^{page 50 note 1} C = Āl-i ‘‘ , ed. ‘Alī, Istanbul, 1332/1914; G = Die altosmanische Chronik des ‘ĀšiḲpašazāde, ed. F. Giese, Leipzig, 1929.

^{page 50 note 2} The first nine lines of C's prologue (to qalem ) depend only on the Vatican MS, for the other MS (Arch. Mus. 478) on which C is based lacks, inter alia, the first leaf (see C, introd., p. xviii).

^{page 50 note 3} C, though extending (to 908/1502) well beyond the terminus of G (890/1485), reproduces features (the prologue among them) which survive from a recension of ‘Āpz.'s work still earlier than any extant in MS. Wittek, P.'s arguments for this (OLZ, xxxiv, 8, 1931, cols. 698–707Google Scholar) are by no means refuted by Giese's, two rejoinders (OLZ, xxxv, 1, 1932, cols. 7–17Google Scholar, and Die verschiedenen Textrezensionen des ‘ĀšiḲpašazāde bei seinen Nachfolgern und Ausschreibern(Abh. d. Pr. Ak. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl., 1936, Nr. 4).

^{page 51 note 1} Namely MS Emanet-Hazinesi 1433/1, first mentioned by Aktepe, Münir(Tarih Dergisi, I, 2, 1950, 287Google Scholar) and Levend, A. S. (Gazavāt-nameler, Ankara, 1956, 34Google Scholar), and now described by Karatay, F. E. (Topkapt Sarayi Müzesi Kütüphanesi türkçe yazmalar kataloğu, Istanbul, 1961, I, 203Google Scholar), who dates it to the end of the sixteenth century. While in Istanbul in 1959 I took some notes of its readings and, by the kindness of the Turkish authorities, obtained a microfilm of it. In scope it belongs to the group of MSS B[erlin], M[ordtmann], and U[psala] (on which G is based), its readings being in general closest to those of MS M. Its last chapters are in the order 160–5, 167–8, 166, 169, i.e. as in MSS BM (see G, introd., p. 14), the text ending at G 202, 15, shortly before the close of MSS DM.

^{page 51 note 2} Here, for the locative devrinde, the other MSS of this group have the ablative devrinden, a misreading (or emendation ?–see p. 52, n. 1) which is graphically very easy (cf., ten words later, M's Faqih-den for Faqi-de) but which produces the impossible implication that the son of imām was ‘Āpz.'s authority for events from the time of Meḥemmed I up to the time of Bāyezīd— and hence necessarily Bāyezīd II. Wittek's, suggestion (MOG, II, 1923–5, 147Google Scholar), accepted by Giese (G, introd., 25–6), that the words bracketed ┌┐ are a copyist's insertion was based on the fact that they are lacking in MS D[resden] (quoted in MOG, I, 1921–2, 97), which he believed to represent an earlier recension. However, as D has also the (clearly corrupt) bunt for the of the other MSS, it is possible that D's copyist, finding devrinden in his exemplar and noticing the discrepancy of the implied reference to Bāyezīd II, droppedthe bracketed words as part of an attempt to repair the whole passage.

^{page 51 note 3} The passage in the prologue, though closely echoing the wording of the other reference to Faqīh, adds two important details, the name of the father, Isḥaq, and the fact that the Mendāib were written down (buldum). These must have been inserted by ‘Āpz. himself when, in ‘editing’ the recension represented in G, he expanded the prologue by bringing forward to its logical place the name of his principal authority. Ḥājjī (al-ẓunūn, ed. Flügel, no. 2154 = ed. Yaltkaya and Bilge, I, 283), followed by Hammer (GOR, i, xxxiii), gives the father's name as ‘Ilyās’, a slip induced perhaps by the appearance in the first lines of the prologue, in the genealogy of ‘Āpz. himself, of the name ‘Baba Ilyās’.

Hammer, following (and misunderstanding ?) Idrīs Bidlisī's , names among the bearers of ‘ coffin ‘Osman Jachshi, der Imam Urchan's’ (GOR, i, 77), whom Babinger (GOW, 11, n.) thought to be perhaps another imām of ; but the autograph fair-copy of the reads here (MS Nur-i Osmaniye 3209, fol. 70v): ‘Mevlānā Faqīh, the permanent imām of ‘ Beg’ the lightly pointed autograph draft [MS Esad Ef. 2197, f. 65r.] having for the name only ). Idrīs probably invented the episode, culling the names of the dignitaries of the day from his various sources (‘Āpz. among them), and carelessly writing the name for that of the father Isḥāq.

^{page 52 note 1} Thus the reading devrinden may be not a slip but the ‘Verschlimmbesserung’ of a copyist who assumed that the one source named in the prologue must have extended as far as the work reaches—to the reign of Bāyezīd II.

^{page 52 note 2} The existence and the extent of these common passages was first noted by Babinger, F. (Der Islam, xi, 1921, 27Google Scholar–8); his suggestion (there, and in GOW, 10) that they derived from Faqīh, though implicitly rejected by Wittek, P. (Der Islam, xx, 1932, 205Google Scholar), has received general acceptance.

^{page 52 note 3} Giese was mistaken in stating (MOG, I, 70, in the separately published ‘Einleitung’ to his Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, i, Breslau, 1922Google Scholar) that the last of the common passages was that relating Meḥemmed I's final campaign against Mūsā (‘Anon.’ 51, 15 ff. = ‘Āpz. C 83, 13 ff./G ç 70); H. İnalcik has now pointed out (in Lewis, B. and Holt, P. M. (ed.), Historians of the Middle East, London, 1962, 152Google Scholar–3) that the last point of agreement is the episode of ‘Düzme’ Muṣṭafā—to be precise, the words describing his capture and execution (‘Anon.’ 59, 15–16 = ‘Āpz. C 100, 8–9/G 89, 1–2).

^{page 52 note 4} For one of these typical menāqib, the story of Kumral Dede (§ 4), ‘Āpz. names another informant, Edebah's son Maḥmfūd . The passage containing this reference, though taken over by into his text (ed. Taeschner, i, 26, 11–14), appears in the ‘Āpz. MSS known to Giese only in the margin of M (see G 11, n. 2); it deserves mention here that in the Emanet-Hazinesi MS (p. 51, n. 1, above) the passage is incorporated into the text (fol. 7r).

^{page 53 note 1} See Wittek, P., in WZKM, LVII, 1961, 106Google Scholar, referring to Gökbilgin, M. T., XV.–XVI. asirlarda Edirne ve Paṣa Livâst, Istanbul, 1952, p. 162Google Scholar, n. 2.

^{page 53 note 2} That Faqīh's Menāqib extended into the reign of Bāyezīd I seems unlikely. ‘Āpz. has here, it is true, various passages peculiar to his account, but he had for the events of this reign at least the two informants whom he names— Umur Beg (G 61, 5), who described to him the battle of Nicopolis (§ 60), and the Koja Nā'ib (G 71, 13), who had been at Bāyezīd's side at the battle of Ankara—and he may at other points be relating what he had heard during his years in Serbia: the episode of the settlement of nomads near Filibe, for example (first section of § 67, clumsily interrupting the ‘common source’, cf.‘Anon.’ 34, 23), he had presumably heard from his friend Isḥāq Beg of Üsküb, whose former master Yiğit had been the leader of these nomads.

^{page 53 note 3} Ḥüseyn Nāmiq [Orkun], ‘ FaḲīh’, MOG, II, 319Google Scholar–21, discussing the entries (at pp. 132 and 138) in the register published by Refiq, Aḥmed (TüTEM, xiv, 1340/1923, 129Google Scholar–41).

^{page 53 note 4} As Aḥmed Refiq recognized, op. cit., 131.

^{page 54 note 1} Ḥüseyn Nāmiq took the two references to be to a single who had died during the reign of Meḥemmed I, but they must be to two distinct individuals.

^{page 54 note 2} But to, see below.

^{page 54 note 3} The entry, from a register of the time of Suleymān I, is quoted by Barkan, Ö. L., in Istanbul Üniversitesi İktisad Fakültesi Dergisi, II, 1–2, 1940, p. 243Google Scholar, no. xxx.

^{page 54 note 4} See Gokbilgin, M. T., Edirne ve Paşa Livási, 175Google Scholar–6, referring to waqfs at Dimetoka and near Edirne, and Barkan, Ö. L., in Vakiflar Dergisi, II, 1942, 344Google Scholar, no. 189, quoting from a register for Gelibolu: here ‘mezkûr Yahya Fakih … Ayas Haci Fakih’ is to be corrected, after the parallel entry quoted at Edirne, 175, to ‘mezkûr Yahşi Fakih atasi Haci Fakihe’.