Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1, March 2004
Diplomatic Correspondence between Byzantium and
the Mamlu k Sultanate in the Fourteenth Century
1
DIMITRI A. KOROBEINIKOV
ABSTRACT The present paper studies the titles of the Byzantine emperors used by the Mamluk
chancery. The surviving Mamluk chancery textbooks of the fourteenth century provide us with
new, rich data on the modes of address customarily employed by the Mamluk sultans in writing
to the Byzantine emperors. What determined the choice of a particular title? Were these titles
translated into Arabic from the Byzantine originals or were these formulas the inventions of the
Mamluk secretaries? Was the attitude demonstrated by the Mamluks towards the Byzantine
emperor an innovation in chancery practice, or was it a part of a traditional view, shared by
other great powers, the I
lkhans.
38
Though the text of the formula
for correspondence with Byzantine emperors did not survive in Nakhchiwan , some
elements of the formula remain in the inscriptio of the I
toj:toj 'Poj::ov); the lord sublime malik (a mixture of the terms `tpzo,
(sublime) and [:o:zt, (emperor)). Most of the epithets, however, are of the
Oriental origin. For example, the Byzantine emperors never named themselves (at least
ofcially) as emperors of the Greeks.
62
The East, however, revered the cultural inherit-
ance and prestige of Ancient Greece, and this reverence is reected in the titles of the
emperor (whose subjects were Greek-speaking and whose empire was heir of Ancient
Rome) in the epithets [who is] reviving ways of the philosophers and wise men and
the last of the maliks of the Greeks.
In order to demonstrate how authentic Byzantine attitudes (but not the Byzantine
titles!) were adopted by the Mamlu k chancery, let me consider the epithet the only
sovereign of Jesus faith, [who is] authorized to [distribute] thrones and crowns.
At rst sight, the epithet represents a purely Byzantine idea. One might refer to the
times when the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty sent crowns as gifts, like the
Holy Crown of Hungary and the Crown of Constantine IX Monomachos.
63
However, one should note that this idea was never expressed in the titles of the
Byzantine emperors. The Byzantines used another statement: they underlined the fact
that the emperor was heir of the crown of Constantine I the Great (305337), the
founder of Constantinople. For example, the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143
1180) described himself as the directed by God heir of the crown of Constantine the
Great.
64
We do not know the precise date when the title of the Byzantine emperor, cited in
al-'Umar , came into being. Obviously, the title was an extended version of that of
Michael VIII Palaiologos, as was shown in the Arabic version of the text of the treaty
of 1281. Therefore, 1281 is the terminus ante quem when the title in al-'Umar was
composed. The terminus post quem is the invasion of the khan Uzbek against Byzantium
in winterspring 1341.
Our next target is the formula that survived in al-Tathq f of Ibn Nazir al-Jaysh. He
writes:
S ah ib al-Qust ant niyya. He is al-Askar (Laskaris), malik al-Ru m. And
the formula (rasm) of the correspondence with him, in the half-format size
[of the Baghdad paper, qat ' al-nisf ]
65
, is [as follows]: May Allah the High
double the magnicence of his Majesty the sublime malik, the honoured, the
revered, the lion (al-asad), the high-placed (lit. important, al-khat r), the
heroic, the brave, the valiant, the lion (al-dargham), and so on, the one versed
among his community (millat), equitable to the people of his realm, the
honour of the Christian nation, the head of the communion of the Cross, the
beauty of the sons of baptism, the sabre (sams am) of the maliks of Greece
(al-Yunaniyya), the sword of the kingdom of Macedonia (al-Makaduniyya),
the malik of Bulgaria (al-Burghaliyya, )
66
and Vlakhia (al-Amlahiyya,
),
67
the ruler of the great cities of al-Ru s and al-'Alan, the protector
of the faith of the Georgians (al-kurj) and Syrians (al-suryan), the heir of
[ancient] thrones and crowns, the sovereign of the ports and seas and gulfs,
Doukas (al-D uqas/al-D uqus , var. al-T uqas/al-T uqus, ) Angelos
(al-Anjalus) Komnenos (al-Kumn nus) Palaiologos (al-Balalughas/al-
Balalughus, ), the friend of the maliks and the sultans. His (i.e.
emperors) ofcial title is: the sovereign of the Roman realm (dabit mamlakat
al-Rum). So this is the correspondence which is considered as [now] being in
use [lit. in circulation] between the sovereigns.
68
60 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov
It is difcult to establish the date when the formula in Ibn Nazir al-Jaysh was created
as the text of al-Tathq f has no dates. However, the formula was used by the Mamlu k
chancery and thus can be found at the beginning of some letters which the Mamlu k
sultans sent to the emperors. These letters which were originally composed in Arabic,
were then translated into Greek. There are two surviving Greek translations of the
formula in Ibn Nazir al-Jaysh.
The rst is part of the Arabic letter (surviving only in the Greek translation) of the
sultan al-Nasir Muh ammad (693694/12941295, 698708/12991309, 709741/
13091340) to the emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (13281341).
69
Thus, I can
establish the precise date when the new formula was composed: between the invasion
of the khan Uzbek (winterspring 742/1341) and the death of Andronikos III (15 June
1341). Though the work of al-'Umar was nished between 744/1343 and 746/1345,
70
he obviously reproduced in al-Ta'r f a rather old formula, which was in use during the
time, when he was head of the chancery in Damascus (740742/13391341 or 743/
1342).
The second is the letter of the sultan al-Nasir H asan (748752/13471351, 755762/
13541361) to the emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (13471354), dated 30 October
750/1349.
71
The translations are slightly different from the original. Both are written in vernacular
Greek, in a strange mixture of Classical and Modern Greek forms.
The letter of al-Nasir Muh ammad to Andronikos III reads:
I write in the name of God, God the Compassionate. May God give many
years to the emperor, the highest, the most powerful, the most glorious, the
most manly, the most strong, the lion, the most wise Andronikos, the learned
in his religion, the most just in his realm, the pillar of the faith of the
Christians, the father of the baptized, the honour of Christianity, the sword of
the kingdom of the Macedonians, the most brave one in the kingdom of the
Hellenes, the emperor of Bulgaria, Vlachia, Alania, the master of Rus,
Georgia and the Turks, the heir of the empire of the Romans, the sovereign
of two seas and the rivers, Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos, may you
always be in your kingdom, and always be secure in our love, and may you
full with care the wishes of our servitude.
72
The beginning of the letter (I write in the name of God, God the Compassionate)
is the so-called basmala, the formula In the name of God, the Compassionate, the
Merciful. The nal part of the formula (may you always be in your kingdom, and
always be secure in our love, and may you full with care the wishes of our servitude)
is the so-called du'a` (prayer), which usually nishes the inscriptio. The translation
contains an addition: Andronikos III is regarded as master of the Turks. This is the
reection to the special relations between Byzantium and the Turks, which were
established during the reign of this emperor and which were continued by John VI
Kantakouzenos.
73
It was the union between the Aegean Turks and Andronikos III that led to the
incursion of Uzbek into Byzantium in 1341, after which a new formula (surviving in Ibn
Nazir al-Jaysh) was adopted by the chancery in Cairo. The circumstances of 1341 are
noteworthy, as these nicely explain the peculiar addition of the name of the Turks to
the list of the nations subordinate to the Byzantine emperor.
In summer 1339 Andronikos III quarrelled with his former ally Umu r-pasha, the
ruler of the emirate of Aydn-ogullar in the Aegean.
74
In the next year, summer of 1340
Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 61
Umu r-pasha invaded the islands of Andros, Naxos, Paros, Tinos, Mikonos, as well as
the fortress Koc/Modon and the lands of the Serbians and Albanians.
75
We also know
from the Byzantine sources that Umur penetrated the lands of the empire in Thrace,
Macedonia, mainland Greece and the Morea.
76
Before October 1340 Umu r appeared
with large eet near Constantinople, but Andronikos III managed to prevent the assault
by inviting Umu r to devastate any other territory. Umu r attacked Kili (Kilia, Licos-
tomo, in the Danubian Delta), in the lands of Eak (Wallachia), at the request of tekfur
of Istanbul, as the Destan of Umur-pasha says.
77
Whatever benet the Byzantines might
have gained from Umu rs expedition against this strategically important land, neverthe-
less the Danubian Delta was under the formal rule of the khan of the Golden Horde.
In winterspring 1341 the Byzantine government received a letter from the daughter of
Andronikos II, wife of the khan Uzbek, relating the beginning of the punitive expedition
of the Golden Horde Mongols against Constantinople.
78
According to al-'Umar ,
79
the
Mongols attacked Constantinople in the area of the walls of Manuel I Komnenos in
Blachernae.
80
In order to end the conict, the father of Demetrios Kydones was sent to
Saray. He concluded a peace treaty with the khan in the same year.
81
It was at that time
that the sultan al-Nasir Muh ammad sent the letter to Andronikos III with a new form
of address.
Andronikos III died in Constantinople on the night of 14/15 June 1341.
82
Soon after,
the tsar John Alexander (13311371) of Bulgaria sent an embassy to the regent John
Kantakouzenos. The tsar threatened to wage war, demanding the extradition of his
rival, the refugee John S
lkhans used
in their relations with Byzantium.
In 1287 the I
lkhanid chancery utilised a part of the inscriptio to the Byzantine emperor, the
heir of Alexander the Great in the eyes the Muslims, while addressing to the Armenian
kings.
However, the kings of Cilician Armenia believed that their kingdom was part of the
Roman realm.
122
This nicely explains why the titles of the Byzantine emperors were
applied to them by the I
lkhans and the Mamlu ks, shared one and the same
idea: they believed that the Byzantine emperor was the head of Christendom, the chief
protector for the Christian faith and the heir of Alexander the Great. It is interesting to
note that the Byzantines, while promoting the notion that their emperor occupied the
highest rank nevertheless accorded him no title equivalent to the sword of the kingdom
of Macedonia.
124
The formula of al-Tathq f existed less than a hundred years, until the 1430s. There
is a letter of sultan Barsbay (825842/14221438) to the emperor John VIII Palaiologos
(14251448), which was composed in Arabic and then translated into Greek between
1425 and 1438. The surviving Greek text (the Arabic original was lost) reveals that
during the reign of Barsbay the Mamlu ks returned to the older formula of al-'Umar in
their relations with Byzantium:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May God the Highest
always secure the magnicence, the sublimity and the charisma of the power
of your great Imperial Majesty, the most powerful lion, the basilisk and
dragon, the lion, the eminent and manly, the true emperor, Palaiologos, the
natural ruler and king of all kings, the support and establishment of the
religion of Christ, the autocrat of the Romans and all the coastal cities, the
heir of the empire of Caesar and the master of the rites of the Christians, the
equitable for the people under his power, the only emperor of emperors of the
believers in Christ, the master of thrones and crowns, the surveyor of the sea
and the rivers, the emperor of emperors John, [the master] of Syria and the
pillar of all the baptized, the beloved by the pope of Rome, the successor of
ancient amity and the true friend of the Muslims, the beloved emperor of all
the emperors, the sultan John Palaiologos.
125
Moravcsik suggests that the formula shows the decline of Byzantium as it was seen
in Egypt.
126
However, he did not know the formula in al-'Umar . On the contrary, in
the 1430s, when the Byzantine emperor ceased to be father of the Ottoman sultan (in
1422 the Ottomans besieged Constantinople and Byzantium again became tributary to
them), the Mamlu ks restored the old formula of the earlier days of the empire.
Thus, the analysis both of the formulas in al-'Umar and Ibn Nazir al-Jaysh demon-
66 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov
strate that these represented the Byzantine idea of the emperor as the highest ranking
Christian ruler, but did do so in a very peculiar way. While Byzantine by nature, the
formulas do not correspond with the traditional Byzantine Imperial titles. At least I
found no Byzantine document that could have been utilised by the Mamlu k chancery
while composing the formulas. How can one explain the discrepancy?
It is the letter of the sultan Barsbay that sheds some light on the problem. Like two
other Greek translations (of the letters of the sultan al-Nasir Muh ammad to An-
dronikos III, and of al-Nasir H asan to John VI Kantakouzenos), the letter of Barsbay
was written in vernacular Greek,
127
which runs against the traditions of the Byzantine
Imperial chancery.
128
Moreover, there are surviving medieval dictionaries which could
have been used in Cairo. One of them, the so called Hexaglot, is the most extensive
transcription text of Middle Greek. This dictionary was composed by the am r of Aden,
al-Malik al-Afd al al-'Abbas b. 'Al (765779/13631377) and contains entries in the
Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Mongol, Greek and Armenian languages.
129
It is important to
note that the Turkic section reproduces some Kipcak (Cuman) forms, which immedi-
ately points to an area Mamlu k Egypt where both Oguz and Kipcak elements in
language were common.
130
As to Greek in Hexaglot, it belongs to the AnatolianCypriot
group of Greek dialects.
131
It seems unlikely that the Hexaglot was used while translating
the Arabic original of the letter of the sultan Barsbay in the 1430s, for many words in
the letter cannot be found in the Hexaglot. But the trend is evident: while in Byzantium
the classical Attic form of the language remained vital throughout the life of the empire,
the written Greek language outside Byzantium (in the territories where the classical
education no longer survived) changed, and the documents were composed in a strange
mixture of Classical and Modern Greek. According to the usual diplomatic practice,
the letters would have been sent in two exemplars: one had to be composed in the
language of the sender, whilst another was a translation into the language of the
addressee. The Mamlu ks followed this rule: along with other translators, a Greek
dragoman is recorded in the chancery in Cairo.
132
Moreover, the letter of the sultan Barsbay in 14251438 reveals that its translator
was not a Byzantine Greek, though doubtless he was Christian. He compares the
emperor with a basilisk (a serpent), and a dragon. This is a reference to Psalm 90.13:
Thou shalt tread on the asp and basilisk: and thou shalt trample on the lion and
dragon ( :
lkhanid chancery
accepted the Byzantine idea of the two leaders of Christendom (one was king of Franks,
whilst another was Byzantine emperor). The Mamlu ks created a very complex system
of hierarchy, so partly accepting the Byzantine idea of the Christian oikumena. Thus,
the traditional attitude to Byzantium as an empire of the indels, so common at the
beginning of the Muslim era, was replaced by a much more complex vision. This was
achieved by skilful diplomatic efforts by Byzantium, as the dying empire more and more
relied on church diplomacy. It has been stated that Byzantium never had constant
residents abroad, such as the baiuli of the Republic of Venice.
142
However, if the Greek
(Melkite) patriarch of Alexandria, whose permanent residence was in Egypt, served as
a Byzantine interpreter and thus a member of the embassy in 1411,
143
this shows that
the patriarchate could have been used as a kind of permanent diplomatic mission
abroad.
I return to the beginning of the article: did the Ottomans, who, unlike the Mamlu ks
and the I
lkhans, were the empires neighbours, share the same view at the prestige of
Byzantium, the oldest state in the Mediterranean? That is another story.
68 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov
NOTES
1. This paper would have been impossible without help of many people. I am indebted to Dr M.
Whittow, Dr R. Repp and Dr M. Martin, who read the manuscript and made various comments.
I also wish to express my thanks to the participants of three seminars (in Leeds, Oxford and
Birmingham) where the paper was discussed. My special thanks to Miss Maria Kouroumali who
checked my translations from Modern Greek. Any mistakes are of course mine.
2. M.M. Alexandrescu-Dersca, La campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402) (London, 1977), pp. 80-
85. Timur plundered western Anatolia and then besieged and took Smyrna, 2 December 14025
January 1403. K.A. Zhukov, Egeiskiie emiraty v XIV-XV vv (Moscow, 1988), p. 59.
3. Relation de Gerardo Sagredo, in Alexandrescu-Dersca, 129130.
4. Perhaps, Ducas refers to the Turkish expression ot yoldurmak (lit. to weed), which means to
give trouble to. Therefore, the expression a weed should not grow between us means there
will be nothing to cause trouble between us at all (as there is nothing to weed).
5. Ducas, Istoria Turco-Byzantina (13411462), ed. V. Grecu (Bucharest, 1958), p. 113, ll.1820;
D.M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 12611453 (Cambridge, 1993), p. 319.
6. G.T. Dennis, The ByzantineTurkish treaty of 1403, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 33 (1967):
7778 (2), 81. On the historical background, see J.W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (13911425):
A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, NJ, 1969), pp. 222225.
7. Dennis, 77 (1): copia pactorum pacis facte cum domino Musulman Zalabi, scripte in ydiomate
turcho (the copy of the peace treaty written in Turkish characters, which was made with the
lord Su leyman C elebi).
8. Dennis, 78 (3), cf. Ducas, 111, l.21133, l.4. See also: A. Bakalopulos, Les limites de lEmpire
Byzantine depuis la n du XIV
e
sie`cle jusqua` sa chute (1453), Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 55
(1962): 5665.
9. H. Inalcik, Mehemmed I, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, volumes IXI (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
19602002; second edition), VI: 974.
10. Laonicos Chalcocondylas, Historiarum demonstrationes, ed. E. Darco , volumes III (Budapest,
19221924), I: 159, l.1165, l.6; Ducas, 113, ll. 18-26; Die altosmanische Chronik des
'A
gypte au XIII
e
sie`cle et les relations diplomatiques de
Michel VIII Paleologue avec les sultans mamlu ks Baibars et Qalau n, in idem., Byzance et les
musulmans du Proche Orient, N IV, pp. 198199. The reconstruction of the Greek version of the
treaty was published with a rich commentary by F. Do lger, Der Vertrag des Sultans Qalau n von
A
gypten mit dem Kaiser Michael VIII. Palaiologos (1281), in idem., Byzantinische Diplomatik,
pp. 225244. The Arabic version survived in al-Qalqashand , XIV: 7278 and in the chronicle of
Ibn al-Furat, Tar kh al-duwal wal-muluk(published as an Appendix in Ibn 'Abd al-Z ahir, Tashr f
al-ayyam wal-'usur f sirat al-Malik al-Mansur, ed. M. Kam l [Cairo, 1961], pp. 204209). The full
text of the treaty was recently translated by P.M. Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (12601290).
Treaties of Baybars and Qalawun with Christian Rulers (Leiden New York Ko ln, 1995),
pp. 118128.
41. Do lger, Der Vertrag, 234.
42. The Greek word kyr, reproduced in the Arabic characters, means lord.
43. Ibn 'Abd al-Z ahir, 207; al-Qalqashand , XIV: 7576, Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 125:
: var)
A similar title of Michael VIII and his co-emperor Andronikos II can be found a few lines below
(Ibn 'Abd al-Z ahir, 207; al-Qalqashand , XIV: 76, Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, 126):
: var)
( from : var)
44. al-'Umar (ed. H usayn), 76-77; al-'Umar (ed. al-Dru b ), 6869.
45. al-'Umar (ed. H usayn), 75; al-'Umar (ed. al-Dru b ), 6768: And his (i.e. sahib of al-Bulghar
wa l-Sarbs) land is within the borders of the kingdom of the sahib al-Saray (i.e. the khan of the
Golden Horde), and sometimes he appears to be obedient and submissive to the sahib al-Saray.
46. al-'Umar (ed. H usayn), 76; al-'Umar (ed. al-Dru b ), 68.
47. Al-'Umar means the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.
48. The caliph al-Mahd (158169/775785) sent Haru n al-Rash d (170193/786809) against
Constantinople in 165/782. Later, in 190/806 Haru n al-Rash d took Herakleia Pontike. M.
Canard, Les expeditions des arabes contre Constantinople dans lhistoire et dans la legende, in
ibid., Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), N 1, pp. 102104; al-Droubi, A
Critical Edition, 144.
49. The Arabic attack against Constantinople was undertaken by Maslama ibn 'Abd al-Malik in
99/717718. Canard, Les expeditions des arabes, 8094.
50. Al-'Umar refers to the campaign of the future caliph Yaz d I (6064/680683) against Con-
stantinople in 4849/668669. Canard, Les expeditions des arabes, 6770.
51. Uzbek was the khan of the Golden Horde in 712742/13121341.
52. I suggest that Bahr al-Mughlaq means the Golden Horn, which was closed by the chain.
Byzantine-Mamluk Diplomatic Correspondence 71
53. On Uzbeks invasion to Byzantium in 1341, see below.
54. [al-balalaus], of which is most likely the deformed family name Palaiologos. It is not
completely excluded, however, that before us there is the title basileus. H. Lammens translates
al-balalau s as Paleologue, as does al-Droubi: Lammens, 172; al-Droubi, A Critical Edition,
145.
55. [al-ra daraghun], which is a transliteration in the Arabic letters of the French Roi
dAragon. Probably, this is an interpolation from another formula. Cf. al-Droubi, A Critical
Edition, 145.
56. On this term, see F. De Blois, Nasran (N:oj:: `o,) and h an f (
:` :t
ototo, :: ` :t toj:toj
'Poj:: ov, o`
Azo,.
62. S. Runciman writes that in the later Byzantine era, the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1391
1425) was often addressed as emperor of the Hellenes. However, Manuel IIs ofcial signature does
not show him styled in such a way: like his ancestors, he continued to name himself as: M:votp`z,
ihannuma,
die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlana Mehemmed Neschr (Leipzig, 1951), I: 247 (index).
68. Ibn Nazir al-Jaysh, 28; al-Qalqashand , VIII: 4546.
69. W. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Rossica (Petropolis, 1891), p. 58.
70. al-Droubi, A Critical edition, 45.
71. Canard, Une lettre du Sultan Nasir Hasan a` Jean Cantacuze`ne, 30.
72. Regel, 58: Ij:[o
v o
voj:t: ot `, ot ` tot `
zot `vto,, oztjov:ov o:poo: o` o`, to`v [:o:z:
to`v t`pzot:tov, to`v j:t::ot:tov, to`v
vooot:tov, to`v :
otjot:tov, to`v
zovt:, to`v [jov:jo t:tov Avojov:ov, to`v vopjov: tp `, :t
tot `, to`v ott `zov tp `, :oto, to`v j:ot::vo`v, to`v :tj: to`v [[:t:ojvov, tp`v
t:jp`v tot ` j:ot::v:ojot `, tp`v o:pv tp`, [:o:z::, to`v M:oovov, tp`v : voj:otpt: tp`, [:o:z::,
to`v 'Ezzpvov, to`v [:o:z: tp`, Botz:j: :, :: ` tp`, Bz:::, :: ` tp`, `Az:v::,, to`v :tvtp tp `,
'Poo::, :: ` `I[j::, :: ` to`v Totjov, to`v zpjovojov tp`, [:o:z::, to`v 'Poj::ov, to`v
oto::ovt: to`v oto :z:ooo`v ::` to`v ot:jo`v, Aot:v
v ot v:` p
`
o:: :vtot :, tp`v [:o:z::v oot, ::` v:` p
`
o:: :vtot otjjo`, :, tp`v : :pv p`jo`v,
:: ` v:` zpjo vp , jt:` :jz::, t:`, ootz::, p`jo`v.
73. T. Florinskii, Juzhnye Slaviane i Vizantiia vo vtoroi chetverti XIV veka (London, 1973), pp. 4450,
6184.
72 Dimitri A. Korobeinikov
74. M. Treu, Matthaios Metropolit von Ephesos (Potsdam, 1901), p. 53, l.3154, l.15; U.V. Bosch,
Andronikos III. Palaiologos (Amsterdam, 1965), pp. 163164; Zhukov, 3839.
75. I. Melikoff-Sayar, ed., Le Destan dUmur Pacha (Dusturname- Enveri) (Paris, 1954), p. 87, ll.
11351140.
76. Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri VI graece et latine, ed. L. Schopen, volumes
IIII (CSHB, 18281832), I: 537, ll. 713 (hereafter Kantakouzenos); E.A. Zachariadou, Trade
and Crusade (Venice, 1983), pp. 4142.
77. Le Destan dUmur Pacha, 89-93, ll. 12101305; cf. P. Lemerle, LE
jjoov :ttot `, tot ` oo[ot:tot :, to` ooj: :t tot `, tot ` o:::ot:tot :, to`v toov
::` tp`v o j:v :ttot `, tot ` jz:ot tp`, :oto, :: ` tot ` ooj:to, to`v Xj:ot::vo`v, tot ` :ovto, tot `
:o:otot :` :vto`v to`v [[:t:ojvov, tot ` [opot ` to`v ooj:tov tot ` Xj:otot `, tp `, o:p, to`v
M:oovov, tot ` 2:jo` v, tot ` [:o:zo, to`v 'Ezzpvov, tot ` [:o:zo, to`v Botz:jov, to`v
`Ao:v:ov, to`v Bz:ov, to`v 'Po oov ::` to`v `Az:vo`v, tp`, t:jp`, tot ` ooj:to, to`v `I[pjov ::` to`v
2tjov, tot ` zpjovojot tp `, [:o:z::, tp`, p`, :t tot `, tot ` :t vtot to`v :z:ooo`v, ::` to`v ot:jo`v
to`v j:zov :: ` to`v vpoov, `Azot Kojvpvot ` H:z::ozoot tot ` K:vt:otpvot `.
91. Obolensky, passim.
92. Do lger, Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 157, n. 42: M:votp`z v Xj:oto to o
:oto`, [:o:zt`[, o` oj[tjovvpto,, 'Poj::ov :ttoj:toj] t o[ot:to,, ::o[:oto,,
:t
bersetzung des
Taqwim al-buldan von Abul-Fida (gest. 732 H/1331 n. Chr.). Nachdruck der Ausgabe Paris,
Imprimerie Nationale 1848 und 1883. Band II, 1 und 2 (U
v ot v:` p
`
o:: :vtot :, tp`v [:o:z::v oot, ::` v:` p
`
o:: :vtot otjjo`, :, tp`v
::pv p`jo`v, ::` v:` zpjo vp , jt:` :jz::, t:`, ootz::, p`jo`v in the letter in 1341; :vtot
p` [:o:z:: oot to` zpj: :t tp`, v:` to` ptp` : o` tp`v 2otzt:v:p`v oto::v jot, ::` : o` to` o opt:ov
j:, to` p`::ojvov ::` [ot:ojvov, ::` o` , ojv :`o:v otv:j:v v:` zpjo`jv tp`v ::pv tp`,
[:o:z::, oot in the letter in 1349; v:` otjo vp o` o`, o` t `:oto, :vtot :vtot to` j:z: `ov
::` t `o, ::` :j:oj: tp`, oto: :, tp`, [:o:z::, oot tp`, j:zp, in the letter in 14251438.
128. Cf. Moravcsik, 113.
129. P.B. Golden, ed., The Kings Dictionary.The Rasulid Hexaglot: Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in
Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol (LeidenBostonKo ln, 2000).
130. Idem, 1819.
131. Idem, 1920.
132. Moravcsik, 111.
133. Moravcsik, 108, l.77: j:[p jpv:` M::o tot,
134. Cf. R. Cormacks analysis of the crown of Constantine Monomachus: R. Cormack, But is this
art?, in Shepard and Franklin, 231.
135. 'Abd al-H usayn Nawa , Asnad wa mukatabat-i tarikh -yi I