¹ Schaendlingerm, Anton C., Die Schreiben Süleymāns des Prächtigen an Karl V., Ferdinand I. und Maximilian II. Textbd.: Transkriptionen und Übersetzungen. Tafelbd.: Faksimile.: (Osmanisch-türkische Dokumente aus dem HHStA zu Wien, Teil 1. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. Denkschriften, 163. Bd.) XXXII, 118 pp.; [iv], 76 plates. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1983. ÖS 560.Google Scholar

² I notice a number of misreadings, some impairing the sense. Doc. 4, 1, 4: for -muṣirr read -maṣir (so also 25/39, 32/37); doc. 11: 1. 2 read a'Iām-i 'ālem-ārā-yi devlet, 8 read (for nehy) tehī, 15 (for 'arże) 'arṣa, 19 (for daḥi) baġī, 26 and 44 (for (ā)sitān) āŝiyān, 38 (for mühtešaqq) münšaqq, 43 (for soltāt) sultān (these indeed being the readings in Ferīdūn, I, 603–6); 20/6 read (for nesne) neyise; 24/8 (for bir, and in spite of the syntax) biz; 25/46 (for eyledüklerin) eyledügüñüzi, and 47 (for qabal) menāl; 27/3 (for ḫayr) ḥayyiz; 31/5 (for nehār) nehād (Meninski: ‘familia, prosapia’); 34/7 (and 35/9, 36/9) (for 'ahduñuza/'ahda göre) 'uhdeñüze. In doc. 14 I doubt whether ḥāydūd implies flatly ‘Ræuber’, if only because the sultan is speaking of his own irregulars (as late as Meninski the definition is simply ‘miles pedestris hungaricus’); I should interpret 1. 30: ‘you are to send them over here, that the mischief-makers among the ḥ. (ḥāydūduñ ehl-i fesādlnuñ) may be punished’. Is there really a word ḫilāfet, ‘opposition’? At 22/11, 15, 24/10, 26/4, 31/6 I would read (as at 28/20) ḫilāfina, with a reference back to the 'ahd or dostluq just mentioned.

³ I use the following abbreviations:

Abrahamowicz: Abrahamowicz, Z., Katalog dokumentów tureckich. Dokumenty do dziejów Polski i krajów ościennych w latach 1455–1672, Warsaw, 1959.Google Scholar

Babinger, Aufsdtze: Babinger, F., Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levanie, 3 vols., Munich, 1962,1966, 1976.Google Scholar

Bennigsen: Bennigsen, A., Boratav, P. N., Desaive, D. and Lemercier-Quelquejay, C., Le Khanat de Crimée dans les Archives du Musée du Palais de Topkapi, Paris and The Hague, 1978.Google Scholar

Doerfer: Doerfer, G., Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols., Wiesbaden, 1963–75.Google Scholar

Elezović: Elezović, G., Turski spomenici, I, two parts, Belgrade, 1940 and 1952.Google Scholar

Fekete: Fekete, L., Einführung in die osmanisch-türkische Diplomatik der türkischen Botmässigkeit in Ungarn, Budapest, 1926 (which includes, as nos. 2, 5, 6 and 13, Dr. Schaendlinger's nos. 8, 12, 19 and 33).Google Scholar

Fekete-Hazai: Fekete, L., Einführung in die persische Paläographie. 101 persische Dokumente, herausgegeben von G. Hazai, Budapest, 1977.Google Scholar

Ferīdūn: Ferīdūn, Aḥmed, Munşa'āt al-salāṭin, second edition, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1274–75.Google Scholar

Gökbilgin: Gökbilgin, M. T., ‘Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki vesikalar külliyatinda Kanunî Sultan Süleyman devri belgeleri, in Belgeler, I/2, 1964, 119–220 (nos. 1–99), continued in Belgeler, V–VIII/9–12, 1968–71, 1–151 (nos. 100–213).Google Scholar

Hammer, GOR: Hammer, J. von, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, 10 vols., Pest, 1827–35 (reprinted Graz, 1963).Google Scholar

Keçik: Keçik, Mehmet Şefik, Briefe und Urkunden aus der Kanzlei Uzun Ḥasans: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Ost-Anatoliens im 15. Jahrhundert, Freiburg, 1976.Google Scholar

Kraelitz: Kraelitz, F., Osmanische Urkunden in türkischer Sprache aus der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Sitzungsberichte Ak. Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl., 197/3), Vienna, 1922.Google Scholar

Kurat: Kurat, A. N., Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Arşivindeki Altin Ordu, Kirim ve Türkistan hanlarina ait yarlik ve bitikler, Istanbul, 1940.Google Scholar

Matuz: Matuz, J., Herrscherurkunden des Osmanensultans Süleymān des Prächtigen, Freiburg, 1971.Google Scholar

Matuz, Kanzleiwesen:Matuz, J., Das Kanzleiwesen Sultan Süleymāns des Prächtigen, Wiesbaden, 1974.Google Scholar

Miklosich and Müller: Miklosich, F. and Miiller, J., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, III, Vienna, 1865.Google Scholar

Mu'āhedāt mecmū'asi: Mu'āhedāt mecmū'asi, 5 vols., Istanbul, 1294–98.Google Scholar

⁴ Fekete heads it (p. 25) ‘Erlass (emr)’, and Matuz considers it briefly (Kanzleiwesen, 116 f.). Most of the similar receipts in Elezović's collection begin with the formula mażmūn-i ḥüccet and are called in their texts at first bu ḥüccet ber sebīl-i temessük and later (from no. 34, of 887/1482) bu ḥükm ⃛ ber sebīl-i temessük. Three receipts for Venice (Gökbilgin, nos. 167–9) begin with the sebeb-i taḥrīr formula. For the discussion of these introductory formulae see P., Wittek, WZKM, 56, 1960, 270–3.Google Scholar

⁵ Hammer, , GOR, III, 362–3Google Scholar. The text is somewhat slovenly: ẓafer-niyār (1. 4) is a meaningless miscopying for ẓafer-şi'ār (as at 1/4); ifliḫārü 'l-'ulemā (1. 6), which the editor accepts (p. xxii: ‘Ruhmvollen der wissenskundigen’), is an extraordinary slip; fetāret (1. 7) stands for feterāt; mert étmek (1. 14, ‘brach zu lassen’) is presumably to be corrected to meremmet étmek, ‘repair’.

⁶ Eleven words at 34/4 have been lost by haplography at 35/5 and 36/5; g/nderilür déyü (34/7) becomes gönderilüb; Bāna ve Toqay (34/18) becomes just Bāna.

⁷ Hammer, , GOR, III, 432–3.Google Scholar

⁸ In Matuz's list (Herrschemrhunden) there are 17 certain examples for the years 1525–36: nos. 43, 44, 47, 53 (now published as Matuz, Kanzleiwesen, no. 1), 56, 62, 73, 76, 83, 102a, 103, 104, 108 (= Schaendlinger, no. 1), 113, 102b (since published by Gökbilgin as no. 185 and to be dated 11 Muḥarram [942]/12 July [1535]), 102c (Gökbilgin, no. 186, 14 Shawwāl [942]/5–6 April [1536]), 122. By the accidents of preservation and publication, nine of these are addressed to Sigismund of Poland, three to Francis I of France, two to the Doge of Venice and two to Ferdinand of Austria; one (Matuz no. 44), the Polish ';ahdnāme of 932/1525 (see below, p. 300), has no addressee but is ‘letters patent’: ‘bu 'ahdnāme-i hümāyūnumi muṭāla'a kilanlara ma'lūm ola ki…’.

The fullest discussion of this type is in Matuz, Kanzleiwesen, 94–101, where it is treated as a branch of the broader category ‘nāme’.

⁹ Fekete records (p. 12) that in the document being described here there is a space of 49 cm.— i.e. a quarter of its complete length—between the two 'Da‘vet-formeln’, so that on this point Dr. Schaendlinger's plate (my fig. 1) is not a true facsimile.

¹⁰ Kraelitz, p. 13. Cf. Fekete, pp. XXX-XXXI (where it is noted that ‘the use of the longer formula does not preclude the use also of the briefer’); Matuz, Kanzleiwesen, 97; Fekete-Hazai, 27. Dr. Schaendlinger deduces (p. XV) that in this document ‘die Invocatio aus zwei Teilen besteht’, i.e. that what I call ‘elements 1 and 2 ’ form a single invocatio. In describing the documents of this type in the Polish archives, Abrahamowicz records that some (e.g. nos. 19, 20) have ‘two invocatios’, ‘the second in six lines’, but that in others (e.g. no. 21) ‘the first invocatio is cut off’, thus presupposing that the presence of ‘two invocatios’ was the norm. The probability is that all such texts had originally (like the letter of Ibrāhīm Pasha, see below, p. 301) a ‘first’— as I shall argue, the only—invocatio, but that these few words, written at the outside edge of a very long roll and followed by a wide blank space, were easily lost.

¹¹ But nos. 25 and 32 have only the first two members, God and the Prophet (see below, pp. 300–1 and n. 75).

¹² And an 'ahdnāme may take either form: Dr. Schaendlinger's nos. 25 and 32 are addressed (sen ki) to Ferdinand and Maximilian respectively, but the Polish 'ahdnāme of 1525 is not addressed to Sigismund (see above, n. 8).

¹³ Hammer, , GOR, II, 607–10Google Scholar; Dennis, G. T., ‘The Byzantine-Turkish treaty of 1403’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 33, 1967, 72–88Google Scholar; most recent discussion by Elizabeth, Zachariadou, Der Islam, 60, 1983, 274–83.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Miklosich and Müller, p. III (1342), p. 114(1349), p. 121 (1357), p. 135 (1390), p. 144(1406); in earlier texts the oath appears before the terms, as in Emīr Süleymān's treaty: p. 77 (1265), p. 86 (1277), p. 100 (1324), p. 105 (1332).

¹⁵ 1430: Iorga, N., Revue de l'Orient Latin, 6, 1898, 89Google Scholar; 1446: F., Babinger and F., Dölger, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 15, 1949, 235 and 254Google Scholar (= Aufsätze, III, 45 and 64).

¹⁶ And expressed (e.g.) in the Byzantino-Venetian treaty of 1277 (Miklosich and Möller, p. 86).

¹⁷ e.g. Miklosich and Müller, p. 286 (Rhodes, 1452); p. 287 (Genoa, 1453); p. 295 (Venice, 1479).

¹⁸ Miklosich and Müller at p. 313.

¹⁹ Gökbilgin, no. 127.

²⁰ In conformity with the Islamic doctrine of hudna, the conclusion of peace is now described not as being God's will but as beneficial to the Muslim community.

²¹ Gökbilgin, no. 129 and plate after p. 144; cf. also nos. 130 (1517), 128 (1521), and 1 (1540).

²² Hammer, , GOR, II, 616.Google Scholar

²³ Photocopy published by Gökbilgin, M. T., Belleten, XXII/87, 1958, plates 3–11.Google Scholar

²⁴ ulu pādişāh is clearly to be read in 1. 8; this phrase, and cümleye ġālib, may stand for imperator, and yüce ḥażret for majeslas.

²⁵ Venice: Stern, S. M. (ed.), Documents from Islamic chanceries, Oxford, 1965, 92–3Google Scholar; Poland: Abrahamowicz, nos. 3,8, etc. For the Greek equivalent: Miklosich and Müller, 332, 337, 338, 344, and for the Slavonic: the treaty with Hungary of 1498, in ZDMG, 90 (= NF 15), 1936, at p. 56.

²⁶ It appears in the Turkish translation of a letter of 1489 from King Matthias Corvinus (Belleten, XXII/87, 380Google Scholar); an earlier translation (p. 377) has Allāh luṭfiyle.

²⁷ Fekete, p. xxxii; cf. F., Babinger, MSOS, 30, 1927, p. 164 and n. 4.Google Scholar

²⁸ As in Abrahamowicz, nos. 8 and 9.

²⁹ cf. also the treaty of 1498 (above, n. 25) and the fetḥnāme of 1500 (Hammer, , GOR, II, 612Google Scholar).

³⁰ e.g. Ferīdūn, I, 223 and 262 (Meḥemmed II to Cihānşah), 227 (to Kiliç Arslan of Erzerum), 233 (to Ibrāhīm of Karaman), 257 (to various Persian dignitaries), 264 (to Luṭfī of ‘Alā’iyya), 283 (to Ḥusayn Bayḳara), 287 (to Ruḳayya Ḫatun), 289 (to the Khān of the Crimea), 290 (Bāyezūd II to ‘Alā’ al-Dawla, in Turkish), 305 (to Ḥusayn Bayḳara), 312 (to the Akkoyunlu Ya'ḳūb).

³¹ Ferīdūn, I, 278–9.

³² Ferīdūn, I, 379, 382, 383.

³³ It is noticeable also that just as the letters to Uzun Ḥasan and to Ismā'īl, in reproaching them for their divergence from the true path of Islam, quote (Ḳur'ān, 20:49) ‘wa 'l-salām 'alā man ittaba'a 'l-hudā’, with the implication that no salām is to be invoked upon those that do not ‘follow the guidance’, so this verse was to become a regular closing formula in communications from Ottoman viziers to non-Muslims.

³⁴ Dr. Schaendlinger adduces as further (and strong) evidence two texts in Ferīdūn (II, 78, 96), the 'ahdnāmes for Florence (of 1563: Hammer, , GOR, III, 401Google Scholar) and for Austria (975/1568), where the ‘second element’, appearing above the tuġra, is introduced by the word çūn; but he is probably mistaken in suggesting that ‘in den Originalen wurde die Formel sicherlich nicht mit čün, da, eingeleitet’, for the word figures not only in numerous texts in Mu'āhedāt mecmū'asi but in the original of the Dutch 'ahdnāme of 1612 (de Grootl, A. H., The Ottoman Empire and the Dutch Republic, Leiden and Istanbul, 1978, 233Google Scholar and plate I). I attempt to explain this feature below, at pp. 303–4.

³⁵ Charrière, E., Négociations de la France dans le Levant, I, 1848, 116Google Scholar ( = Matuz, no. 47). Dr. Schaendlinger has not (apparently) made use of the contemporary translations, in German, Latin or Italian, that accompany many of his texts in the Vienna archives. More specifically, is it not possible that the ‘translations’ of nos. 23, 25 and 32 in fact represent the original agreements as hammered out by the negotiators, and that the definitive Turkish instruments are themselves translations from the Latin and Italian used by them?

³⁶ von Gabain, A., Alt-türkisches Schrifttum (Sb. der Deutschen Ak. der Wissenschaflen zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl., Jg. 1948, Nr. Ill), Berlin, 1950, 15.Google Scholar

³⁷ Haenisch, E., ‘Zu den Briefen der Mongolischen II-Khane Argun und Öljeitü⃛’, Oriens, 2, 1949, 216–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and plate I; A., Mostaert and Cleaves, F. W., Les lettres de 1289 et 1305 des ilkhan Aryan et Öljeitü à Philippe le Bel, Cambridge, Mass., 1962, 17 and plates I–VI.Google Scholar

³⁸ Most recently summarized at pp. 34–6 and 58–9 of Herrmann, G. and Doerfer, G., Ein persisch-mongolischer Erlass des Ǧalāyeriden Šeyḫ Oveys, CAJ, 19, 1975, 1–84.Google Scholar

³⁹ See, e.g.,Busse, H., Busse, Untersuchungen zun islamischen Kanzleiwesen an Hand turkmenischer und safawidischer Urkunden, Cairo 1959, 44–5; Keçik, 62–4; Fekete-Hazai, 55–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Published by Rahmeti, R. in Türkiyat Mecmuast, 6, 1936–1939, 285–322 and inGoogle ScholarAION, n.s. I, 1940, 25–68. The document is 710 cm. long.Google Scholar

⁴¹ In these features it resembles the latter (dated 873/1468) of the Timurid Abū Sa'īd to Uzun Ḥasan (Kurat, 119 ff.), in which God is invariably Tengri, and erenler himmeti. (so to be read) appears three times (II. 19, 39, 61) in conjunction with Tengri 'ināyeti. There is a further resemblance: in the Abū Sa'īd letter certain words are emphasized both by being written at the beginning of the line and by an indenting of the next line or two (Busse, loc. cit. un n. 39); similarly in the fethnāme, at the two points (II. 80, 114) where Allāh, not extruded, begine the line (with l. 113 shortened to permit this) the two following line are indented.

⁴² SeeBirbaum, E., ‘The Ottomans and Chaghatay literature’, CAJ, 20, 1976, 157–90, at pp. 164–5, referring to the important articles by O.F.Sertkaya.Google Scholar

⁴³ Keçik, no. 15 = fekete-Hazai, no. 7.

⁴⁴ Keçik, no. 18 = Fekete.Hazai, no. 11.

⁴⁵ Fekete-Hazai, no. 31; so too no.32.

⁴⁶ Kurat, pp. 107–75, facsimile (plates) 190–93.

⁴⁷ Bennigsen, 70–75, facsimile (defective for the upper section) at pp. 72–3.

⁴⁸ Against l. 49, written sideways in the right margin, are the words Meňli Gireyi, with a clear caret-sign showing where they are to be read into the text; this is probably the correction of an erroneous omission.

⁴⁹ The caret at l. 8 indicates that the writer's first intention was to introduce ll. 2–4 here, but he decided to press on with a further four lines of honorifics (borrowed from the same modeltext that supplied ll. 3–5 of Mengli Girey's; letter cited in n.50). The whole letter is very confusedly constructed, hesitating between the style of a friendly letter and that of an abject arż (I. 15: muḣibbāne ve muhliṣāne and then yér ōpüb).

⁵⁰ Kurat, 81–6 and 185–7 = Bennigsen, 41–4.

⁵¹ Bennigsen, 69.

⁵² Bennigsen, 76 Other instances of ‘honorific elevation’ in Crimean documents appear in the facsimiles of Bennigsen, 60–61 (caret at I. 14), 66 (=Kurat, 102, caret at I. 8), 69(caret at 1.2), 78 (caret in 1.4), 118 (read karindaṣim sultān). At p. 102, probably of summer 1512, the syntactical place of the heading is signalled by a small caret near the end of 1.3, but at p.100, written by the same secretary and in the same humble tone, the similar heading cannot be referred to any point in the text: here contemporary ‘Ottoman style’(see next paragraph) has prevailed.

⁵³ The following analysis, for which precise references need not be given, arises from a study of facsimiles published in Arsiv kilavuzu (Istanbul, 1938, 1940), in the books of Selâhattin Tansel, in İ. H. Ertaylan's Sultan Cem (Istanbul. 1951), and in periodicals (Tarih Dergisi, Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi [BTTD], etc.).

⁵⁴ cf., in the report of Pasha, Davud(c. 1482), Arşiv kilavuzu, II, doc. 17, 1. 13:Google Scholar ‘…elden geldükç a‘azza’llāhu anṣāhu yolmda hidmet ve kulluk édelüm…’.

⁵⁵ lix, Fekete P.. The practice is illustrated in (e.g) Belleten, 19, 1941,Google Scholar plate XCI (document of 983/1575), and G., Jacob, Hilfsbuch für Vorlesungen über das Osmanisch-Türkische, part I, Berlin, 1915, 74 (989/1581).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Undated order from a Grand Vizier instructing all the authorities between Venice and Istanbul to givesafe passage to the new bailo, Nicola Dolfin (1. 5). For this photograph, and for that of fig. 7, I am indebted tothe authorities of the Archivio di Stato, Venice, and to the good offices of Mr. P.M.L. Sebastian.

⁵⁷ Fekete, L., Türkische Schriften aus dem Archive des Palatins Nikolaus Esterhåzy, Budapest, 1932:Google Scholarsulṯānim (nos. 51, 53, 57, 63, 64). beg (nos. 52, 68). aġa (nos. 61, 70, 71), etc.; Meḣemmed Aġa (no. 60), oġlum Dervīş (no. 66), etc. See slso the facsimiles in F., Babinger, Das Archiv des Bosniaken Osman Pascha, Berlin, (also published in MSOS, 35, 1932).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Uzunçarşili, İ.H., Osmanli Tarihi, III/2, Ankara, 1954, plate 10.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ It does not figure, for example, in some telhiṣ submitted to Aḣmed I: Uzunçarşili, op. cit., pl. ll (Orhonlu, C., Telhîsler (1597–1607), Istanbul, 1970, no. 170Google Scholar);Orhonlu, op. cit., pl. 2 = no. 179.

⁶⁰ Uzunçili, op. cit., pl. 17 (Süleymān II, 1687–91), pl. 18 (Ahmed II, 1691–95).

⁶¹ BTTD, no.4 1968, 13:Google Scholar submission (c. 1800) to Selım III with the sulta's reply. Cf. also no. l, p. 53; no. 2, p. 50; no. 3, p. 69; etc.

⁶² Gökbligin, no. 99.

⁶³ I am most grateful to Dr. C. J. Heywood for directing me to the entry in Guboglu, M., Catalogul Documentelor Turceşti, II (1455–1829), Bucharest, 1965, no. 3 and pl. 2 (not sharp enough for reproduction).Google Scholar The editor refers to ‘the Sancakbegi Aḣmed ’, but ‘Ḫ'in’ Aḣmed, as Beglerbegi, was at this time at Ipsala (Hammer, GOR, III, ll)in preparation for the campaign against Belgrade.

⁶⁴ On a coin, cited by Doerfer, III, p. 158 (s.v. hān). Mengü ruled as Great Khan from 1251 to 1260.

⁶⁵ Letter of the Īlkhān Ahmad (1282–84) to the Mamlūk sultan Qalawun, cited by Doerfer, III, pp. 293–4 (s.v. sōzümiz).

⁶⁶ Cleaves, F. W., ‘The Mongolian documents in the Musée de Téhéran’, HJAS, 16, 1953, 1–107 (at p. 26). ‘God’ rather than (Cleaves) ‘Heaven’:Google Scholar See Doerfer's argument (n, pp. 578–80) That after islamization tämgri is differentiated in Turkish in the sense ‘God’, the (visible) sky being kōk; in this patently Islamic text tngri must stand for Allāh. Cleaves, discussing (pp.40–42) the possible interpretations of imad, opted for 'imdd, ‘support’, but Doerfer (II, p. 583) convincingly prefers himmat, adducing (cf. III, p. 294) a coin of the Timurid Ulug Beg: Temiir kilrgãn himmatidin.

⁶⁷ Kurat, pp. 8–10 and (plates) 161–6. Kun, T. Halasi (Ank. Ün. DTCFD, VII/4, 1949, 611–12.Google Scholar), pointing out that ile is a specifically Ottoman form (brle or bile is to be expected), suggested that the whole of 1. 1 is an invocatio (the ‘second invocatio’) borrowed from Ottoman usage. This, if my present arguments are valid, is chronologically impossible. I can only suggest that the use of lieis a compliment to the Ottoman addressee.

⁶⁸ Although al-Kawı is one of the names of Allāh (He is dhu 'l-kuwwa, Kur'ān, 51:58), His ‘power’ is usually comprehended under the term kudra. Moreover, in Islamthe ruler owes his authority not to the ‘strength’ of God, but to His arbitrary favour: the repeatedly quoted Kur'ānic verse is (3: 25)‘tu’ti al-mulk man tashā'’…a concept very close to the Christian doctrine (I Cor. 15: 10) of gratia/‘grace’.

⁶⁹ Kurat, pp. 64–7 and (plates) 175–84; re-editedHinz, W., in Documenta islamica inedita, Berlin, 1952, 212–17; Bennigsen, 33–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Hinz translates vilāyat ‘Heiligkeit’, but Bennigsen ‘protection sacrée’, which is preferable (and quasi-synonymous with the himmat noticed above).

More elaborate, and apparently in three members, is the exordium to the letter (of 870/1466) from the Golden Horderuler Mahmūud to Mehemmed II (Kurat, pp. 38–9 and (plates) 167–70). After the invocatio, ‘huwa’, it begins bi'l-kuvrwati 'l-Abadiyya wa bi'l-mu'jizāati'l-Mubammadiyya (i.e. as in the yarhk of Hajji Girey) and continues with words that are to me(as to Kurat) incomprehensible: (1. 3)wa'l-burhāniyya al-madadiyya (1. 4) fi'l-Maḣmūd- (encapsulated in hallada'lldhu/mulkahu) (1. 5) -iyya. Halasi Kun's correction (op. cit. in n. 67, p. 629) of burhāniyya to rūbāniyya is not justified. Although the preposition bi- is not repeated, the rhyme in -adiyya suggests that this is a third member, co-ordinate with the first two.

⁷¹ Abrahamowicz, nos. 20 and 19 (= Matuz, nos. 44/42 and 43).

⁷² Abrahamowicz, no. 9.

⁷³ Abrahamowicz, nos. 11 and 17.

⁷⁴ See above, p. 285, n. 10.

⁷⁵ Fekete-Hazai, p. 27. The invocation was later (after the battle of Caldiran ?) modified to Yā Muhammad, yā 'Alī, see Fekete-Hazai, nos. 55, 56 (Ismā'īl), 59, 64–6 (Tahmasb). The third member referring to the Four Caliphs tends to be omitted in the Ottoman texts quitesoon, as in Schaendlinger, nos. 23, 25 and 32 (as well as nos. 6 and 7, see above, p. 290): it is lacking, according to the texts as given by Ferīdūn, in the ‘ahdnāmes for Florence of 1563 (II,78) and for Austria of 1547 and 1568 (u, 76, 96). One might guess that the chancery felt it superfluous in addressing infidels to insist on the Ottomans' Sunnī orthodoxy; yet this member is present in the Dutch 'ahānāme. of 1612 (de Groot, op. cit. in n. 34, p. 233).

⁷⁶ It is noticeable that whereas the fethnāme of November 1534 sent to Ferdinand (Schaendlinger, no. 1) is a ‘ben ki/sen ki’ letter, with the three members of God, the Prophet and the FourCaliphs elevated, in the parallel text addressed to the Khān of the Crimea (Feridun, II, 2–6) the style is t h a t of a courteous letter (Cenāb-i emārei-me'db…., taḣiyāt-i şāfiyāl-i şāhāne…); the ‘three members’ appear early in the text (11. 9–14), but as part of the narrative: ‘I determined to march to the East, putting my trust in the grace of God’, etc.

⁷⁷ The fullest account of his life is by Uzunçarşik, ĪH.: ‘Onaltmci asir ortalarinda yasamis olan iki bülyüiik şahsiyet. Tosyali Celâlzade Mustafa ve Salih Çelebiler’, Belleten, XXII/87, 1958, 391–441Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Feridun, I, 544–6.

⁷⁹ Babinger, F., ‘Die älteste tÜrkische Urkunde des deutsch-osmanischen Staatsverkehrs’, Der Islam, 10, 1920, 134–46 (= Aufsdtze, u, 1966, 227–39).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ These titles echo closely the wording of the berāt (Ferīdūn, i, 545, 11. 33–4): ‘kemd-kdn vezīr-i a'am ve kāffe-i memālik-i maḣrusemāe cenāb-i celālet-me'āim ḳibelinden ser‘askerim’. The late letter of 941/1535 to the Doge of Venice (Gökbilgin, no. 131) has the same arrangement, but Ibrāhīm is by now styled ‘kāyim-makām-i saltanat leşker-keş-i sāmi-mertebet ve vezīr-i a'zam-i cenāb-i hilāfet-menkibetleri ser'asker sultān’ (as in Schaendlinger, no. 1; cf. also for the increasingly grandiose titulature, Abrahamowicz, nos. 28, 31, 32 (Italian), 36, 38). (Incidentally, Dr. Schaendlinger is mistaken in interpreting ‘ ser'asker-i sultan’, ‘Heeresbefehlshaber des Sultans’: Ibrāhīm, during the Baghdad campaign of 1534–35, had been flattered into adopting the title sultan; see Pecevi, I, 189–91, and his now-published source, Celālzāde's Ṭabaḳāt al-mamālik, ed.' P. Kappert, Wiesbaden, 1981, ff. 274b and 277b.)

⁸¹ Dr. Schaendlinger comments appositely (but without reference to Babinger) on the arrangement of two similarly-constructed letters of 1534 from Ibrāhīm to Ferdinand (p. xviii), but has not noticed that the name of the sultan is displaced upwards.

⁸² See above, p. 285.

⁸³ Matuz, Kanzleiwesen, no. 1 (embassy to present congratulations on the victory of Mohács); Gökbilgin, no. 96 (embassy to attend the circumcision ceremonies for Süleyman's sons, see Hammer, GOR, i n, p. 96 and n. ( a ); Matuz, Herrscherurkunden, no. 73 is to be corrected).

⁸⁴ Gökbilgin, nos. 19 and 9 (= Matuz, nos. 223 and 314) respectively.

⁸⁵ See above, n. 8. The Austrian ‘ahdnāme (FeridQn, n, 76–8) is Matuz, no. 248.

⁸⁶ Beginning with Abrahamowicz, no. 45 ( = Matuz, no. 123): ḳidwat al-umarā al-'izām… The next ben ki letter recorded by Abrahamowicz is his no. 108 ( = Matuz, no. 286), of 957/1550, to King Sigismund II.

⁸⁷ For Venice, in the ‘ahdnāmes’ of 1517, 1521 (Gökbilgin, nos.129, 130, 128); for Ragusa, 1513 (Elezović, no.III).

⁸⁸ This allusion to the legendary ‘Seal of Solomon’ (for which see, e.g., Gibb, E.J.W., History of Ottoman poetry, II, 1902, 39,Google Scholar), appropriate enough in 1562, is less apposite under Süleymān's successors.

⁸⁹ Ferdinand is stlyed ‘imperador’ (but with no list of territories) in Schaendlinger's nos. 23 as and 24, but these appear to be drafts (see above, pp. 284–5).

⁹⁰ See above, p. 289.

⁹¹ The sen ki element offers no such logical difficulty: in some cases it leads on, as subject, into the narratio; and when it does not, it stands satisfactorily as a vocative.

⁹² A feature which attracted Dr.Schaendlinger's attention, see above, n. 34.

⁹³ Ferīfūn, II, 78'80 (= Matuz, no. 626).

⁹⁴ On this interpretation, the Persian conjunction çūn ‘foreshdows’ the Turkish causative dükleri ecilden. Such a use, strictly speaking pleonastic, of loanwordes to give warning to the coming Turkish construction is a common feature of Ottoman syntax (cf. eger, şāyed, egerç kāşki; 'ādetā, sanki; ṭibḳi; etc.).

⁹⁵ Feīdūn, II, 96'100. this text begins with çūn and reads (1. 25) ve sen ki(error ?).

⁹⁶ Mu'āhedāt mecmū'ast, III, 65–9 (cf. Hammer, GOR, IV, 27). This text has no çūn and reads (1.25). This text has no çūn and no strin go territorial names for the sultan.

⁹⁷ De Groot, op. cit. in n. 34, pp. 233–5