Anahtar yönetici

5. In his Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, i, p. 122 ; ii, p. 143 ; iii, p. 202 ; viii, p. 354, and also in his Geschichte der Goldenen Horde, p. 174. Hammer found Loqman’s opuscule in a MS. of his own between two works of Lutfi Pasha wherefore he ascribed it to the latter, quoting it as ‘Lutfi’s Oghusname oder Geschichte der Seldschuken’, Hammer’s copy, apparently still the only known one, is now in the Nationalbibliothek of Vienna, H.O. 17b = Flüegel, No. 1001, 2.
6. I. J. Lagus, Seid Locmani ex libro turcico qui Oghuzname inscribitur excerpta. Helsingfors, 1854.
7. Of the 15 paragraphs which constitute my resume of the whole account (see below, pp. 648-51) only the first nine are found in Loqman. On the other hand he has made some additions — above all the date which he gives for the immigration into the Dobruja, right at the beginning, in the form of a distich : —
This date 662h. = 1263-4 is clearly the result of calculation, nevertheless, it cannot be far from the truth.
Another addition is his statement (ed. Lagus, Turk, text, p. 7) that the story of Sultan ‘Izzeddin’s flight to the Byzantines is to be found in the ‘Destan of the blessed Sari Saltiq’; in his source the chapter where Sari Saltiq appears is in fact headed ‘Flight of Sultan ‘Izzeddin to the Byzantines’; clearly Loqman’ s interest was so exclusively concentrated on Sari Saltiq that he felt the rest of the account to be merely a subordinate framework.
8. As Th. Menzel did in his article ‘Gagauz’ in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. The account was mercilessly analysed and rejected by the Bulgarian historian P. Mutafciev, Die angebliche Einwanderung von Seldschuk-Türken in die Dobrudscha im XIII. Jahrhundert, Sofia, 1943, 129 p.; (641a2.jpg, lxvi, 1). He found the support of an Orientalist: H. W. Duda, Zeitgenössische islamische Quellen und das Oguzname des Jazygyoglu ‘Ali zur angeblichen turkischen Besiedlung der Dobrudscha im 13. Jhd. n. Chr., ib. (Bulg. Ac., lxvi, 2), pp. 131-145. Other scholars who had doubts about the value of the information found in Loqman are listed in Mutafciev, p. 13, n. 1 (for those who accepted it see ib., p. 12, n. 2).
The late Mutafchiev was obviously inspired by his patriotic zeal to show the Dobruja Turks as Bulgarians who had adopted the Turkish language. In defence of his hopeless case he displays an enormous erudition and his book is certainly the most comprehensive study of the subject ever made: he reviews at length the various theories of his predecessors and at the same time he brings together a rich information from the sources, subjecting it to a thorough though strongly biased commentary. I wish to state that I am much indebted to Mutafchiev’s work.
In the main the book is a bitter attack on a pamphlet by the Bulgarian scholar G. D. Balaschev:
Sofia, 1930, 26 p., where Loqman, reproduced in Greek translation, is accepted almost without criticism and used to reach rather rash and exaggerated conclusions. Nevertheless, Balaschev, too, has his merits, above all, his explanation of the name of ‘Gagauz’ (see below, p. 668) is a brilliant and important discovery. For Mutafchiev, of course, Balaschev has only the negative merit of discrediting, by carrying it ad absurdum, the identification of the Gagauz with ‘Izzeddin’s Turks, a theory which had been advanced by Bruun, 641c.jpg, ii, Odessa, 1880, p. 333, and accepted by Smirnov, 641d.jpg, St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 17 (see Mutafciev, p. 82, n. 1, and p. 84, n. 2).

9. The first to state Loqman’s dependence on Yazijioghlu was M. Th. Houtsma in his Recueil des textes relatifs a l’histoire des Seldjoucides, iii, p. x; he shows him, however, not as dependent on Yazijioghlu himself but on an abridged version of his work — indeed, an abridgement, MS Paris, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. turc 1182 (see E. Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits turcs, Paris, 1932-33, ii, p. 190) was all that Houtsma had for comparison.
Mutafchiev (p. 16, n. 1) knew from my remarks in Der Islam, xx, 1932, p. 202 seq., that Loqman comes from a much older source but took no account of it. The intervention of the orientalist Prof. Duda reassured him, indeed, that Loqman’s information, though taken from Yazijioghlu, did not occur in the contemporary Seljuq sources — and therefore was worthless. Both these scholars ignored my article in Echos d’Orient (see above, p. 640, n. 2) which would have shown them that Loqman has omitted not only the larger but, indeed, the essential part of Yazijioghlu’s account.
10. Complete manuscripts: two in Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi, Revan Kosku, 1390 and 1391, one in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Orient Quart 1823 (from these three MSS. my notes are taken), and one in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Supplement Turc 737 (Blochet, Cat., ii, p. 47).
Incomplete manuscripts: Leyden, Warner 419, Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ancien fonds turc 62 (Blochet, Cat., i, p. 24) and Suppl. Turc 1185 (Blochet, ii, p. 191).
Edition : M. Th. Houtsma, Recueil III: Histoire des Seldjoucides d’Asie Mineure d’apres Ibn Bibi, Texte turc, Leyden, 1902, based on the two incomplete MSS. Leyden and Paris, A.f. 62, reproduces only that portion of the text which is in the main a translation from Ibn Bibi and this only as far as the then available MSS. permitted, i.e. less than the half. The end of Rec. III corresponds to Rec. IV (Ibn Bibi), p. 159, ult.
An edition of the complete work is, as I was glad to hear, being prepared by the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu). 11. H. W. Duda in ZDMG., N.F. 14 (89), 1935, p. *19* seq.