Prof. D. A. Zakythinos’ brilliant study on ‘La Societe dans le Despotat de Moree’ in L’Hellenisme Contemporain, 2nd ser., vols. iv and v (Athens, 1950 and 1951), and to find there, at the very last moment, just what was needed to solve the anaqapisi problem with which I had been struggling in vain for years.