[234] Cant., IV. 49, pp. 358-60.

[235] Tchorlu was the head-quarters of the Ottoman General Staff during the first month of the Balkan War. After the battle of LulÉ Burgas, it became the head-quarters of the Bulgarians. From here the attack upon the defences of Constantinople was directed.

[236] Muralt, ii. 640, No. 10, n.

[237] Greg., XXIX. 34, pp. 224-6.

[238] During the five years following the proclamation of the Constitution in 1908, I lived, and travelled extensively, in the Ottoman Empire. Rarely did I meet a foreigner engaged in business there who had the slightest sympathy with the Osmanlis in their aspirations or in their successive crushing misfortunes. This is not a criticism, but merely the record of a fact.

[239] Schafarik, CVII.

[240] The expression ‘la terre que les Turcs tiennent’ is always used to designate Asia Minor in the opinion which the council of the French King Philippe de Valois gave concerning the route to be followed in the abortive crusade of 1332. See Archives Nationales, Paris, P. 2289, pp. 711-12.

[241] See p. 97, and notes 3 and 4 on that page.

[242] Quoted from the Cancelleria Secreta by Romanin, iv. 232.

[243] This letter is reproduced by Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 309.

[244] Greg., XXXVII. 52, p. 558; 59-63, pp. 561-3; 67-9, pp. 565-6; XXXVI. 6-8, pp. 504-9; Cant., IV. 44, p. 320.

[245] The generally accepted date of Orkhan’s death is 1359 or 1360, following Ottoman sources. But Jirecek, a careful and able scholar, p. 321, n. 10, is inclined to accept March 1362. There is great confusion about this period. I think that the Ottoman date is undoubtedly correct here.

[246] ‘Der eigentliche BegrÜnder der osmanischen Macht war Orchan’, Fessler, Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 151.

[247] Col. Djevad bey, p. 254.

[248] Seadeddin, i. 80.

[249] Seadeddin, i. 82; Hadji Khalfa, Rumeli, p. 19.

[250] But Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 672, who is followed by Leunclavius, says that Demotika was abandoned to Orkhan in November 1361.

[251] Cf. marginal note in Barberini MS. of Pachymeres, cited by Muralt, ii. 663, No. 9.

[252] Seadeddin, i. 84-5; Hadji Khalfa, Rumeli, p. 22.

[253] All the Ottoman historians.

[254] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 25; Leunclavius, Annales, p. 30; Seadeddin, i. 85.

[255] Muklis Abderrahman Efendy, quoted by SchÉfer, in his edition of Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, p. 170, n. 3.

[256] Seadeddin, i. 89; Hadji Khalfa, Rumeli, p. 52.

[257] Villani tells of its terrible ravages in 1360 ‘ricominciata in diversi paesi del mondo’, Muratori, xiv. 653, 688-90, 727.

[258] Ibid., pp. 649-50. He declares that Murad had been ‘molte volte tentato di vincere Constantinopoli’.

[259] Cf. Finlay, iv. 45, 169.

[260] Seadeddin, i. 42. Hammer, i. 384-5, n. viii, says that Ottoman historians are unanimous in this assertion as against Byzantine sources. Col. Djevad bey, the modern Ottoman authority on military history, is disappointing and unconvincing in his discussion of this question. On p. 25 he gives 726 (1326) for the date, and on p. 78 730 (1329). He cites no sources, for there are none, and has to admit, p. 54, that Murad I made the laws for the janissaries. Among early European historians there is much divergency. Spandugino, p. 185, attributes their origin to Osman, and the name from the village of Sar: they are ‘the young men of Sar’. Ricaut, ed. 1682, p. 357, also attributes to Osman. Reineccius, influencing the Latin editor of Chalcocondylas (see ed. Migne, p. 26, n. 11), makes Osman the founder, and derives the name from ‘Januae’: they are the custodes corporis. Leuncl., Pandectes, p. 129, discusses these theories without coming to any conclusion. Giovio, Geuffraeus, and Nicolay, p. 83, attribute origin to Murad II. Certainly it was not earlier than his day that the janissaries attracted attention in Europe. D’Ohsson, vii. 311, asserts that there was no definite organization until Mohammed II. Mignot, i. 119-20, is in favour of the theory that Murad I created this corps.

[261] Seignobos, in Hist. gÉnÉrale, ii. 334.

[262] Col. Djevad bey, p. 251, says that Anatolian Christians were exempt to give time to recuperate ‘after the exhausting struggles of generations’. But exhausting struggles had been no less frequent and no less severe in the Balkan peninsula. Gibbon’s suggestion, that the levies were made in Europe because Moslem and Christian Anatolians were not apt for war, shows how completely the great English historian missed the raison d’Être of the janissaries.

[263] Hammer, i. 126.

[264] Col. Djevad bey, p. 90.

[265] Ibid.

[266] Ibid., pp. 55-6; Ducas, p. 16; Leunel., Annales, p. 34; Ricaut, pp. 358-9.

[267] LavallÉe, i. 190-1.

[268] Phr., I. 26, p. 86; Chalc., I, p. 25. Cf. Michaud, Hist. des Croisades, v. 275.

[269] Seadeddin, i. 91.

[270] This colony was at Bigha. See Appendix B, p. 301.

[271] Phr., I. 26, p. 80.

[272] Katona, x. 393.

[273] Chale., I, p. 30, and the chronicle of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240, confuse this battle with that of Cernomen, near the same place and with the same result, in 1370. But there were certainly two distinct battles. Louis of Hungary took part in the first, as is shown by the date recorded at Mariazell and by a diploma in FejÉr, Cod. Dipl. Hung., 9^e partie, vii. 212. Cf. Aschbach, Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds, I. 87. The account in VambÉry’s Hungary, Story of Nations Series, p. 171, is wholly wrong.

[274] Seadeddin, i. 94.

[275] Miltitz, ii. I^Ère partie, 166.

[276] Col. Djevad bey, p. 97, n. 1; Engel, Geschichte Rag., p. 141; Hammer, i. 231, 405. But this was also Timur’s ordinary method of signing ordinances: cf. Shereffeddin, iv. 55. The document, with the marks of Murad’s hand, is preserved in the museum of the Communal Palace at Ragusa.

[277] Villani, x. 30.

[278] Cf. Hazlitt, iii. 216.

[279] Urban V, Epp. secr. iv. 114.

[280] ‘Il le print por prisonnyer, et le destint a cause de ce que le roy de Bourgarye sy sestoit accorde et alyez secrettement avecques le turc’: Chronicques de Savoye, col. 300.

[281] Cf. Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 325.

[282] Cibrario, Storia di Savoya, iii. 193. But I have followed closely the account of the expedition as given in the anonymous French chronicle, cols. 299-319, in Monumenta Historiae Patriae, Turin, 1840, vol. i. There is a modern book by Datta. Cf. also Delaville le Roulx, i. 148 f.

[283] Urban V, Epp. secr. iv. 124.

[284] Ibid., iv. 240.

[285] Greg., XXV. 17, p. 41.

[286] Urban V, Epp. secr. ii. 230; Petrarch, Senilia, iv. 2.

[287] ‘Nescio enim an peius sit amisisse Hierusalem an ita Bizantion possidere. Ibi enim non agnoscitur Christus, hic neglegitur dum sic colitur. Illi (Turcae) hostes, hi scismatici peiores hostibus: illi aperte nostrum Imperium detractant: hi verbo Romanam ecclesiam matrem dicunt: cui quam devoti filii sint, quam humiliter Romani pontificis iussa suscipiant, tuus a te ille datus patriarcha testabitur. Illi minus nos oderunt quam minus metuunt. Isti autem totis nos visceribus et metuunt et oderunt.’ Senilia, vol. vii.

[288] In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and in the Church of the Holy Nativity, Bethlehem, anarchy—even bloodshed—is prevented only by the constant vigilance of the Ottoman military authorities. If one asks the Latin and Greek priests in Jerusalem, they will admit without shame that this statement is true.

[289] Miklositch-MÜller, Acta et diplomata graeca, CLXXXIV.

[290] Epistolae secretae, vi. 1-10.

[291] Ibid., vi. 3.

[292] The date of this visit is certain from the formal act of abjuration, which is given in full in Raynaldus, ann. 1369, XI. Ducas, c. 11, and Chalc., I, p. 25, are in error in placing this voyage later. Berger de Xivrey, MÉm. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, xix, 2^e partie, p. 35, suggests that the Byzantine historians have confused this voyage with that of Manuel, thirty years later.

[293] Epp. secr., viii. 37, 38, 80.

[294] By an encyclical: Epp. secr., viii. 4. Cf. also his letters to the doges of Venice and Genoa, ibid., p. 24.

[295] Ibid., viii. 55.

[296] Phr., I. 22, pp. 52-3; Chalc., I, pp. 50-1; Morosini, p. 13.

[297] Phr., I. 11, p. 46.

[298] Gregory XI, Epp. secr. iii. 36, 58.

[299] Chalc., I, pp. 51-2.

[300] Raynaldus, ann. 1371, VIII.

[301] Epp. secr., ii. 32, 87. Similar letter to Louis in December 1375, ibid. v. 46. Other letters reprinted in FejÉr, 9^e partie, iv. 583 4; v. 54-6; vi. 155-6.

[302] Bernino, pp. 15-20.

[303] FejÉr, 9^e partie, iv. 427-8.

[304] Ibid., v. 52-3.

[305] Rymer, Acta Publica, III, part 3, pp. 38-40.

[306] On December 12, 1374, Gregory XI wrote to John from Avignon, predicting that his ‘alliance with Murad’ would bring about the destruction of the empire: Epistolae secretae, iv. 68.

[307] Raynaldus, ann. 1378, XIX.

[308] Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 317.

[309] Cant. IV, 50, pp. 362-3.

[310] Although Engel says 1353, others 1356, and the Rumanian chronicle 1371, there can be no question that 1365 is the correct date; for both Byzantine and Ottoman historians speak of Alexander as Bulgarian Czar in 1364, and do not mention him later, while Sisman and his brothers come immediately into prominence.

[311] Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 93.

[312] Orbini, pp. 472-3.

[313] Bonfinius, II. 10.

[314] Fessler, Geschichte von Ungarn, ii. 152.

[315] Wadding, Annales minorum, ann. 1369, XI.

[316] Epp. secr., VI. 131, 136.

[317] Called Ishebol by the Ottoman historians.

[318] By the second division of the Ottoman army under Timurtash. Murad himself had captured Sozopolis. Cf. Jirecek, p. 326.

[319] Seadeddin, i. 104. He does not give the name of the Serbian kral.

[320] The peasantry around Samakov will point out to you the ridge, south-east of the modern town, over which he vanished. They believe that Sisman haunts the foothills of the Rhodope mountains, and rides headless in the night down into the plain. This tradition, and the statement of Ducange, viii. 289, that Sisman died in 1373 in Naples, makes possible the theory that there were three successive Sismans connected with the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.

[321] Hadji Khalfa, Rumeli, p. 38.

[322] von KÁllay, Geschichte der Serben, i. 152.

[323] Ibid., i. 152-9; Jirecek, op. cit., 319-20; Ljubic, Monumenta spect. ad hist. Slav. merid., iv. 189.

[324] Cant. IV., 50, pp. 360-2; MÜller, Chron. Byz., under 1364.

[325] Miklositch, Acta Serbica, CLIII.

[326] Ibid., CLX.

[327] Sons of a poor Dalmatian nobleman: Ducange, Familiae Byz. viii. 294.

[328] At Ipek, with an independent patriarch: Engel, Geschichte von Serbien, p. 279.

[329] Miklositch-MÜller, Acta gr., CLXII; MS. Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., No. 47, fol. 290.

[330] Ibid., CLX; ibid., fol. 286.

[331] Orbini, p. 275.

[332] Engel, op. cit., pp. 321 f. For documented details, MÜller, ed. Byz. Analekten, pp. 359-64, 405-6, based on Vienna MS. referred to above.

[333] Now called Cermen or Tchirman.

[334] Svilengrad, now the frontier station of Bulgaria, was known from 1361 to 1913 as Mustapha Pasha. Before the recent Balkan war, it was the frontier railway station of Turkey.

[335] But there were certainly two distinct battles here, in 1363 and in 1371. See p. 124, n. 2, above.

[336] Ducange, op. cit., p. 294; Bialloblotszky’s translation of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240; Klaic, p. 199; Jirecek, pp. 329-30. Zinkeisen, i. 224, confuses this battle with the one fought in 1363.

[337] In Miklositch, Chrestomathia palaeoslav., p. 77.

[338] Phr., I. 26, p. 80, gives the capture of these cities in the same campaign as that in which Monastir was acquired, with 1386 as date. But the Serbian chronicles are so explicit here that we can follow them without hesitation, especially as they are seconded by the Ottoman historians. Cf. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 229.

[339] Pope Gregory XI, writing to Louis of Hungary, May 14, 1372, informed him that the Osmanlis had conquered some parts of Greece, ‘subactis quibusdam magnatibus Rasciae, tum in eis dominantibus’. Rascia was Servia. Theiner, Monumenta Hungarica, ii. 115.

[340] Gregory XI, Epp. secr. ii. 32-3.

[341] According to Amilhau and Jirecek, who rely on Reynaldus, ann. 1364, XXVIII, this first invasion of the Greek peninsula took place in 1363. But the Turks referred to in that year, probably of the perennial corsair type, could not have been Osmanlis. They were from AÏdin or Sarukhan.

[342] Klaic, Geschichte Bosniens, p. 200.

[343] Hammer, i. 242, 409, places the first relations of Lazar with Murad after the fall of Nish, which he erroneously puts in 1376. See below, p. 161, n. 3.

[344] Gregory XI, Epp. secr. iii. 42.

[345] June 15, 1373: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 176.

[346] Ducas, 12, pp. 43-4; Phr., I. 11, pp. 49-50.

[347] Chalc., I, pp. 42-3. But Murad, according to the Collection of Feridun, when he wrote to the Prince of Karamania, stated that Saoudji had been conquered in a pitched battle: MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 30.

[348] Letter just cited; Chalc., I, pp. 44-5; Phr., I. 12, p. 51. Saoudji is called Kontouz by Ducas, Mosis by Phrantzes, and Saouzis by Chalcocondylas. I cannot find the reading Siaous which Hammer, i. 412, and n. lix, attributes to Chalcocondylas.

[349] Chalc., I, p. 46; II, p. 69; Phr., I. 12, p. 51; Duc., 12, p. 44.

[350] Canale, ii. 16.

[351] Clavijo de GonzÁles, 15 vº and 16 rº.

[352] So Phrantzes thinks, I. 12, p. 51: ta?t?? ??t?ta ?a? ?pa????p?a? ? ’?????t?? ?p???se? ?e? e?? t? p??ta ?a??? p???te??e???.

[353] Chalc., I, pp. 46-7; Phr., I. 11, pp. 47-9.

[354] Romanin, iii. 255. This project, according to Cicogna, Istoria di Venezia, vi. 95, was first broached to John at the time of his visit to Venice in 1370.

[355] Raynaldus, ann. 1376, XXIII.

[356] Epp. secr., vi. 236.

[357] Ducas, 12, p. 45.

[358] Caresino, in Muratori, xii.

[359] Ducas, 12, p. 45; Chalc., II, p. 63; and Phr., I. 13, p. 54, say that Bayezid had given him 1,000 men, and had often advised him to have his father and brothers assassinated. Cf. Muralt, ii. 706.

[360] Sauli, ii. 57.

[361] Quirino, Vita di Zeno, cited by Muralt, ii. 707, Nos. 6-9.

[362] Ducas, 12, p. 45.

[363] The fortunes of Salonika at this period are obscure. See p. 231, below.

[364] Chalc., II, p. 63; Phr., I. 13, pp. 55-6.

[365] Chalc., II, p. 64. But Ducas, 4, p. 19, says that Bayezid captured this city.

[366] Bonlinius, II. 10; Sanudo, Vite de’ Duchi, in Muratori, xxii, col. 680.

[367] An excellent brief account of this war is found in Wiel’s Story of Venice, pp. 227-37.

[368] The Genoese forced John V to make peace with Andronicus in November 1382: Sauli, ii. 260.

[369] Cicogna, op. cit., vi. 97; Romanin, iii. 301.

[370] Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, fol. 1852; Evliya effendi, ii. 229.

[371] The testimony of Ibn Batutah, who travelled extensively among the Turks in Anatolia, southern Russia, and elsewhere between 1325 and 1340, is conclusive on this point. ‘Whenever we stopped in a house of this country (Anatolia), our neighbours of both sexes took care of us: the women were not veiled ...’: ii. 256. ‘I was witness of a remarkable thing, that is, of the consideration which the women enjoy among the Turks: they hold, in fact, a rank more elevated than that of the men.... As for the women of the lower classes, I have seen them also. One of them will be, for example, in a cart drawn by horses. Near her will be three or four young girls.... The windows of the cart will be open and you can see the women’s faces: for the women of the Turks are not veiled.... Often the woman is accompanied by her husband, whom whoever sees him takes for one of her servants’: ii. 377-9. No student can have any doubt whatever upon the position of Turkish women during the fourteenth century. As among all vigorous peoples, the women of the Osmanlis held a high place, and were never secluded. It was not until Murad II that even the sovereign had a harem. The Moslem conception of the inferiority of women was not prevalent among the Osmanlis until after the reign of Soleiman the Magnificent. Immediately it became prevalent, the race began its decline.

So universal did veiling become in the seventeenth century that it was adopted by Christian and Jewish women in Turkey as well. See PÈre Febre, ThÉÂtre de la Turquie (1682), pp. 164-5. PÈre Febre spoke from personal experience ‘dans la plupart des lieux de la Turquie’.

[373] Historia epirotica, Bonn ed., p. 228.

[374] Ibid., pp. 230-1.

[375] Ducange, viii. 292.

[376] Jirecek, op. cit., 340.

[377] Misti, XL. 154.

[378] See below, p. 203.

[379] Silvestre de Sacy, in MÉm. de l’Acad. des Inscript., vii. 327-34. But the commandant could hardly have been carried by his falconer in such a fashion as far as Philippopolis. The Ottoman historians probably forgot that Ishtiman, at the mouth of the pass, on the road to Philippopolis from Sofia, contained an Ottoman garrison.

[380] According to the anonymous Ein gantz neu Reysebuch von Prag auss biss gen Constantinopel, NÜrnberg, 1622, p. 33, Sofia was captured in 1362. Hadji Khalfa, Rumeli, p. 51, with whom SchÉfer, ed. Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, p. 202 n., seems to agree by citing, says Sofia capitulated in 780 (1378). Seadeddin, i. 125, is followed by Hammer, i. 250, Klaic, p. 237, and others in fixing the date as 1382. But these same authorities give 1375 and 1376 for Nish, which is altogether impossible. Phr., I. 26, p. 80, seems to place the capture of Sofia for 1385. This is the most reasonable date. It is consistent both with the topography of the places in question and with Murad’s methods of campaigning, as exemplified by all his conquests, to place the taking of Sofia close to the end of his reign, and within a year or two before the capture of Nish. To corroborate this date, letters in the collection of Feridun can be cited. Indje Balaban’s letter to Murad, announcing the acquisition of Sofia, is not dated. But immediately after it is the response of Murad, in which he gives to Indje Balaban for life the government of the new province, and states that he is sending him a fine horse and robes of honour because of his success. This letter is dated from Adrianople in the middle of the month of Redjeb, 788, which corresponds to 1386 in our era. These letters are in MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 31-2.

[381] Nish, from its geographical position, could not have fallen in 1375, as Chalcocondylas says. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 230, show an amazing nonchalance in transporting the Osmanlis from Kavalla, Drama, and Serres in the course of this one year, 1375. Engel, Geschichte von Serbien, p. 341, who, according to Hammer, ‘deceives himself by thirteen years in placing the capture of Nish in 1388’, is eleven years nearer the truth than Hammer! Strumnitza, from a diploma delivered in the name of the Serbian empress Eudoxia (MÜller, Acta Serbica, CXXXI), was independent in 1379. Sofia did not fall before 1382. How, then, could Nish have been an Ottoman fortress from 1375?

[382] Von KÁllay, i. 166.

[383] For distances between cities in the Balkan peninsula, see Jirecek’s important and interesting work, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel und die BalkanpÄsse, p. 122. Jirecek, for time of transit, depends upon Hadji Khalfa.

[384] Text in Sauli, ii. 260-8.

[385] armiratus or amiratus, then amiralus, of which we have made admiral, originally had nothing whatever to do with the sea. It is a corruption of emir.

[386] ‘Magnificus et potens dominus, dominus Moratibei, magnus armiratus et dominus armiratorum Turchie’: the whole text is reproduced from the Genoese archives by Belgrano, in Atti della SocietÀ Ligure di Storia, xiii. 146-9, and by Silvestre de Sacy, in Notices et Extraits, xi. 58-61. Cf. Canale, ii. 59.

[387] ‘Contra illum Turcum filium iniquitatis et nequiciae, ac Sancte Crucis inimicum, Moratum bey et eius sectam, cristianum genus sic graviter invadere conantes.’ The text of this treaty is also in Belgrano, ibid., xiii. 953-65.

[388] Text in Romanin, iii. 386-9. There was an earlier law of similar nature enacted in 1334.

[389] Cf. Delaville Leroulx, i. 159-60.

[390] Romanin, iii. 331.

[391] Bullarum, III, part 2, pp. 4, 92, 338; Urban V, Epp. secr. iii. 25, iv. 256; Gregory XI, Epp. secr. ii. 32-3, v. 88-9, 311; Philippe de MÉzeray, p. 19; Raynaldus, ann. 1372, XXIX. In 1425 Martin V repeated the anathema against those who sold Christian slaves to the Turks: Bullarum, III, part 2, p. 454.

[392] MS., Bibl. de BÂle, A 1, 28, fols. 232-54, cited by Delaville Leroulx, i. 70, n. 2. Adam’s project was a revival of Sanudo’s attempt to ruin Moslem trading.

[393] Monumenta historiae patriae, i. 320; iii. 336, 371.

[394] In 1432 Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre met at Damascus one of these Genoese of Kaffa, who sold slaves to the Sultan of Egypt: Voyage, SchÉfer ed., p. 68.

[395] Chalc., I, p. 53; Phr., I. 26, p. 81. Cf. Hertzberg, p. 503.

[396] Seadeddin, i. 130-2, draws here upon Idris and Neshri, and has been followed by all the Ottoman historians down to the present day.

[397] Col. Djevad, pp. 62-3. He speaks of Alaeddin bey ‘ayant levÉ l’Étendard de la rÉvolte’, and calls the punishment of the Serbians in this campaign the chief cause of Kossova.

[398] Chalc., I, p. 53; Phr., I. 26, p. 81.

[399] Up to 1383, in outlining the career of Tvrtko, I have followed Klaic, pp. 201-3.

[400] Schaffarik, Acta archivii Veneti, &c., CXLI.

[401] In a letter of April 1, published in Ljubic, iv. 185-6.

[402] Misti, xxxix. 113.

[403] Klaic, p. 237; Jirecek, p. 341. But von KÁllay, i. 166, attributes this victory to George Kastriota of Albania.

[404] Orbini, p. 361.

[405] Hopf, in Ersch-Gruber, Allgemeine Encycl., lxxxvi. 49.

[406] Chronique de MorÉe, p. 516. Evrenos is called Branezis. This is not the Evrenos heretofore mentioned, but another Christian renegade, of Macedonia. Cf. Finlay, iv. 233 n.

[407] Jirecek, Die Heerstrasse, &c., p. 147.

[408] Leunclavius (1611 Frankfort ed.), pp. 268-76. Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, pp. 341-2, points out that Seadeddin and Leunclavius, whom Zinkeisen, i. 252-5, follows, are in error in representing the Bulgarians as wholly subdued in 1388.

[409] Mijatovitch, from Serbian sources, p. 13.

[410] Ibid., pp. 16-17.

[411] The railway between Mitrovitza and Skoplje (before the Balkan War Uskub) passes through the plain of Kossova. When this railway is connected through the former Sandjak of Novi Bazar with the Austrian (?) railways in Bosnia, Kossovapol will be on one of the great transcontinental routes.

[412] The date June 15 is fixed by the Serbian chronicles and songs and by unbroken tradition. Also by Tvrtko’s letter to Florence. But Tvrtko, in another letter to the inhabitants of Trau in Dalmatia, gives June 20 (Pray, Annales, ii. 90). Seadeddin stands alone in placing the death of Murad on the 4th Ramazan (August 27). The other Ottoman historians, as well as Chalcocondylas, Ducas, and the anonymous Hist. Epirot., speak of these events occurring ‘in the springtime’.

[413] Chron. of Abbey of Tronosha, section 54, p. 84, and Chron. of Pek, p. 53: cited by Mijatovitch, p. 12 n.

[414]

[415] Orbini, pp. 314-15. See also the Serbian songs about Kossova, which are accessible in the form of a continuous narrative in French by Adolphe d’Avril, and in English by Mme Mijatovitch, based on the composite poems of Stoyan Novakovich and A. Pavich.

[416] SolakzadÉ, cited by Col. Djevad bey, p. 196. The bow was used as an offensive arm by the Osmanlis until the middle of Murad II’s reign.

[417] Seadeddin, i. 147-52; Chalc., I, p. 53; Ducas, 3, pp. 15-16; Hist. Epir., p. 234; the Serbian chants; Bonincontrius, col. 52; and the modern writers, Hertzberg, pp. 503-7; Jirecek, pp. 342-4; Fessler, ii. 254; von KÁllay, i. 166; Klaic, pp. 236-40. Most illuminating of all is Racki, in Croatian, in Jugoslav. Akademie, iii. 92 f.

[418] Clavijo de GonzÁles, fol. 27 rº.

[419] Annales, ii. 186.

[420] This speech, from the chronicle of Monk Pahomye, is given in Mijatovitch, p. 17.

[421] Busbecq, English ed., i. 153; cf. Ricaut, ed. of 1682, p. 159.

[422] Const. Porphyr., i. 394, 396, 405.

[423] Howorth, ii. 796, commenting on Stoddard’s audience with the Emir of Bukhara.

[424] Text in Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid., i. 528-9.

[425] Chronique du Religieux de St.-Denis (ed. Bellaguet), ii. 391.

[426] MS., Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., 48.

[427] As far as such records are accessible in the great collection of Miklositch and MÜller. The statement of Ducas, 23, p. 137, about the persecutions of Christians by Murad, is without any foundation.

[428] Phr., I. 26, p. 82; Chalc., I, p. 59; Duc., 3, p. 16; also the Ottoman historians.

[429] Sura IV, verse 94 (Sale trans., p. 64).

[430] Sura V, verse 53 (ibid., p. 77).

[431] Hammer, iii. 302-4. Rambaud, Histoire gÉnÉrale, iii. 831, is mistaken in attributing this law to Bayezid.

[432] Ruled 1350 to 1369.

[433] In 1330. Panaretos, p. 7.

[434] In 1320 at Salonika: Greg., VII. 13, p. 271.

[435] Month of Shaban, a.h. 791: MS. turc, Bibl. Nat., Paris, No. 79, pp. 35, 40. Cf. LanglÈs, in Notices et Extraits, v. 672.

[436] Froissart, IV. c. 47, in Kervyn ed., xv. 216-17. Froissart calls Bayezid ‘Amoruth-Baquin’, confusing him with Murad. See below, p. 213, n. 2.

[437] Abul Yussif ibn Taghry, Elmanhal Essafy, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, No. 748, ii, fol. 70.

[438] Vuk Brankovitch, as the reward of his treason, received half of Lazar’s inheritance, however, with Pristina as capital. His family continued as Ottoman vassals, with varying fortunes, for a hundred years.

[439] Ducas, 4, p. 6.

[440] Kantitz, Serbien, pp. 254 f.

[441] Busbequius was informed at Constantinople that marriage had been abolished in the Ottoman royal family because Bayezid took to heart the disgrace of Despina by Timur. But Ricaut, p. 296, thinks that it was because of dowry expense and the desire of the Ottoman sovereigns to keep free from family alliances. Naturally, the difference of religion in time prevented the Osmanlis from finding brides for their sovereigns among the European royal families. If they married among their subjects, there was always fear of intrigues in the wife’s family. At a time when family alliances meant so much in Europe, the Ottoman Empire suffered greatly from this disability.

[442] Seadeddin, i. 158.

[443] Klaic, p. 248. I think Romanin, iii. 331, has confused Stephen Bulcovitch with Stephen Tvrtko. For it is difficult to understand what he means by the ‘pace vergognosa’ with Venice.

[444] Old Servian chronicle, quoted by Klaic, p. 271: ‘quasi totaliter destruxerunt Bosniam et populum abduxerunt.’

[445] Klaic, pp. 324-5.

[446] Accounts differ as to the place. There is some doubt as to whether the independence of AÏdin was totally destroyed before the restoration of Isa’s sons by Timur. Cf. Schlumberger, p. 484; Mas-Latrie, TrÉsor de Chronologie, col. 1800. Hammer, i. 300, cites no authorities for his statements about this usurpation.

[447] Bosio, ii. 143.

[448] Ibid., ii. 148.

[449] There is the same dearth of information about the details of the destruction of the power of the emirs of Sarukhan and Menteshe as there is about AÏdin. Hammer says simply, ‘Les principautÉs de S. et M. furent incorporÉes À l’empire ottoman,’ i. 300. He gives no authorities.

[450] Ducas, 13, p. 47.

[451] Dialogi XXVI cum Persa quodam de Christianae religionis veritate, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253: partly printed in Notices et Extraits, vol. viii, 2^e partie, and in Migne, 156, pp. 111-74. In Notices et Extraits, loc. cit., C. B. Hase has given an interesting critical account of the dialogues, and the circumstances under which they were written.

[452] Seadeddin, i. 163. In Hammer, i. 301, in the sentence ‘quoique, depuis la paix renouvelÉe avec lui par Orkhan, les deux nations eussent continuellement vÉcu dans des relations de sincÈre amitiÉ’, is not Murad meant instead of Orkhan?

[453] Evliya effendi, ii. 21, tells how Bayezid passed seven times in one year from Anatolia to Wallachia.

[454] In matters relating to the progress of Ottoman conquest in Asia Minor, French, German, and British writers have been content to repeat, without critical comment, what they have culled from Leunclavius or the translations of Seadeddin. In many cases, they have gone back no farther than Hammer, and have transcribed, often literally, Hammer’s words. Hammer himself, in this early period of Ottoman history, in spite of his attainments as an orientalist, has relied mainly on Leunclavius, and on Bratutti’s Italian translation of Seadeddin.

[455] ‘La principautÉ fut pour toujours rÉunie À l’empire,’ Hammer, i. 308. In speaking of this second campaign, Hammer starts by saying, ‘Le prince de Karamanie avait de nouveau levÉ l’Étendard de la rÉvolte’. This is hardly the expression to use for the action of an independent prince. Alaeddin had never made himself the vassal of the Ottoman emirs.

[456] Striking testimony to the later power of the Karamanlis is given by Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, who visited the court of Ibrahim with the Cypriote ambassador in 1443: cf. SchÉfer’s edition of his voyage, pp. 108-20. See Appendix B below, where the relations of the Osmanlis with the emirates of Asia Minor during the fourteenth century are discussed in detail, with fuller citation of authorities.

[457] Howorth, iii. 749.

[458] Sherefeddin, iii. 256, who is the only contemporary authority, says that Bayezid put him to death. This was one of the charges made by Timur against Bayezid.

[459] The earliest possible date could be 1393. Perhaps the Osmanlis first appeared near Sivas at this time. But Bayezid would hardly have undertaken so long and perilous an expedition before his position was secure in Karamania. Sherefeddin gives the more likely date 1395, while Ibn-Hedjir places the death of Burhaneddin in 1396.

[460] So d’Ohsson fils, vii. 442, says, but gives date 1390. Hammer more correctly puts it in 1391. XÉnopol, in his authoritative and carefully documented history, gives a little different account of Mircea’s early relations with Bayezid, and attributes to Mircea a larger influence in the calculations of Murad than he deserves. But the exposition of Mircea’s policy in relation to Poland, Hungary, and the Osmanlis, as given by XÉnopol, cannot be overlooked or disregarded by the student of this period.

[461] ‘Pierre Aron fut le premier des hospodars qui paya un tribut aux Turcs’: Costin’s Hist. de la Moldavie, p. 367, in Notices et Extraits, vol. xi.

[462] Phr., I. 13-14, pp. 58-9, and 26, p. 82; Bonfinius, iii. 2; Chron. Anon. de St.-Denis; Chron. of Drechsler; Campana, fol. 8 (but gives date 1393). Leuncl., Annales, p. 51, following Ottoman sources, speaks only of Sigismund’s defeat. This earlier victory and the disastrous retreat are mentioned also in several of the French chronicles which relate the expedition of 1396.

[463] Engel, Gesch. von Ungarn, ii. 368, who draws on all the earlier Hungarian authorities.

[464] Russian source cited by Muralt, vol. ii, No. 10 n.

[465] Cf. Baedeker, Konst. und Kleinasien, 2. Aufl., p. 46.

[466] Jirecek, Gesch. der Bulgaren, pp. 347-9, gives Slavic sources for this date, and quotes Camblak’s graphic description of the terrible sacking of the city, the massacre, and the destruction of the churches.

[467] In Czech, the word jazyk signifies language as well as nation (cf. LÜtzow, Life and Times of Master John Hus, p. 239). This illustrates the Slavic conception of nationality, and explains in a nutshell the Austro-Hungarian and Balkan problems. To the Slav, there can be no other test of nationality. The Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia, carried on through the church and the schools, has been the resurrection of the nation through the language. The Greeks have used the Orthodox Church to combat and stifle this movement. They claim as Greeks all members of the Orthodox Church, while the Bulgarians claim that Bulgarophones, even if not attached to the exarchate, belong to the Bulgarian nation.

[468] Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 65. On this question cf. Jirecek, op. cit., pp. 350-2; Miller, p. 189; and illuminating note of Rambaud, in Hist. gÉnÉrale, iii. 832 n. Also p. 143 of this book and accompanying foot-note.

[469] Schiltberger, op. et loc. cit.

[470] These cities, or rather, their fortresses, were captured and evacuated several times by the Osmanlis, especially Widin.

[471] Hammer, at the beginning of the reign of Bayezid, i. 295-7, relates the history of the quarrel between Andronicus and his father and Manuel, the rescue from the Tower of Anemas, &c., as if these events happened in 1389 and 1390, and gives the capture of Philadelphia for 1391. He has been led astray here by the story of Ducas, and by the fact that the Byzantine historians speak of Bayezid instead of Murad in connexion with the negotiations for restoration. By the internal evidence in the Byzantine historians themselves, the chronology of this period cannot be decided. But, by reading Phrantzes and Chalcocondylas in the light of Quirino, the continuation of Dandolo, and the archives of the colony of Pera, and also by piecing out the length of time of these events and matching them with Bayezid’s occupations during the first two years of his reign, it is not difficult to decide to place the Andronicus versus John and Manuel struggles just before the Chioggia war. At any rate, Andronicus died ten years before the date Hammer gives to these events!

[472] Poem cited by Muralt, ii. 738, No. 1.

[473] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253, fol. 198 vº.

[474] John V Palaeologos was of those who, in the words of Bernino (p. 9), ‘consumavasi vanamente il tempo piÙ in dolersi delle calamitÀ che in repararle’.

[475] Ducas, 13, pp. 25-49 passim; Chalc., II, pp. 66, 81-2.

[476] Evliya effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21, who repeats the persistent Ottoman tradition of his day, that is also found in Hadji Khalfa and Nazmi ZadÉ. Cf. the Genoese accounts of Pera in Jorga’s scholarly Notes À servir, &c. i. 42. According to SchÉfer, in his edition of Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, p. 165, there was a provision that slaves escaping to Constantinople should be given back, but we cannot be sure that this stipulation was made under Bayezid I. The date of the installation of the cadi, &c., is open to question. Some authorities place it after Nicopolis.

[477] Shehabeddin, fol. 72 rº, writes Istanbul; Sherefeddin, iv. 37, is transcribed by Petits de la Croix Istanbol; Arabshah, p. 124, transcribed by Vattier Estanbol. Wylie, i. 156, n. 2, gives the time-worn popular derivation from e?? t?? p????; also Telfer, in his edition of Schiltberger, p. 119. Why go so far afield? Istambul is a natural contraction of Constantinople. As the Greeks pronounced this long word, the syllables stan and pol bore the stress, and were naturally put together for a shortened form. As for the initial I, which has troubled the philologists, its explanation is easy to one who knows the Osmanlis. They cannot to this day pronounce an initial St without putting I before it.

[478] Neshri, trans. NÖldeke, ZDMG., xv. 345; Seadeddin, i. 189; Saguntinus, p. 187; Drechsler, p. 228, says: ‘octo annos vexatur et obsidetur.’

[479] Duc., 13, p. 50.

[480] Muralt, ii. 753, No. 29.

[481] Secr. Cons. Rog., III, E 84.

[482] Chalc., II, pp. 80-1; Phr., I. 13, pp. 57-8; 26, p. 82.

[483] Miklositch, Acta Serbica, CCIV. Hammer, i. 341, calls this Constantine ‘fils de Twarko’, meaning Stephen Tvrtko, I suppose. But I cannot find that the Bosnian king had such a son, or any reason, if he had, why this son should have been at Serres.

[484] Ibid., CCXXIII. For the later kings of the dynasty which Vuk founded, see Picot’s careful article in Columna lui Traianu, new ser., Jan.-Feb. 1883, p. 64 f.

[485] Epp. cur., ii. 64.

[486] Epp. cur., ii. 103-4. Urban VI in 1387 had written a letter from Lucca inciting the Frankish princes to a war against ‘schismatics’ in Achaia.

[487] Secr. Cons. Rog., iii, E 74.

[488] Miklositch-MÜller, Acta Graeca, CCCCXXXV.

[489] Chalc., II, p. 75; Duc., 13, p. 73.

[490] Chalc., loc. cit.; Epp. cur., ii. 300-1, 311; iii. 261.

[491] Cf. Jorga, in Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2^e sÉrie, 110^e fascic.; Molinier, MSS. de P. de MÉziÈres, in Arch. de l’Orient Latin, i. 335-64; Del. Leroulx, i. 201-8.

[493] Ibid., xlii. 58-9; the treaty is in Commem., viii. 150. Cf. Romanin, iii. 330.

[494] Euboea is called Negropont, the Peloponnesus Morea, Lesbos Mytilene, while Crete is frequently called Candia and Chios Scio, in mediaeval and modern times.

[495] Misti, xlii. 55.

[496] Ibid., xliii. 156.

[497] Secr. Cons. Rog., iii. E 81.

[498] ‘Ire contra dictos Turchos ad damnum et destructionem suam’: ibid., p. 94, cited in Ljubic, iv. 335-6.

[499] Misti, lxiv. 140.

[500] Ibid., lxiv. 156.

[501] We must reject the statement of Morosini, MS. Wiener Bibl., fol. 135 rº, that Bayezid ‘entered in arms in the Strait of Romania with so many galleys that one could not navigate in the strait’, and doubt the opinion that Monicego, with his forty-four Venetian and Genoese galleys, had to force the Bosphorus, and contributed powerfully ‘a la destrucion del dito Turcho’.

[502] Misti, xliii. 29.

[503] Ibid., xliii. 5: ‘confidasse in Dio, confidasse nei provedimenti che saprebbero À fare i principi christiani, scrivesse al Papa e a questi promovendo una lega generale’.

[504] Ibid., xliv. 108.

[505] Ibid., xliv. 128.

[506] Belgrano, pp. 152-3.

[507] Lib. iurium, ann. 1392, fol. 474, in Turin archives, printed in Bibl. de l’École des Chartes (1857), 4^e sÉrie, iii. 451-2.

[508] Religieux de St.-Denis, ed. Bellaguet, i. 319-21.

[509] Chronicorum Karoli Sexti, ed. Bellaguet, i. 709-11. The relations of the ambassadors of Sigismund with the Duke of Burgundy and with Charles VI are found in Religieux de Saint-Denis.

[510] On September 13, 1395, in the presence of ambassadors from all parts of Christendom, and also ‘del gran Turco, del RÈ de’ Tartari, del gran Soldano, del gran Tamerlano e di molti altri Principi infedeli e ribelli alla Fede christiana’, who were treated like Christians and lodged at the expense of ‘il Signore di Milano’, Galeazzo was solemnly raised to ducal rank and invested with the Duchy of Milan by Wenceslaus: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 820.

[511] MÉmoires de Madame de Lussan, iii. 5.

[512] The references to Froissart which follow are given from vol. xv of Kervyn de Lettenhove’s edition, and the references to Schiltberger from the English translation in the Hakluyt Society series, vol. lviii, unless otherwise specified.

[513] See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition of Religieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these sections are very disappointing).

[514] Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223.

[515] Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers, compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86.

[516] Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216), Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230), l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus, Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio, et al.). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘l’Émir-pacha’. The fact that he uses the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’ is proof positive of this. His transcription of the title emir, and that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis! Olivier de la Marche (Éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’ for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163, n. 2.

[517] Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242.

[518] Donado da Lezze, p. 9.

[519] Leunclavius, Hist. Musul. Turc., preface, p. 14, speaks of how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of Brandenburg.

[520] Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, and Venetian State Papers (Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian reference is based on a misapprehension.

[521] Lavisse, Histoire de France, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu À la bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliers teutoniques.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut expedition is another error.

[522] Conclusive proof of the whereabouts of Henry in the summer of 1396 is found in the letter ‘escript ... le xx^e jour d’augst’. This letter is in Arch. Nat., Paris, J. 644: 35¹¹. For the expeditions in which Henry did take part, when he was Henry of Derby, see vol. lii of the Camden Society, edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith, London, 1894, 4to.

[523] Froissart, p. 244.

[524] Phr., I. 14, p. 59; Bontinius, III. 2.

[525] Engel, Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 468. According to the authority who has made the most exhaustive study of the Nicopolis expedition, Sigismund disposed of 120,000 men in all, including the western allies: Kiss, in À NikÁpolyi Ülkozet, p. 266. Kiss’s estimate is corroborated by the Cronica Dolfina, which says that Sigismund had one hundred thousand men under arms in 1394. Sanuto quotes this in Muratori, xxii, col. 762. Cf. also Hungarian Nat. Archives, Dipl. 8201, 8212, 8214, 8493, 8541.

[526] Schiltberger, p. 2.

[527] Bruun, in his Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger (Sitz.-Ber. k. Bay. Akademie, 1869, ii. 271), tried to prove that the battle was fought, not at Nicopolis on the Danube, but near the ancient Nicopolis of Trajan’s foundation. But in his notes to the English translation of Schilt., Hakluyt, lviii. 108-9, he assents to the contention which Kanitz makes in Donau-Bulgarien, ii. 58-70, that the battle was near Nicopolis-on-the-Danube. An examination of the chronicles corroborates Kanitz’s hypothesis over against the ingenuous argument of Jirecek. Some historians have been so unmindful of geographical considerations as to put the battle at the ancient Nicopolis ad Haemum, of which Ortellius, p. 225, speaks.

[528] Schiltberger, p. 2.

[529] Froissart, pp. 251, 262-3, 310, 329. ‘Miscreant’, of course, in its original sense.

[530] Ibid., p. 310.

[531] Ibid., pp. 311-17; Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490-7. Schiltberger, p. 3, attributes this initiative to Jean de Nevers, whom, like many other writers on Nicopolis, he calls, by anticipation, Duke of Burgundy. Cf. Donado da Lezze, p. 9, who says: ‘Il signor Carlo, prima Duca di Borgogna.’ Also Morosini, p. 6. Sigismund is frequently spoken of as German emperor at the time of Nicopolis. Cf. Chalc., ed. Migne, col. 76: ???????? S???s????d?? ??a??? as????? te ?a? a?t????t????.

[532] Rabbi Joseph, i. 252.

[533] Froissart, pp. 313-16; Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490 f.; Rabbi Joseph, p. 253; Schiltberger, p. 3; Seadeddin, i. 184; Neshri, in ZDMG., xv. 345-8. Cf. authorities cited in Bibliography.

[534] Froissart, p. 317. Hermann de Cilly and the Burgrave of NÜrnberg are said by some authorities to have thrown themselves in front of Sigismund, and to have saved him and carried him off to the boat.

[535] The bitterness against and contempt for the Hungarians is expressed in the following verses:

[536] Schiltberger calls him ‘der hertzog auss der Sirifey, der genant despot’: Bibl. des Lit. Vereins (TÜbingen), clxxii. 4.

[537] Cf. Miller, in Story of Nations Series, pp. 290-1.

[538] Belonging to the grand master of Rhodes: Froissart, p. 317. But Morosini, p. 15, and others, say that he went directly on board Monicego’s galley. It is a pity that Hammer, in his description of the battle of Nicopolis, relied so much on such an unreliable third-hand authority as AbbÉ Vertot. SkentklÁrÁy, À dunai hajÓhadak tÖrtenÉte, says that Jean de Vienne commanded the galleys.

[539] Schiltberger, p. 6.

[540] Bonfinius, one of the earliest Hungarian historians, recorded that Sigismund had boasted that he would not only turn the Osmanlis out of Europe, but also that with the army under his command, if the sky fell, it could be held up on their lances: Decades, ii. 403.

[541] ‘Sigismund was cruel and sensual, perjured and frivolous, rapacious and dissolute, fierce and pusillanimous, a byword and object of horror to the Bohemians, hated and despised by the Germans, a warning to all rulers. His companion, John XXIII, lewd and murderous, a simonist and an infidel, was a true comrade for Sigismund in all evil deeds’: Dr. Flajshans, in Mistr Jan Hus: quotation translated by Count LÜtzow, John Hus and his Times, pp. 137-8.

[542] Froissart, pp. 330-1.

[543] But not until he ‘regracioit les dieux et les dÉesses selon la loy oÙ il creoit et que les paiens croient’: Froissart, p. 321. The ignorance among the western chroniclers of everything pertaining to the Osmanlis—or the wider circle of Mohammedan peoples—was appalling.

[544] Schiltberger, p. 5. Cf. Froissart, pp. 322-8; Relig. de St.-Denis; Chronique de Boucicaut; Chronique des 4 premiers Valois, Éd. Luce, p. 326; and the other chronicles and secondary authorities given in Bibliography.

[545] XÉnopol, in Hist, gÉnÉrale, iii. 882, whose writings furnish the most reliable and most accessible data for Rumanian history, allows his patriotism to get the better of his judgement when he writes that this unimportant skirmish was a complete defeat inflicted upon Bayezid, and that ‘le Sultan court jusqu’À Adrinople’! XÉnopol makes no attempt to explain the battle of Nicopolis, and Mircea’s action in and after the battle.

[546] Schiltberger, p. 6. Chalc., II, pp. 76-80, who exaggerates the raid to the point of saying that Bayezid reached the environs of Buda.

[547] Secr. Cons. Rog., iii. 134-5. MÉm. d’Olivier de la Marche (Éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 199-200, reads as if Bayezid had actually taken possession of Hungary.

[548] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 61 f. (collection of Feridun). For wrong date, see LanglÈs, in Acad. des Inscriptions, iv. 673-4.

[549] Schiltberger, p. 7, who would have been chosen himself for Egypt but for the fact that he had been wounded.

[550] Froissart, p. 341; Rabbi Joseph, p. 254.

[551] Froissart, p. 345. In xvi. 40, Froissart makes a mistake in saying that the body of the Comte d’Eu was ‘en ung sarcus rapportÉ en France et ensevely en l’eglise Saint-Laurent d’Eu, et lÀ gist moult honnourablement’. The tomb in St. Laurent is merely a memorial. Philippe was buried in the chapel of a monastery in Galata, where, seven years later, Clavijo, fol. 17 vº, saw his burial-spot, but unmarked. His tomb is described by Bulladius, who saw it in 1647, in his notes to Bonn ed. of Ducas, p. 560. Cf. Mordtmann, BeitrÄge zur osmanischen Epigraphik, I, in ZDMG. (1911), lxv. 103.

[552] Froissart, xv. 329, 332, 342 f., 355-8; xvi. 16.

[553] Godefroy, Hist. de Boucicaut (1620 ed.), i. 16; Ducas, p. 52.

[554] Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet (ed. Douet d’Areq), i. 332-3; Froissart, xvi. 57-9.

[555] Jean de Nevers, as Duc de Bourgogne and leader of the faction against the king’s brother, openly accepted the responsibility of the assassination of the Duc d’OrlÉans. This was the beginning of the Burgundy-Armagnac civil war, which delivered France to the English until Jeanne d’Arc appeared to awaken the French to a feeling of nationality.

[556] Froissart, xvi. 47. For ransom, ibid., pp. 37-8, and Rabbi Joseph, i. 254; also Livre des faicts of Boucicaut, passim.

[557] Raynaldus, ann. 1364, No. XXVIII. Jirecek, Gesch. der Bulg., p. 323, says that at this time ‘Osmanen erschienen in Attika’. He has mistaken roving Turkish corsairs of Sarukhan or AÏdin for the Osmanlis. It must have been these Turks who attacked Thebes.

[558] For the deliverance of the grand master of Rhodes, Jean Ferdinand d’HÉrÉdia: Ducange, viii. 296.

[559] Chron. Breve at end of Ducas, p. 516.

[560] Ibid. According to Finlay, iv. 233, he captured Akova. Cf. Muralt, ii. 741, citing Guichenon MS., and Ducange, viii. 39, 296.

[561] Phr., I. 16, p. 62; 26, p. 83; Chalc., II, pp. 67-9.

[562] Muralt, under 1395 and 1397, gives the same expedition. From internal evidence of Byzantine historians, one might put the Morean expeditions in either or both of these years. But cf. Chron. Breve, p. 516, and the silence of the Ottoman historians on an expedition in 1395.

[563] Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.

[564] Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.

[565] Chron. Breve, p. 516; Phr., I. 16, p. 62; Chalc., II, pp. 97-9.

[566] Seadeddin, i. 193.

[567] The Venetians seized Athens in 1395, and sent Antonio Contareno to act as governor.

[568] Hammer describes the capture of Athens in 1397 in i. 350, and again in 1456 in iii. 51.

[569] Gibbon and Hammer follow Chalcocondylas in this error. Cf. Berger de Xivrey, in MÉm. de l’Acad. des Inscr., vol. xix, partie 2, pp. 29-30.

[570] Seadeddin, i. 180.

[571] Ducas, 13, p. 50; Chalc., II, p. 59; Idris.

[572] The land walls of Salonika, still standing, are eloquent proof of the difficulty which confronted their assailants before the days of cannon.

[573] Phr., I. 17, p. 64.

[574] See p. 199. There is serious difference of opinion as to just when these concessions were made.

[575] Feridun collection, letter from Adrianople, ordering kadis to prepare for siege of Constantinople: Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 60.

[576] Ducas, 14, p. 53; Canale, ii. 62. Leunclavius, Annales, p. 52, puts this in 1391/2.

[577] Karamzin (Russian ed. of 1819), v. 164.

[578] Miklositch-MÜller, Acta Graeca, DCXXXVI.

[579] Ibid., DXIV, DXV, DXVI.

[580] Froissart, xvi. 132-3.

[581] Religieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 559-62, 564.

[582] Secreta Consilii Rogatorum, E iii. 138, 146, printed in Ljubic, iv. 404.

[583] Ibid., p. 137.

[584] Misti, xliv. 210, xlv. 443; Belgrano, Arch. Gen., 1396-1464, pp. 175 f.

[585] Ducas, 14, p. 53; Chalc., II, p. 80; Sherefeddin, iv. 38.

[586] ‘El Cuirol castello de Grecia estÁ despoblado y destruydo y el dela Turquia estÁ poblado’: Seville ed., 1582, fol. 17 v°. Busbecq, i. 131, wrote: ‘stand two castles opposite each other, one in Europe and the other in Asia.... The former was held by the Turks a long time before the attack on Constantinople.’ Busbecq was, of course, misinformed, as Rumeli Hissar was built in 1452. It is still standing in excellent preservation. Anatoli Hissar, of which only one tower remains intact, was built between 1392 and 1397. There is no way of determining the exact date. But Saladin, in Manuel de l’Art Musulman, i. 482, displays his usual inaccuracy concerning facts of Ottoman history, when he gives 1420 as the date for Anatoli Hissar.

[587] Phr., I. 14, p. 60; Chalc., II, p. 83; Ducas, 14, p. 53.

[588] Venice contemplated action against the Osmanlis with the aid of France, Hungary, and Genoa. Cf. Secr. Cons. Rog., E iii. 137-44.

[589] Epp., v. 26, 99, 293-5.

[590] Edition of Seville, 1582, fol. 16 v°-17 r°.

[591] My account of this expedition is taken from MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds fr., No. 11432, Livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut. For printed editions, see Bibliography.

[592] The chronicler makes the most astonishing assertions as to these raids, saying that the chevaliers reached Ak-SeraÏ! He evidently had no idea of local geography. I have been unable to identify several of the places mentioned.

[593] I have walked in one day from Riva to a point on the Bosphorus not many miles above Constantinople. When one reads the history of the Osmanlis in the country of their origin, the fact that from the very beginning of their history they were practically within sight of the imperial city is vividly impressed upon one.

[594] The Byzantine historians give little attention to Boucicaut, and are in contradiction with his chronicler on this point. Phr., 15, p. 61, says that John, who had been in the court of Bayezid, fled to his uncle because he had been slandered to Bayezid, and was afraid for his life; and Chalc., II, p. 84, that it was John who commanded the 10,000 Osmanlis against the city, and that Manuel shared the throne with him in order to save the city. Muralt, ii. 762, is a year in advance of the actual date.

[595] Chron. de Saint-Denis and Juvenal d’Ursins. But these are really the same source, according to Lacabane, Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, ii. 62.

[596] Foglieta and Stella, in Muralt, ii. 778, No. 61.

[597] Sanudo, in Muratori, xxii. pp. 794-8.

[598] Chalc., II, pp. 83-4; Ducas, 14, pp. 54-6. For Rhodes and the Pope in the Morea, Phr., I. 16, p. 63; Bosio, ii. 154.

[599] September 10, 1400, in Misti, xlv. 33.

[600] Livre des faicts, fol. 53 r°-55 r°, and Wylie, pp. 159-65. Wylie has collated admirably the sources on Manuel’s visit.

[601] Text is published in Theiner, ii. 170-2.

[602] Epp., v. 300-2; vi. 92.

[603] ‘Cum Dom. summus Pontifex advertens quod perfidus ille Baysetus Princeps Turchorum, manu potenti et brachio extento in Christianum Populum maxima feritate extitit debachatus ad Exterminium Civitatis Constantinopolitanae et universitatis Populi Christiani nisi eius nephanda propositio resistatur, omnes et singulos qui, pro Liberatione et Subsidione Manuelis Imp. Cpni et dictae Civitatis suae, Manus adiutrices porrexerint ...’ etc.: Rymer, vol. iii, part 4, pp. 195-6.

[604] Clavijo, who visited Constantinople the following year, reports this, fol. 7 v°.

[605] Miklositch-MÜller, Acta, DCXXVI.

[606] Strikingly shown in letter of April 20, 1402: Canc. Secr., i. 58.

[607] Misti, xlv. 19-23, 25-6, 29-30, 35, 87; xlvi. 37. Several of these are published in Ljubic, iv. 579, 590.

[608] Knoelle, in Journal R. A. S. (1822), xiv. 125; NÖldeke, in ZDMG. (1859), xiii. 185, n. 6.

[609] ‘Toutesfoiz il a la main senestre et piÉ senestre comme impotent et ne s’en puet aidier, car il a les nerfs coppez’: Dominican Friar, p. 463. ‘Infirmus, ut dicitur, a cingulo infra’: Stella, in Muratori, vol. xvii. col. 1194. Cf. Sherefeddin, i. 55, 381. The English corruption Tamerlane is from Timurlenk, the latter syllable signifying lameness.

[610] Sherefeddin, ii. 222.

[611] There is an excellent account of the dynasties of the Black and White Sheep, with list, following Mirkhand, in Teixera, ii. 24-39, 69-70. For the later activities of Kara-Yussuf, Teixera, ii. 355; de Guignes, iii. 302.

[613] Ibid., pp. 258-62; Sherefeddin, iii. 255-62; Clavijo de GonzÁles, fol. 25 r°-26 v°.

[614] Chalcocondylas and Raynaldus are wrong in calling him Ertogrul, and in stating that he was killed in the subsequent siege. Sherefeddin, iii. 267, calls him Mustafa, and Schiltberger, p. 18, Mohammed. That it was Soleiman is proved by the agreement of the Ottoman historians with Arabshah, p. 124, and with Clavijo, fol. 26 r°, whose ‘Musulman Tchelebi’ is Soleiman.

[615] Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, vol. ii, fol. 1776.

[616] Clavijo, fol. 26 r°; Arabshah, p. 125.

[617] Clavijo, fol. 26 v°-27 r°; Arabshah, p. 125; Sherefeddin, iii. 267-9; Dominican Friar, p. 264; Schiltberger, p. 18. Schiltberger says 21 days, and 5,000 horsemen buried, and 9,000 virgins carried off by the Tartars.

[618] It is impossible to understand why Muralt, with all the authorities he had at hand, places the taking of Sivas in 1395: Chronographie Byzantine, ii. 753, No. 26. The contemporary authorities cited above establish the date. Cf. also letter from Crete, in Jorga, Notes À servir, &c., i. 106, n. 3. There is a full discussion of the proper dating of the Ottoman aggression against Sivas, Caesarea, and Erzindjian, and the probability of two Ottoman campaigns, one before and one after Nicopolis, in Bruun’s note to the Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger, pp. 121-2.

[619] The letters exchanged between Charles VI and Timur are preserved in the French archives. The Turkish text of these letters, with Latin translation, is published by CharriÈre, introd., i. 118-19.

[620] Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1194.

[621] ‘En la qual batalla se acaescieron Payo de Soto Mayor e Hernan Sanchez de PalaÇuelos Embaxadores’: Clavijo, fol. 1 r°, col. 2.

[622] Letters of Timur and Bayezid in Arabic and Persian in Feridun collection, MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, ancien fonds turc, pp. 65-91. Cf. LanglÈs, in Notices et Extraits, iv. 674, for list and dates of these. Sherefeddin, iii. 396-416.

[623] Sherefeddin, iv. 1-6. For description of route from Sivas to Angora, Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, ii. fols. 1803-4. Timur’s own account of his march and the battle of Angora is very brief: ‘Je pris moi-mÊme le chemin d’Ancouriah. Bayezid, suivi de 400,000 hommes, tant cavaliers que fantassins, vint À ma rencontre; on livra la bataille, et je la gagnai. Ce Prince vaincu fut pris par mes troupes, et amenÉ en ma prÉsence. Enfin ... je retournai victorieux À Samarcande’: LanglÈs trans., p. 264.

[624] A great deal has been written about the date of Angora, but all authorities agree in putting it between July 20 and July 28, 1402. Cf. Art de vÉrifier les Dates, i. 193; Silvestre de Sacy, in MÉmoires de l’AcadÉmie des Inscriptions, vi. 488-95; MoranvillÉ, in Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, lv. 437-8. A few early western writers have given 1397 and 1403, while Petits de la Croix, in his French translation of Sherefeddin, is a decade too late in all his dates. The latter part of July 1402 is fixed by all contemporary authorities on this battle. Abu’l-Mahasin, in his history of the reign of the Egyptian sultan Barkok, states that the greater part of Bayezid’s army perished by thirst before his capture.

[625] On the nationality of the Tartars who betrayed Bayezid at Angora, see the latter part of the note of Bruun on the ‘White Tartars’ in the Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, pp. 114-17.

[626] From the account of the Dominican Friar, pp. 458-9, it seems clear that Bayezid was the aggressor until after Soleiman’s command had been cut to pieces.

[627] Sherefeddin, iv. 8-12; Dominican Friar, p. 458.

[628] Afterwards Mohammed I. Many western writers have confused him with his nickname of Kiritchelebi (Girigilibi in Rabbi Joseph, i. 257, and a variety of spellings in other early writers), and made him thus his own father, to account for the later Sultan Mohammed.

[629] In this battle I have used Sherefeddin, Arabshah, Dominican Friar, in Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, lv. 437-68, Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the invaluable letters in Marino Sanuto, Muratori, xxii. 794-7. The authorities for Angora and Timur are classified in the bibliography below.

[630] Sherefeddin, iv. 15, says the carnage in this battle was seven times greater than in any of Timur’s previous victories. The Dominican Friar, p. 459, puts the Ottoman losses at 40,000.

[631] Schiltberger, p. 21, says that he retreated to this hill with 1,000 horsemen. Hammer is in error in saying that Bayezid ‘resisted like a hero at the head of his ten thousand janissaries with whom he had occupied the slope of a hill’: ii. 91. There were never as many as ten thousand janissaries enrolled in the Ottoman army until a century after Bayezid’s death. See above, p. 119. In oriental historians numbers are almost invariably exaggerated at least tenfold.

[632] Solak-zadÉ, p. 63. Sherefeddin and Arabshah bear witness to Bayezid’s personal courage.

[633] The Ottoman historians explain the capture of Bayezid by the fact that he was unhorsed. Some say that he was mounted on an inexperienced horse. A great deal was written about the battle of Angora at a much later date, but, as in describing the battles of Kossova and Nicopolis, I have limited myself to contemporary sources.

[634] Mustafa’s fate was never cleared up. Mohammed and Isa fled naked, according to the Dominican Friar, p. 450.

[635] I am unable to agree with Alberi, Rel. Ven. Ambasc., 3rd ser., vol. i, preface viii., ‘Secondo migliori testimonianze deve rigettarsi per falsa la tradizione’, and Bruun, Notes to Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, p. 21 n., ‘We are forced to conclude, after Hammer’s searching inquiries, that there is no truth whatever in the story of Bayezid having been confined by Timur in an iron cage’. Hammer’s arguments, ii. 96-101, do not seem to me at all convincing. From the philological point of view, they have been refuted by Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, ii. 92. From the historical point of view, there is just as strong evidence for as against the litter with bars, which could hardly have been any different from a cage. If one argues that Timur did not subject his prisoner to this indignity, and advances that the cage was really nothing more than a closed litter, such as was used for ladies of the imperial harem, he is merely substituting one indignity for another. From the character of Bayezid, one would infer that the humiliation of being shut up like a lion in a cage would have been less than that of being put into a harem litter like a woman, for whom the conqueror had contempt rather than fear. There is no mention of the iron cage in Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the Dominican Friar. But their silence signifies nothing. They are excellent witnesses for the battle of Angora itself, but knew little or nothing of what happened in Asia Minor after Angora. One might just as well argue from Schiltberger’s silence that Timur did not capture Smyrna! Nor does Sherefeddin mention the humiliation of Bayezid, and the iron cage. But the story is given in Arabshah, p. 210, who must be reckoned with as a contemporary source. If, as de Salaberry, iv. 200-1, claims, the iron cage story was inserted in Arabshah by his Ottoman editor and translator, Nazmi-zadÉ, it only goes to show that the careful Ottoman students of his time believed the story. The Ottoman historians, who are without exception too late to be regarded as sources, and who had reasons for making the degradation of the Ottoman sovereign as slight as possible, show their knowledge of the early and contemporary character of this record by trying to controvert it, and prove that Bayezid was carried on a litter rather than in a cage, e. g. Seaddedin, i. 230. That the common tradition among the Osmanlis, outside of the court chroniclers who were compelled to uphold at all costs the dignity of the house of Osman, was in favour of the cage story is proved conclusively by Ali Muhieddin, Migne ed., col. 597, who is earlier than Seadeddin, and by Evliya effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21-22, who gives the story just as we find it in Arabshah and the western writers. Sagredo, who follows Spandugino, vigorously defends the cage story as opposed to the litter of the Ottoman court chroniclers, and says that Bayezid died from striking his head against the bars of his cage, pp. 25-6. In Lonicerus, fol. 12 vº, is a picture of the cage. It is mentioned by Guazzo, fol. 275 vº; Donato da Lezze, p. 10; Paolo Giovio; Geuffry, p. 283; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Egnatius, p. 30; Rabbi Joseph, i. 256; Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791; Bonincontrius, col. 88; Formanti; and Timur’s early western biographer, Perondino, p. 31, who, fifty years before Seadeddin, wrote that Timur compelled Bayezid’s wife Despina to wait nude upon him and his guests at table. The story is also found in Ducas, chapter 26.

[636] Perondino, p. 31; Sagredo, p. 26; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Raynaldus and Spandugino; Lettres d’un Solitaire turc, i. 106-7. Exposure of women was a common symbol of conquest among the Mongols. It was a formal ceremony at the sack of Pekin and Djenghiz Khan’s sack of Samarkand.

[637] Many authorities declare that Bayezid committed suicide by striking his head against the bars of his cage, being unable to support the sight of his wife’s disgrace. The humiliation to which Despina was subjected was often given in later times by the Osmanlis themselves as a reason why the house of Osman does not contract marriages. See above, p. 183, and note.

[638] Sherefeddin, iv. 65-7; Chalc., III, pp. 162-5; Duc., 17, pp. 77-8; Phr., 1. 26, p. 85; and the Ottoman historians.

[639] The Dominican Friar says that the Jews of Brusa sent a delegation of rabbis to inform Mohammed-Sultan that their religion was the same as his. He answered that their law was a good one, and that they should assemble all their people in the chief synagogue. He promised that no harm would come to them. When the Tartars entered the city, they sealed fast the doors of this synagogue, and set fire to it.

[640] Sherefeddin, iv. 37-48; Duc., 16, pp. 66-7.

[641] Seadeddin, i. 235.

[642] Sherefeddin, iv. 47, 52.

[643] Accounts of the capture of Smyrna: Sherefeddin, iv. 47-53; Chalc., III, p. 161; Duc., 18, p. 78; Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, fol. 1949; Arabshah, ii. 24. For date, see M. de Ste. Croix, in Acad. des Inscriptions, 2^e sÉrie, ii. 566, 569.

[644] Ali Muhieddin, Leuncl. trans., in Migne, Patr. Graec., clix., 596. Schiltberger, p. 27, relates a similar massacre of children after the capture of Ispahan.

[645] Ducas, 18, p. 79.

[646] ‘Would that the day might dawn in which your Highness would profess the religion of Christ, and stand up in power as the champion of the Christian Church against the enemies of the cross.’ In the London archives, however, this passage, while legible, is cancelled. So it may not have gone in the copy of the letter sent to Timur. Cf. Wylie’s Henry IV, i. 316 and n. 4.

[647] Misti, xlvi. 47.

[648] Ducas, 18, p. 78; Phr., I, 15, p. 62.

[649] Phr., loc. cit.; Innocent VII, Epp., i. 212-13.

[650] Wylie, i. 321, says Timur died February 19, 1405, on authority of Schiltberger. But this date is in Brunn’s note, p. 133, and not in Schiltberger’s narrative. According to Clavijo, fol. 57 rº, Timur died November 18, 1404, while Arabshah, p. 248, says ‘17 Saghan, 807’, which would be in February 1405. For his abandonment of Asia Minor, Chalc., III, p. 182; Duc., 17, p. 76; Sherefeddin, iv. 88-95.

[651] Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1195.

[652] Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791, quoting an eye-witness.

[653] Gerardo Sagredo, quoted by Sanuto, ibid., p. 796. He admits that this action was foolish and ruinous.

[654] ‘El Emperador de Constantinopola e los Genoueses de la ciudad do Pera, en lugar do tener lo que con el Tamurbec auian puesto, dexaron passar los Turcos de la Grecia en la Turquia e desque fuera vencido aqueste Turco passauan ellos mismos a los Turcos con sus fustes de la Turquia en la Grecia de los que venian fuyendo, e por esta ocasion tenia mala voluntad el Tamurbec a los Christianos de que se fallaron mal los de sa tierra.’ Clavijo, fols. 26 vº-27 rº.

[655] ‘Qui s’ensuivra Dieu le sache. TÉmir Bey tout seul scet son propos et non aultre qui vive’: Dominican Friar, p. 459.

[656] Epp., vii. 144-60.

[657] The dates given under the Latin columns in Chalcocondylas are almost invariably wrong and are responsible for much of the confusion of European historians in the matter of chronology. Chalcocondylas himself is full of mistakes, and knew very little about the history of Byzantium and the Osmanlis in the fourteenth century. But he is not as bad as his Latin translator, whom the historians have followed. In order to trace some of the errors, I collated the Greek text of Chalcocondylas with the Latin translation through the first two books of his history, which cover the period 1300-1403. The glosses and the inexact translations are many. For example of glosses, in I. c. 4 B, ‘quos Tartaros nominant’ after Scythis; I. c. 7 C, ‘Orthogulus adhibitus in colloquium’, at beginning of third sentence; I. c. 10 C, ‘ex tribus, Orchanes nomine’, after ‘filius eius natu minimus’; I. c. 12 C, ‘circiter viginti duo’ in the sentence ‘Orchanes cum regnasset annos mortem obiit’. For a very unfaithful translation compare Latin with Greek original in I. c. 27, the end of A and beginning of B. In I. c. 28 C ?? ?a? t??????ta is translated ‘triginta septem’! The letters cited refer to column position in Migne edition.

[658] Chalcocondylas (in Migne), I. 6, p. 22.

[659] Trans. Petits de la Croix, ii. 287-9.

[660] Annales Turcici, in Migne, Patr. Graec., clix. 579.

[661] Bratutti trans., i. 4.

[662] Chronological Tables, Italian trans. of Carli Rinaldo.

[663] Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlÄndischen Gesellschaft, xiii. 188-9.

[664] For editions, translators and dates of publication, see Bibliography.

[665] Egnatius, cited by Cuspianus, 12, says: ‘Ottomannus obscuro loco et parentibus agrariis natus’. Nicolaus Euboicus, Saguntinus Episcopus, Sylvius Aeneas, and Andreas a Lacuna say that Osman, of obscure beginnings, arose through oppressing neighbours, Moslem as well as Christian. Ab. Ortellius says, ‘Tam Graecis quam Turcis repugnantibus cited by Leunclavius, Pandectes, 99. Bosio, ii. 37, declares, ‘Osman first came out of Persia’. Similar vagueness in Haeniger; Geuffroi, 266; Sagredo; Manutio, 3; Cuspianus, 11, 42; Barletius, in Lonicerus, iii. folios 231-2; Vanell, 356; Cervarius; Richer, 11.

[666] De Sacy, in Notices et Extraits, xi. 56, foot-note 1, in his discussion of the text of a treaty between Genoese of Kaffa and Janko, Lord of Solkat, where this word also occurs, suggests that it is an altered form of ‘sheik’.

[667] Formanti: Donado da Lezze, 4; Paulo Giovio, Ven. ed. of 1541, 3; Vertot, ii. 97; Rabbi Joseph, ii. 503; Guazzo, 257 vº; Ortellius in Leunclavius, Pandectes, 99; Lonicerus, 10 Spandugino, 182-4. Also Evliya effendi, i. 27.

[668] ‘Il Pazzo Delis, pecoraio’, Spandugino, 184. Leunclavius, Pandectes, 103, says that Alaeddin poisoned Delis.

[669] Formanti; Donado da Lezze, 4; Cuspianus, 48; ibid., Ant. ed., 6; Spandugino, in Sansovino (ed. 1654), 243; Egnatius, 28. Also travels of Busbecq, Eng. ed., i. 137, and the Ottoman Evliya, ii. 95.

[670] This story in full in Formanti, 2-3; Vertot, ii. 97-8; Spandugino, 183. Leunclavius, in Pandectes, 103, says that Nicetas Choniates mentions such a renegade Comnenus, but calls him Isaac.

[671] The author of Tractatus de rilibus, who was a slave captured by Murad II, for example. Also Spandugino, a native of Constantinople, and relative of the Cantacuzenos and Notaras families. Also Donado da Lezze. See the prefaces of editions of Charles SchÉfer, of Spandugino; and of Professor Ursu, of Donado da Lezze.

[672] Evliya effendi, a learned member of the Moslem Ulema of Constantinople, who travelled widely in the seventeenth century in the Ottoman Empire, is continually making statements which show that he had a very hazy notion of early Ottoman history. This is true also of Hadji Khalfa, the famous bibliographer, in his Djihannuma, a work which I have tested and found incomplete and unreliable both in its geographical and historical information about the region which gave birth to Osman and his tribe.

[673] Houdas, p. 374, foot-note 1.

[674] Mohammed en Nesawi, p. 374.

[675] Ibid., 394.

[676] Ibid., 209, 328.

[677] Shehabeddin, 230-9, 263-72, 289-91, in describing Khorussan, Armenia, and the strife between Djelaleddin and Alaeddin, makes no mention of Soleiman Shah or Ertogrul, or of a formidable invasion such as 50,000 families, under one ruler, would certainly have been regarded. Nor is there mention of the 50,000 and their leader in Ibn-Bibi, Seljuk chronicler of this period.

[678] Hadji Khalfa, in index of his Bibliography, iii. folios 133-5, speaks of more than sixty Arabic genealogies known to him, but in his chronological tables he cites none of them for early Ottoman genealogy.

[679] Dourar-al-Othman, ‘the precious pearls touching the original source of the Ottoman house’, by Ibn Ali Mohammed-al-Biwy. No date or indication of contents. Hadji Khalfa in Dictionnaire bibliographique, Paris MS., i. folio 867.

[680] Introduction À l’histoire d’Asie: Turcs et Mongols, passim.

[681] There is a letter of this sort to Bayezid, quoted in Timur’s Institutes. Also a letter, given by Sherefeddin, iii. 259-63, near the beginning of which he says: ‘But you whose true origin ends in a Turcoman sailor, as all the world knows.’

[682] ‘L’empire des Seljucides s’Écroula, et sur ses ruines surgit celui d’Osman,’ Hammer, i. 83.

[683] i. 7-13.

[684] In the Story of the Nations Series. This book does not do credit to the name of the great scholar whom Orientalists and numismatists universally honour.

[685] In the Allgemeine Staatengeschichte, Werk 15 (1840-63) and Werk 37 (1908-13).

[686] Leunclavius, Pandectes. This work will be found in all large libraries, because it is reprinted in volume 159 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca Latine, 715-922.

[687] For translations of Cantemir, see Bibliography. The Rumanian translator, Dr. Hodosiu, has reprinted the notes of the various editors of Cantemir, which makes his edition the most valuable.

[688] Youssouf Fehmi, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris, 1908, p. 11.

[689] Halil Ganem, Les Sultans ottomans, Paris, 1901, i. 24.

[690] ‘Osman verband sich mit der Leibwache in Bagdad, eroberte die Stadt, setzte sich auf den Thron, wodurch er der Beherrscher aller Muhammedaner wurde, und liess dem Chalifen nur die nichts bedeutende geistliche Oberhoheit in Bagdad; er nannte sich Sultan, d. h. Herrscher, und starb 729 (1328 n. Chr.).’ Prof. F. WÜstenfeld, Geschichte der TÜrken, &c., Leipzig, 1899, pp. 15-16.

[691] Reineccius thought that this name must be common to all the Sultans of Konia. It does not appear for others than KaÏ Kobad II in the Arabic genealogies. Leunclavius is so confused by the discrepancy here that he concludes that the Ottoman historians must have given the name indiscriminately to all the Sultans! (Pandectes, 106). Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, folio 1790, speaking of Amassia, says that its fortress was repaired by ‘Sultan Alaeddin the Seljucide’. It is typically Ottoman to be vague about names as well as about dates. Hadji Khalfa frequently speaks of an Ottoman Sultan, whose name is duplicated, without any following ordinal. There is often no clue in the context to identify the Sultan to whom he refers.

[692] As the year of the Hegira began in June in 1240, there is the alternative of reckoning the Christian era a year later during the middle period of this century. But I have not thought necessary to indicate this alternative each time.

[693] Villani, book VI, c. 32, in Muratori, xiii, col. 175, describes this battle; also Vie de Saint Louis, by Le Nain de Tillemont (ed. Gaulle), iii. 4.

[694] Abulfeda; Howorth, iii. 47.

[695] This is the opinion of two of the ablest modern scholars, Heyd, i. 534, and Sarre, p. 41.

[696] I can find no record of coins to controvert this statement. Lane-Poole, Mohammedan Coins in the Bodleian Library, 41, gives only one coin of the Bodleian collection after 641 of the Hegira, and to this he assigns the date A.H. 663 with a question mark.

[697] MS. Bib. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, 583, folio 144 rº and vº.

[698] The lists of coins in I. Ghalib Edhem’s Monnaies turcomanes also bear eloquent testimony to the disappearance of Seljuk vassal dynasties during this period.

[699] I have not heard of such a coin existing to-day, but make the statement on the strength of Abulfaradj, Chronicon Syr., 527-8.

[700] Abulfaradj, ibid., 542-3; Howorth, iii. 69.

[701] Abulfeda, v. 15-16, under date of A.H. 662. Villani (in Muratori, xiii), VII. c. 40, column 261-2, describes how Abaka Khan chased the Saracens (sic) from ‘Turchia’, and also the ‘Re d’Erminia’, who ‘lasciÒ a’ Tartari la Turchia’.

[702] Huart, Souvenirs de voyage, 164, speaks of the battle, but does not mention occupation of Konia.

[703] Abulfaradj, Chronicon Arab., 365-7; d’Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols, ii. 570-80; Howorth, iii. 295.

[704] Howorth, iii. 315.

[705] Konia, Ville des Derviches tourneurs, 177.

[706] ‘Ils sont souspost an Tartar de Levant, qui y met sa seigneurie.’ Edition of Pauthier, 37. For status of this country at the beginning of the thirteenth century, see Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le TrÉsorier (ed. Mas-Latrie, Paris, 1871), pp. 377, 381.

[707] Hadji Khalfa naÏvely solves this doubt by rolling Masud and KaÏ Kobad into one and the same person. Djihannuma, folio 1752 bis.

[708] There is no way of reaching certainty on this point. Rasmussen, Annales Islamici, pp. 34-8, reflects the confusion which attended the scholar of the early nineteenth century who wanted to make a chronological table of the later Seljuk Sultans. The two best modern tables are to be found in Sarre and Huart, scholars who became interested in the Seljuk problem through their archaeological travels in Asia Minor. The best account of the Seljuks is that of Houtsma in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is to be regretted that Professor Houtsma has not published the French translation of Ibn Bibi, which he promised in his introduction to the 4th volume of the Leyden series of Seljuk texts. Three years ago, Professor Sir William Ramsay, who knows Konia better than any European scholar, told me that he felt there was rich reward for the research student in the Seljuk period. The history of the Seljuks of Konia has yet to be written.

[709] Osman was the sole heir according to Boecler: also Donado da Lezze, 4.

[710] ‘Osman, Karaman, and Assam. Karaman retired to Syria and Assam to Persia. The house of Osman always persecuted the descendants of these two latter.’ Geuffroi, 267. Also Cuspianus, 11, and Haeniger.

[711] Spandugino, Lonicerus, and Egnatius.

[712] Mignot, 33.

[713] Tractatus de moribus; Vanell, i. 351-2; Sagredo; Cervarius; Cuspianus, 46.

[714] The historian must use the Bonn editions with caution. There are frequent glosses in the Latin translations of Byzantine texts. See foot-note on p. 263.

[715] Pachymeres, ii. 589.

[716] See Appendix B, which is really a continuation of this argument.

[717] Vie de Timour, iii. 255.

[718] ‘Osman possessed all Anatolia, which he called Osmania: he came to be called Lord of Asia Minor,’ Formanti, 4; ‘Osman made himself master of all Anatolia without any difficulty,’ Spandugino; ‘Osman seized Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia,’ Cuspianus, 10; ‘master of Syria as well as of Asia Minor,’ Donado da Lezze, 5.

[720] Rabbi Joseph, ii. 505.

[721] Mignot, 33.

[722] Chronique de Saint-Denis (Ed. Soc. Hist. de France), i. 319, 709.

[723] Richer, whom I have already quoted in Chapter I.

[724] ‘Cette nation nombreuse, pleine de confiance dans ses forces, et brÛlant du dÉsir de soumettre À sa domination toute la chrÉtientÉ, avait quittÉ les confins de Perse.’ Chronique de Saint-Denys, i. 709.

[725] ‘Quod cum ante complures annos florens illud Orientis imperium everterit et in Occidentis non exigua spacia invaserit, atque oppresserit quod reliquum nobis factum est, omni vi suo intolerabile iugum ditionemque redigere studet.’ Domini de la Vuo, Disputatio de bello turcico, bound in with Camerarius, p. 94, in Bibl. Nat., Paris, ImprimÉs, no. J 860.

[726] Col. Djevad bey, 192-3.

[727] H. Saladin, Manuel de l’architecture musulmane, 437-40.

[728] Ibid., 437. On p. 479, Saladin makes another curious statement to the effect that in 1300 the Osmanlis employed architects who had fortified the Seljuk strongholds. I have never been able to find in my reading or from observation of Ottoman constructions any authority for such an assertion.

[729] i. 50. The medressÉ is, as Seadeddin says, to the right after you enter the Yeni SheÏr gate. The imaret is near the Yeshil Djami, which is the oldest Ottoman mosque extant, dating from 1378. The imam of the Yeshil Djami told me that the imaret was built by Osman’s wife, Malkhatun. According to Seadeddin, however, Malkhatun died before Osman!

[730] ParvillÉe, p. 6, says that the Oulou-Djami, which is attributed to Murad I in Brusa by popular consent, was not finished until the reign of Mahomet I.

[731] Cf. preface of ParvillÉe; and Hammer, i. 83.

[732] W. LÜbeke, Geschichte der Architektur (6te Auflage), i. 425; Franz-Pasha, Die Baukunst des Islams (third volume of part 2 of HandbÜcher der Architektur), 52, 67.

[733] Mas-Latrie, TrÉsor de Chronologie, and papers on commercial relationship between Cyprus and Asia Minor in Bibl. de École des Chartes; Lane-Poole, ‘Successors of the Seljuks in Asia Minor,’ Journ. Royal Asiatic Soc., 1882, new series, xiv. 773-80 (Lane-Poole did not avail himself of the precious indications in Ibn Batutah and Shehabeddin, but trusted altogether to Gibb’s translation of Seadeddin’s unreliable chronology. Seadeddin did not have access to as good source-material as Lane-Poole himself!); ClÉment Huart, ‘Épigraphie arabe d’Asie Mineure,’ Revue sÉmitique, 1894-5.

[734] Muralt, in the bibliography of his Chronographie Byzantine, puts Ibn Batutah at 1320. There can be no doubt about this being an error, for when Ibn Batutah visited the Ottoman domains, Orkhan was ruling, and Nicaea had been captured. I put 1340 as latter limit, because Ibn Batutah speaks of some places captured by Orkhan before 1340 as being still independent.

[735] QuatremÈre, in Notices et Extraits, xiii. 152-3, cannot reach a definite conclusion as to whether Shehabeddin is from Damascus, Marash, or Morocco. But I find that Hadji Khalfa, Dict. Bibl., Paris MS., fol. 1832, under no. 10874, records him as a ‘writer of Damascus’.

[736] Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe 2325. For QuatremÈre trans. see Bibliography.

[737] Ibid., fol. 123 vº.

[738] Notices et Extraits, xiv, partie 2, to face p. 77.

[739] See discussion of source-material in Bibliography.

[740] If one asks why Adana and Marash are included in this rÉsumÉ, it must be remembered that these are regions which might legitimately be included in Asia Minor as a portion of the latter Konia Seljuk dominions which we are discussing. In the division of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, Cilicia is given under Diocesis Oriens rather than under Diocesis Asiana with the rest of Asia Minor. To regard Cilicia as belonging to Syria was common up to the days of Mehemet Ali. Ibn Khaldun, Notices et Extraits, xix. 1^Ère partie, p. 143, speaks of Adana as being ‘at the extremity of Syria’, while Cilicia is included in Syria in Abdul Ali Bakri’s description of Africa, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe no. 2218, p. 103. Both the Latin and Orthodox Churches made Cilicia depend ecclesiastically upon Antioch: cf. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, ii. col. 869, iii. col. 1181. But, in modern times, we have come to regard this region as a portion of Asia Minor.

[741] Shehabeddin, 339, 369; Ibn Batutah, ii. 295-310; Cant. ii. 28, pp. 470-3; 25, p. 455, iii. 192; Greg. xvi. 6, p. 834; Ducas, 7, pp. 29-30; 18, p. 79; Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient latin, 481-5; for Venice’s share in crusade against Smyrna, Romanin, iii. 147; for complete list of princes, Karabeck, in Numismatische Zeitschrift, Vienna, 1877, ix. 207.

[742] Shehabeddin, 365.

[743] Ibn Batutah, ii. 267. Shehabeddin, 360, gives Akridur under Hamid.

[744] Ibn Batutah, ii. 285.

[745] Leunclavius, Ann., v. 40; Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, fol. 1769; Sarre, 21. Cf. struggles between Murad and Bayezid and the Karamanlis, pp. 165-7, 187-90 above.

[746] Bosio, ii. 221-2, 237-8; Mas-Latrie, Hist. de Chypre, iii. 175, 335. Cf. authorities for Karamania, Tekke, and Satalia, and Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2^e sÉrie, i. 326, 328, 498, 505; ii. 138-41.

[747] Not in 1354 by Soleiman, as Cant. iv. 37, p. 284, infers. Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, fol. 1852-6.

[748] Pachymeres, vii. 13, p. 589.

[749] How does Schlumberger reconcile the continuance of Ayasoluk, or Ephesus, as capital of AÏdin with the Rhodian conquest? Cf. Wood. Discoveries at Ephesus, pp. 12, 183, for coins which prove that the chevaliers held the city in 1365. Cf. Palatchia, for treaty made by Venice with an independent prince here in 1403. Ibn Batutah states expressly that Guzel Hissar, or Birgui, was the capital of AÏdin.

[750] Ibn Batutah, ii. 317. Evliya effendi, ii. 19, distinguishes between Balikesri and Karasi in his enumeration of the conquests of Orkhan.

[751] Ibn Batutah, ii. 340.

[752] Sherefeddin, iii. 256; Howorth, iii. 749.

[753] Shehabeddin, 338, 358, 366; Ibn Batutah, ii. 275, 277; Reclus, GÉog. univ., ix. 633, 645; Baedeker, Kleinasien, 2. Aufl., 390. Mas-Latrie, TrÉsor de Chronologie, makes an error in extending the northern boundary of Denizli, which he calls Thingizlu, to the emirate of Marmora.

[754] Panaretos, 13.

[755] Lane-Poole, Mohammedan Coins in British Museum, 21-4, 35; ibid., Mohammedan Coins in Bodleian Library, 12.

[756] Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, fol. 1119; Sherefeddin, iii. 257.

[757] Ibn Batutah, ii. 279; Shehabeddin, 370; Bosio, ii. 4.

[758] Ibn Batutah, ii. 270.

[759] Ibn Batutah, ii. 267; Hammer, xvii. 98; Sarre, 21. See also under Akridur, and Nazlu.

[760] Shehabeddin, 339.

[761] Shehabeddin, 363; Ibn Batutah, ii. 326-9; Hammer, xvii. 99.

[762] ‘Ledit Karaman haioit fort le Grant Turc, dont il eust la soeur.’ Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, SchÉfer ed., 120. Bertrandon visited the court of the emir of Konia in 1443 with a Cypriote ambassador.

[763] In time of Osman and Orkhan, Nicolay, 148-9; Howorth, iii. 428; Byzantine historians in Stritter, iii. 1092; Anon., Hist. de GÉorgie, i. 642; Shehabeddin, 346, 375; Ibn Batutah, ii. 284 (calls them emirs of Larenda); Hammer, i. 262 fol.; Rasmussen, 116; Feridun letters, Bibl. Nat., fonds turc, no. 79, p. 1. In time of Murad and Bayezid, Feridun letters, ibid., pp. 18-20, 30, 33-4, and references in text of this book. For fifteenth century, from re-establishment by Timur, Sherefeddin, iv. 33; Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, 118-20; Mas-Latrie, Hist. de Chypre, iii. 3; Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2^e sÉrie, i. 326, 510; ii. 138; Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 962. For coins, Lane-Poole, Bodleian Collection, 12; British Museum, 21-6. The power of Karamania in the fifteenth century will be discussed in a later volume.

[764] Shehabeddin, 350, 357, 372. Cf. Hertzberg, 471.

[765] Shehabeddin, 361; Ibn Batutah, ii. 343-7; Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2^e sÉrie, i. 325; Hammer, i. 90, 309-11; Clavijo, 20 vº.

[766] Ibn Batutah, ii. 339.

[767] AshikpashazadÉ, Vatican MS., 33.

[768] Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, 617, 1807-9. It is curious that Hadji Khalfa does not mention the famous potteries of Kutayia.

[769] Persian letter in collection of Feridun, Bibl. Nat., fonds turc no. 79, p. 18.

[770] Shehabeddin, Paris MS., fonds arabe no. 583, fol. 144 rº-vº; Ibn Batutah, ii. 270-1; Hammer, ii. 133, xvii. 98; SchÉfer, preface to his edition of Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre, lxi. For expedition of Bayezid against, Phr. i. 26, p. 82; Ducas, 18-19; Chalc. ii, pp. 64-6.

[771] Panaretos, 49, 52.

[772] Hammer, v. 28.

[773] Shehabeddin, 358, 366. In speaking of the propinquity of Denizli and Marmora, one wonders if Mas-Latrie has not confused the Scamander and Maeander rivers. Both of these rivers are called Menderes in Turkish.

[774] Its last emir died without issue in 1425. M. de Ste. Croix, in Acad. des Inscriptions, nouv. sÉrie, ii. 569-75; Hammer, i. 300-1, xvii. 98; Ducas, 18, p. 79; Lane-Poole, Coins in British Museum, 33-4.

[775] Mordtmann, in Zeitschrift d. m. G., lxv (1911), p. 105.

[776] See above, p. 225.

[777] Shehabeddin, 360.

[778] Shehabeddin, 367.

[779] Clavijo, fol. 6 vº, 60 vº.

[780] Mas-Latrie, in Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, 5^e sÉrie, v. 219-31, quoting Pacta, vi. 129 vº, and Commem., ii. 231, iii. 374.

[781] Cf. St. Pierre de Thomas, in Bollandist Coll.

[782] The currency of Byzantine money among the maritime emirates of Asia Minor demonstrates this. See Makrisi, 7, and Stickel, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlÄndischen Gesellschaft, viii. 837-9.

[783] Shehabeddin, 339, 360, 368-9; Ibn Batutah, ii. 313; Commemor., ii. 231; Greg. xi. 2, p. 530; xv. 5, p. 763; Cant. ii. 29-30, pp. 480-4; iii. 96, pp. 591-6; Ducas, 18, p. 79; Hadji Khalfa, Djihannuma, fol. 1820; for relations of Genoese and Byzantines with, Sauli, i. 256-7; for coins, Schlumberger, 479-81; Lane-Poole, Bodleian, 12; British Museum, 31-2.

[784] ‘Aussi y est Satalie, situÉe en rivages maritimes de Cilicie: d’oÙ a prins son nom le Goulphe de Satalie, anciennement appelÉ Issa: et a prÉsent la Iasse et en cest endroit Alexandre vainquit Daire ...’ Nicolay, 148. This passage, which shows Adalia confused with Adana, would have helped Bruun in his note on p. 123 of the Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger.

[785] In Bibl. Nat., Paris, MS. fonds turc no. 62, there is a marginal note in Armand’s handwriting which terminates thus: ‘La dynastie des Seljuks de Rum finit en la personne de KaÏ Kobad, fils de Feramorg, fils de KaÏ Kaous le 14^e qui aye regnÉ qui fut exterminÉ lui et toute sa race par Gazankhan.’ This view was taken by several Orientalists of Armand’s day, but there is good authority for Ghazi Tchelebi’s ancestry.

[786] Fallmerayer, Originalberichte, ii. 15, 319; Stella, cited by Muralt, ii. 533; Ibn Batutah, ii. 343.

[787] Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 663.

[788] Shehabeddin, 359; Ibn Batutah, ii. 277.

[789] Shehabeddin, 371; Ibn Batutah, 258-9, 265; Bustron, Chronique de Chypre, 296; Mas-Latrie, TrÉsor, col. 1802; Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv, col. 662; Urban V, Epp. secr., i. 161; Rasmussen, 45; Schiltberger, 19. (I cannot agree with Bruun that Adana is meant, for there is no reason to believe that the Osmanlis crossed the Taurus into Cilicia for more than one hundred years after the events Schiltberger was describing. See above, p. 296, n. 3.)

[790] See note for Mikhalitch.

[791] Weil, iv. 504-624; Heyd, passim under Tarsus, Lajazzo, Adana, and Alexandretta; Mas-Latrie, Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, vi. 310-11; Le Nain de Tillemont (Éd. Gaulle), iii. 9; iv. 459; Abulfaradj, Chron. Syr., 572; Bertrandon de la BroquiÈre (Éd. SchÉfer), introd., lv. 90-1.

[792] Finlay, iv. 386-92; Panaretos, passim.

[793] Ibn Batutah, ii. 314; Cant. ii. 13, pp. 388-90; Phr. i. 8, p. 37; Greg. xi. 9, p. 554; Sauli, i. 256-7. See also in text of this book under Orkhan.

[794] Matteo Villani, in Muratori, xiv. 650, under spring of 1360, says: ‘E per tante guerre e divisioni de’ Turchi gli paesi loro erano rotti e in grande tribulazione. E per questa cagione i Greci havieno minore persecuzione da loro. E piÙ ciÒ fu materia al Re di Cipro di fare l’impresa sopra loro con honore e vittoria grande.’ Mas-Latrie, in Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2^e sÉrie, ii. 122-3, says that the Karamanian army was defeated before Gorhigos in 1361, and that Cyprus, then at the height of its power, was able to impose tribute on the emirs of Asia Minor.

[795] Ibn Batutah, ii. 288-95.

[796] See above under Smyrna, AÏdin, Menteshe, Fukeh, and Tawas. Also in text of book, p. 44.

[797] Cf. Weil, iv. passim.

[798] See above, p. 123.

[799] The ordinals following the names of Byzantine emperors are a cause of confusion, as there is no universal agreement as to the method of numbering. Some historians count by sovereigns of the same family bearing a particular name (i. e. John I Palaeologos and John II Palaeologos), while others number by the imperial line as a whole (i. e. John V Palaeologos, John VI Cantacuzenos, John VII Palaeologos). I have used the second system.