Note 1, p. 6, Section III.—Pillars and Rings.

The existence of these pillars and the rings fixed in them is noticed in Dr. Clarke’s Travels. It is a curious fact that similar iron rings are found not only in the rocks at ParÁvÁdÍ in RomeilÍ, but also at JÁnÍk and Natolia, as is mentioned by the great Turkish geographer HÁjÍ KhalÍfah in both his works, the JehÁnnamÁ (p. 627), and the Description of RomeilÍ: (Rumeli und Bosna geographisch beschrieben von Mustafa Ben Abdallah Hadschi Chalfa, p. 32). We must refrain from giving any judgment whatever on these curious facts till the rocks of JÁnÍk and ParÁvÁdÍ shall have been the objects of the researches of European travellers, none of whom have yet directed their attention that way.

Note 2, p. 9.—Caverns.

Though the Danube never passed through this channel, these caverns, which no European travellers have noticed, are deserving of attention. They are also mentioned by HÁjÍ KhalÍfah in his account of the village of Injighiz, near the mountain of ChatÁljah (RumelÍ und Bosna, p. 17); and may be easily visited, as they are not much out of the way in going from Adrianople to Constantinople.

Note 3, p. 17.—AltÍ Mermer.

In the present day nothing is seen on the spot of AltÍ Mermer except the mosque of that name. Some of these columns, which were probably used to ornament it, may perhaps be seen in the interior.

Note 4, p. 23.—Sieges of Constantinople.

It is here necessary to rectify some of the author’s mistakes by the more correct chronology of HÁjÍ KhalÍfah and the Byzantines. EvliyÁ states that the first siege took place in the year 34 of the Hijreh: this, however, is probably only a mistake of the copyist. He confounds the second siege, which took place in the year 47 (A.D. 667). Vide Theophanes and Cedrinus, who call the Arab general Yezid, (??ed), with the third in 53 (A.D. 672), and in which AyyÚb was killed. No mention is made either by HÁjÍ KhalÍfah or the Byzantine historians of the third siege. Theophanes merely records the siege of Tyane in the year 91 (A.D. 710). The fourth also, in 97, seems to refer to the fifth, which by HÁjÍ KhalÍfah and Theophanes is recorded as having happened two years later, i.e. 99, in the first year of the reign of Leo I., the Isaurian, when the Arabs are said to have built the mosque of Galata, which bears their name, and that called the Gul-jÁmi (rose mosque) in Constantinople. This tradition seems to be derived from the ancient names of the churches; that at Galata having been built by one Areobinthus, which to the Turks sounded like Arab; and the Gul-jÁmi having been called the rose-church because it was formerly a house belonging to a person of the name of Triantaphyllus (a rose), and was afterwards converted into a church by Romanus Argyropulos in the year 1031: vide Cedrinus. EvliyÁ takes no notice of the siege by the Bulgarians, under their chief Paganus, in the year 764. Bullardus erroneously reckons this the fifth siege, it being in fact the sixth after the five preceding ones by the Arabs; and the eighth, if the two sieges of the ancient Byzantium are reckoned. The sixth and seventh sieges are also erroneously stated by Evliya. The former of these, which he states to have been in the year 160 of the Hijreh, ought to be four years later, viz. 164 (A.D. 780), as it is evidently the same as that of HÁrÚn-ur-rashÍd, which took place then, and not, as EvliyÁ gives it, in the year 255, which is too late by a century, as is also his seventh siege.

The tenth siege (p. 28) ought to be the sixteenth, if, according to Bullardus, Constantinople was again besieged by the Arabs in the year 798; by the Bulgarians a second time, in 822; by the Sclaves in 895 (vide Abulfarage, A.H. 282); by the Bulgarians a third time, in 914; by Tornicius in 1048; and by the Venetians and French in 1204.

Note 5, p. 29.—BÁyazÍd in the Iron Cage.

The truth of this story has been often questioned by European writers; but it is so generally recorded by the most authentic Turkish historians, that there seems no reason to doubt it any longer.

Note 6, p. 35.—Abd-ur-ruÚf ZindÁnÍ.

This personage, who was buried at the prison-gate at Adrianople, is the saint of the prisoners, as Ja’far BÁbÁ is at the Bagnio at Constantinople. It was probably this Abd-ur-ruÚf who furnished a Turkish poet with one of the best tales in Turkish literature. Vide the German Annual “Minerva,” Leipzig 1814.

Note 7, p. 39.—SÚ-KemerlÍ MustafÁ ChelebÍ.

If MustafÁ was three years old at the siege of Constantinople in 1453, he must have been fifty-four at the conquest of Cairo in 1517 (and not twenty-five as he is made to say), and consequently a hundred and thirteen years of age at the siege of Siget.

Note 8, p. 53.—Falakah.

Falakah properly means the wooden block in which the feet of the culprit who receives the bastinado are confined.

Note 9, p. 54.—Sheikh-ul-IslÁm or MuftÍ.

SultÁn Mohammed II. was the first who gave precedence to the MuftÍ or head of the law over the two KÁzÍ-asker, or military judges of RÚmeilÍ and AnadolÍ.

Note 10, p. 110.—SultÁn Ahmed.

SultÁn Ahmed was the fourteenth and not the sixteenth of the Ottoman SultÁns. There are no means of accounting for this mistake, as SuleimÁn KÁnÚnÍ is the tenth SultÁn by the unanimous consent of all historians.

Note 11, p. 123.—AbÁza’s speech.

This speech is remarkable as it attributes all the rebellions which shook the Ottoman empire after the death of Sultan OthmÁn II. to the mutinous spirit of the Janissaries, who, until the beginning of the present reign, baffled all the attempts of the SultÁns who attempted to subdue them.

Note 12, p. 126.—Confession of faith.

“There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet.” AbÁza himself performed all the preliminaries for his execution, in the hope of preventing it by the appearance of resignation.

Note 13, p. 137.—KÁfÍah, JÁmÍ, &c.

This passage is interesting as giving a good account of the nature of the education received by the imperial pages, and of the books used by the professors in the colleges. It may be useful here to give a short notice of these works from HÁjÍ KhalÍfah’s Bibliographical Dictionary:—

KÁfÍah is a celebrated Arabic grammar, by Ebn HÁjeb. It has been printed at Rome, and two editions with a commentary have appeared at Constantinople.

JÁmÍ, the great Persian poet, is known to most Oriental scholars. But the work here mentioned is his famous commentary on the preceding work of Ebn HÁjeb. It is considered the best amongst more than a hundred commentaries which have been written on this work.

TefsÍr KÁzÍ is an extensive commentary upon the KorÁn by KÁzÍ KhÁn, one of the most celebrated Turkish divines.

MisbÁh, the lamp, is a small grammatical work by ImÁm NÁsir Abdullah AltarazÍ.

DÍbÁcheh is a commentary by SoyÚtÍ on a collection of traditions of the prophet, commonly called SahÍh Moslem.

JÁma-ul-BokhÁra, another collection of traditions by BokhÁrÁ. It is considered the best of the kind.

Multeka-al-bahr, a very large work on Mohammedan jurisprudence, compiled by Ibrahim HalebÍ.

KudÚrÍ, another treatise on jurisprudence. This work has lately been printed at Constantinople.

Sa’dÍ’s works are too well known to require any remark.

NisÁb-us-sibyÁn, a short Arabic vocabulary in verse.

Loghat AkhterÍ, a Persian and Turkish vocabulary.

LONDON:
Printed by J. L. COX and SON, Great Queen Street,
Lincoln’s-Inn Fields.