^{page 755 note 1} In the present article M. Minovi is responsible for Part I and V. Minorsky for Part II.

^{page 755 note 2} This is a popular term to designate the ta'līq script of Persian calligraphers.

^{page 755 note 3} This part between the square brackets is based on M only.

^{page 756 note 1} Probably

^{page 756 note 2} The word is either superfluous, or mis- written for

^{page 756 note 3} M

^{page 757 note 1} One would expect

^{page 757 note 2} O.

^{page 757 note 3} O.

^{page 757 note 4} Both MSS

^{page 757 note 5} O.wrongly

^{page 757 note 6} M adds

^{page 758 note 1} Based on M only

^{page 758 note 2} MS

^{page 759 note 1} MS.

^{page 759 note 2}

^{page 759 note 3} O.

^{page 759 note 4} O.

^{page 759 note 5} O.

^{page 760 note 1} O.

^{page 760 note 2} M adds

^{page 760 note 3} One would expect , as in M.

^{page 760 note 4} O.

^{page 760 note 5} O.

^{page 760 note 6} O.

^{page 760 note 7} O.

^{page 760 note 8} The sentence is here repeated in O.

^{page 760 note 9} O. repeats .

^{page 761 note 1} O.

^{page 761 note 2} O.

^{page 761 note 3} O.

^{page 761 note 4} O.

^{page 761 note 5} O.

^{page 761 note 6} O.

^{page 762 note 1} O.

^{page 763 note 1} O.

^{page 763 note 2} O.

^{page 763 note 3} Probably spurious

^{page 763 note 4} O.

^{page 763 note 5} O.

^{page 763 note 6} Spelt:

^{page 763 note 7} MSS.

^{page 763 note 8} O.

^{page 763 note 9} Probably spurious.

^{page 764 note 1} O.

^{page 764 note 2} A verb is necessary, such as , or should be

^{page 764 note 3} O.

^{page 765 note 1} O.

^{page 765 note 2} O.

^{page 765 note 3} Thus in MSS, but probably must be read.

^{page 765 note 4} Stands for

^{page 765 note 5} O.

^{page 765 note 6} O.

^{page 766 note 1} This latter portion is based on M only.

^{page 766 note 2} Strothman, Die Zwolfer-Schī'iten, 1926, p. 17.

^{page 766 note 3} The Naurūz-nāma, ed. Minovi, 1933, is attributed to 'Omar Khayyäm in a similar grandiloquent formula, while there are considerable doubts concerning this attribution, cf. Minorsky, 'Omar Khaiyām in El. (English edition), and F. Gabrieli in Annali d. Istituto Orientate di Napoli, viii, Giugno, 1939; on the other hand the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, ed. J. Hum ā'ī 1317, in spite of such an introduction, seems to belong to Ghazālī, for only one century after the latter's death the book was recognized by the translator into Arabic as Ghazālī' s work.

^{page 767 note 1} See Naṣīr al-Dīn's record of the capture of Baghdād printed in the Appendix of Juvayni's Jahān-gushã, iii, 280–292: the title given to Hulagu, p. 280 (pādshāh-I jahān, mādda-yi amn-u-amān), is identical to that found in our document; p. 281, the use of the verbal particle ba: tartīb bāyad kard va bi-firistād can be compared with our bi-rafta bāshand and then furūkhta bāshand. The title of the Memorandum Faṣl is a favourite term with Naṣīr al-Dĩn: one of his works is called Fuṣūl, and his Auṣāf al-ashrāf, ed. Tehran, 1306, is also subdivided into faṣls.

^{page 767 note 2} M. Bāqir Majlisi, Biḥār al-anwār, xxv, i, p. 4, praises Nāṣir al-Dĩn's Fuṣūl, which contains everything a student needs, “in spite of its unusual conciseness, reaching the limits of the permissible,” quoted in Strothmann, op. cit., p. 57.

^{page 767 note 3} Juvayni calls Möngke: pādshāh-i jahān farmān (i, 3), or pādshāh-i jahān (iii, 2).

^{page 767 note 4} Brockelmann, GAL., i, 508–9, Supplement, i, 925. But the historical memorandum on the capture of Baghdad is also missing in this list. A general characteristic of Naṣīr al-Dīn's theological and mystic works is found in Strothmann's book on the “Twelver Shī'a”, pp. 51–81.

^{page 768 note 1} Both Naṣīr al-Dīn's and 'Aṭā Malik Juvayni were in Hūlāgū's suite in 655/1257, see Rashīd al-Dīn, ed. Quatremere, 264. Naṣĩr al-Dĩn dedicated his Auṣāf al-ashrāf to Juvayni's brother Shams al-Dīn. Cf. also a story reported by Ibn Shākir, Faioāt, ii, 187, quoted in the Preface to Juvayni, i, p. QKD.

^{page 768 note 2} Juvayni, Jahān-gushā, ii, 256, 261, on qopchur; hi, 75–9 (= Rashīd al Dīn, ii, 308–317, 340), on Möngke's institutions; Rashīd al-Dīn, iii (ed. Jahn), 263–8, etc., on Ghazan's reforms; Rashīd al-Dīn on chao, see Jahn, Das iranische Papiergeld, in Archiv Orientalni, x (1938), Nos. 1–2; Vaṣṣāf, who was himself a financial agent, frequently speaks of taxation, ed. Bombay, 161, 405, 435, 441–5, etc.; Ḥamdullāh Mustaufi, Nuzhat al-gulūb, gives passim very valuable data on assessment (analysed by Barthold, A. Z. Validi and Petrushevsky).

^{page 768 note 3} Barthold, Persidslcaya nadpis na stene aniyskoy mecheti Manuche, 1911, has analysed the terminology of a decree of īlkhān Abū Sa'īd. In his important article Mogollar devrinde Anadolu'nun iktisadi vaziyeti, Istanbul, 1930, 42 pp., A. Z. Validi has surveyed the sources on Mongol taxation. I. P. Petrushevsky's Ḥamdalālh Qazvīnī kak islochnik... Vostochnago Zakavkazya, Izv.Ak.NaukSSSR., 1937, pp. 873–890, is a remarkable study of the economic structure of Āzarbāyjān and Transcaucasia in the fourteenth century. The new book by B. Spuler, Die Mongolem in Iran, 1939, according to the prospectus, contains a special chapter on taxation (“Steuerwesen”, pp. 306–331).

^{page 768 note 4} K. Jahn intends to publish this portion comprising the period of A.D. 1265–1291.

^{page 769 note 1} Evidently in the western, non-Mongol provinces, which are referred to in the following paragraph.

^{page 769 note 2} M. M. restores: “of Khitāy and Khotan” ? After all, chūn may be expletive, but should a restoration be necessary, one would suggest: “of Khitay and China (Chīn instead of chūn).” Khitāy stands for Northern China, and Chīn (Mahā-Chīn> Māchīn) would refer to the southern territories of the Sung kingdom, usually called in Persian sources Manzī.

^{page 770 note 1} This division does not mean that the introductory § 2 does not belong to Naṣīr al-Dīn's memorandum.

^{page 770 note 2} Here begins the extant part of the older copy.

^{page 771 note 1} : “those with whom there is peace.”

^{page 771 note 2} Qaum means “people”, but this meaning does not cover ṭayyārāt.

^{page 771 note 3} This sentence seems to announce § 12, but it is badly formulated.

^{page 772 note 1} Literally: “either a garden, or good water-and-land.”

^{page 772 note 2} Meaning by this probably that the individual assessment had to be replaced by a pre-arranged system of survey. Vide infra, line 14.

^{page 772 note 3} This circumstance is meant to indicate a further complication under the older system.

^{page 772 note 4} i.e. the money equivalent 1

^{page 772 note 5} Vide infra § 13, lcharab, “lying fallow,” is distinguished from what from the beginning was not “cultivated” (ābādān)

^{page 772 note 6} Lit:“the pen is withdrawn from it.” Cf. Minorsky, Asoyūrghãl, BSOS., IX, 4, p. 933.

^{page 773 note 1} Here apparently “the sale price” is meant.

^{page 773 note 2} Curious construction with verbal particle ba-: ba-mirāth bi-rafta bāshand. The translation is meant to express the probable distinction in the forms bi-rafta and furūkha (without bi-).

^{page 773 note 3} The meaning is not very clear, but possibly the author's intention is to invoke the authority of Mongol Yasa for the support of the existing privileges.

^{page 773 note 4} Zāyanda. Does it mean “of female sex”, or “with the exclusion of the mules, which are incapable of reproduction” ? Rashīd al-Dīn, iii, 3, refers to the qopchur levied on “horses, sheep, and cows”. The second condition may reflect the stipulation of the Islamic zakāt, according to which the animals on which the tax is to be imposed must be "freely grazing" (sā'ima); Juynboll, 101.

^{page 774 note 1} I restore *jihāt instead of jahān.

^{page 774 note 2} This sentence would better come at the end of § 11.

^{page 774 note 3} Probably not the men themselves but their confiscated property (muṣādara).

^{page 774 note 4} The “revenue” evidently came in only in case the property was not claimed.It is possible that the author couples in this paragraph the Mongolian b.lārghū with the Islamic luqaṭa.

^{page 774 note 5} An alternative interpretation that “the substitute, or equivalent of the property” was remitted to the owner would be less satisfactory as not applying to b.larghn. In fact M. b. Hindūshāh states that the owners of the lost property “must pay a definite tax, in exchange for which the property is returned to them”, Hammer, Gesch. der Goldenen Horde, 476.

^{page 774 note 6} Thus the khums is transferred to the īl-khān! Qor'ān, viii, 42: “Know thatone-fifth of your booty belongs to Allāh, to the Prophet, to the Prophet's family, tothe orphans, to the destitute, and to the wayfarers.”

^{page 774 note 7} So according to Abū-Ḥanīfa* while the other doctors attribute to the horsemen a threefold share, see Ghanīma in EI

^{page 774 note 8} This is the Islamic fay' the revenue from which belongs to the whole community, see Fai' in El

^{page 775 note 1} In the latter case.

^{page 775 note 2} I read ūzān(instead of thedotless ) This word is found jointly with ortaq in al-Dīn, Rashīd, ed. Quatremere, 306Google Scholar.

^{page 775 note 3} More probably, each sum was augmented by one-tenth or two-tenths for the benefit of the officials. In Ghazan khan's time, the population was to pay the taxes with (an additional) one-twentieth, and the treasury fees (bā dah-o-nīm va ḥaqq-I khazāna), Rashīd, iii, 253. A list of additional levies is found, ibid., p. 255. On nemeri (spelt n.mārī), see Barthold, Manuche, 37.

^{page 775 note 4} Arabic auzān “weights” is more suitable here than Turkish ūzān, for revenue from the latter is mentioned above as a legal levy. The words auzan and uzan, both spelt in the same way, occur side by side in Rashīd al-Dīn, iii, 286, 336. Ghazan, ibid., 334, ordered that the sang al-vazn (sic) should be suppressed at the treasury, and that the latter “should make expenditure by the same weight by which it purchases, namely by the legal sang-i 'adl bearing the seal”. Naṣīr al-Dīn must have in view the abuses with the special sang al-vazn.

^{page 775 note 5} Juvayni, 25, says that the Mongol treasury never appropriates heritages of private people, and that he himself had to suppress in the province of Baghdad the offices in charge of heritages (shughl-i tarakāt).

^{page 775 note 6} This telescoped phrase apparently has in view tolls levied on roads and in ports, and money (rāh-dārī) levied by road-guard

^{page 776 note 1} Perhaps by debasing and snipping the coins.

^{page 776 note 2} Such as making “corners” in cereals (iḥtikār).

^{page 776 note 3} Bar sar-hā seems to be distinct from the expressions az sar, bar sar āmad, vide supra, § 6.

^{page 776 note 4} i.e. the poll-tax, gradually comprised under qopchur, v.i. p. 783.

^{page 776 note 5} Read: ärkävün.

^{page 776 note 6} gives no meaning. I read ūzānī“craftsmanship”.

^{page 776 note 7} This may suggest that formerly all the able-bodied persons, being employed by the king, were exempted from the payment of a poll-tax (?).

^{page 776 note 8} Does the author mean that such finds became the king's property ? In Islamiclaw the finder of a treasure (rikāz) pays only one-fifth of it, as zakāt, Juynboll, Handbuch d. Islam. Gesetzes, 1908–1910, p. 104. Even the attribution of this fifth to theKing's khāṣṣ (§ 18) would be a complaisance.

^{page 777 note 1} The term nā'ib is often found in the contemporary sources, see Rashīd al-Dīn, iii, 333: na'ib-i vazīr “a kind of registrar”.

^{page 777 note 2} Juvayni, i, 24, says that each two tomans, i.e. 20,000 men, had to keep up a yam, while according to Rashīd al-Dīn, iii, 275, in Ghāzān's time there was a yām at each 3 farsakhs. Juvayni may have in view earlier conditions in Mongolia, or take a yām as being of several relays.

^{page 777 note 3} Obligation to supply horses to travellers.

^{page 777 note 4} Contrary to § 11 (d).

^{page 779 note 1} Although in the text the three paragraphs of E come directly after C, they do not belong to kafāyat and represent something additional to the four lawful divisions enumerated in § 5. Therefore, we place them after D.

^{page 781 note 1} Similarly Juvayni, iii, 78, on qismat in connection with the poll-tax, vide infra, p. 784.

^{page 781 note 2} Cf. Rashīd, iii, 264: a detailed list of the dates of payment.

^{page 781 note 3} In Rashīd, iii, 26318, 26712, vujūh al-'ayn (money) is opposed to irtifā'āt (crops, levies in kind).

^{page 781 note 4} Vide, infra, p. 788, ortaq.

^{page 782 note 1} In Islamic law, there is only an elaborate system of zakāt from camels, cows, and sheep, Juynboll, 100.

^{page 782 note 2} The form is strange. The expected Persian singular of Arabic “a fur” (Juvayni, iii, 88, uses the plural farviyāt) would be farva One is tempted to restore the word as *qurūt “a common kind of cheese” in Turkish

^{page 782 note 3} Ibid., ii, 260: Amīr Ḥusayn “was clever both in Mongolian language and inUyghur writing, and at the present time these constitute learning and competence(fa?l va-kafāyat)”.

^{page 782 note 4} The zakāt which the Muslims paid on gold and silver extracted from mines was one-fifth (sometimes one-fortieth) of their value; on merchandise it was onefortieth; Juynboll, pp. 102, 104. According to the Shi'a law the Imam or “the person replacing him” received one-fifth (khums) on all such revenue, Querry, Droit mtisulman, p. 175.

^{page 783 note 1} The non-cultivated lands (mawāt) could be cultivated by anybody, but aocording to Abū Hanīfa the agreement of the authorities was necessary.

^{page 783 note 2} This association with the merchants (ortaq) may be the reason for the very light levies imposed on them, vide supra, § 9.

^{page 783 note 3} In the parallel passage Rashīd, ii, 313, substitutes: takālīf for mu'an.

^{page 783 note 4} This is the usvial appellation of Muslim divines in Mongol times. In Mongolian the word has taken the form of dashman, plur. dashmad, see Vladimirtsov, Zap. KoU. Vost., i, 333 (as against Blochet in Rashīd al-Dīn, ii, 129).

^{page 784 note 1} Rashīd, ii, 313: “of all the classes.”

^{page 784 note 2} The latter term is not very clear: it may refer to the land-tax (kcharāj), but Rashīd al-Dīn states, iii, 243, that there existed provinces in which the huqgūq-i dīvāni consisted of qopchur and tamghā.

^{page 784 note 3} B.M., Or. 9213, f. 12a–136

^{page 784 note 4} Vide supra, p. 781. When the historians protest against abuses, they concentrate on the barāts (assignments) which the governors indiscriminately drew on the population, and on the qismat, i.e. distributing of such levies among the population. Instead of qismat, Rashīd al-Dīn refers to the evils of muqāsama, iii, 163, 267, and surely 258 (instead of maqālāt).

^{page 785 note 1} In a parallel passage, Rashīd al-Dīn, ii, 341, speaks of a qalān of 7 dinārs for the rich, and of 1 dinār for the poor.

^{page 785 note 2} Evidently as ortaqs; vide infra, p. 788.

^{page 786 note 1} Pelliot, T'oung Pao, xv, 1914, p. 637: l'origine d'ärkägün est beaucoup plusobscure

^{page 786 note 2} The parallel form with an alif, namely arkāvun, is only a scriptio plena, as usual in Turkish and Mongolian words; it must be read ärkävün, not ärkāvun.

^{page 787 note 1} B.M., Or. 3344, does not contain this farmān. Hammer's No. 8, fol. 295b, No. 13, fol. 301b, Nos. 9–12 being left out.

^{page 788 note 1} Regularly u or o in the first syllable would be marked in scriptio plena with w.