¹ See Heyd, W., Histoire du commerce du Levant, Leipzig, 1885–1886, esp. I, 410–26, II, 23–64, 427–97, 508–52.Google Scholar

² See Wansbrough, , ‘A Mamluk commercial treaty concluded with the Republic of Florence in 894/1489’, in Documents from Islamic chanceries, ed. Stern, S. M., Oxford, 1965, 46.Google Scholar

⁸ Heyd, , Commerce, II, 478–80Google Scholar, 487–90; and Sapori, A., ‘I primi viaggi di Levante e di Ponente delle galere Fiorentini’, in Archivio Storico Italiano, 1956, 1, pp. 68–91;Google Scholar and Amari, M., I diplomi arabi nel R. Archivio Fiorentino, Florence, Florence, docs. 63–7, and Appendice, Florence, 1867, docs. 6, 7, 23, 24, 26, 29, 32.Google Scholar

⁴ Amari, Diplomi, doc. 72 (II: 45).

⁵ Documents from Islamic chanceries, 56, 58, 60.

⁶ Amari, Diplomi, doc. 77 (1: 40); for the date, cf. infra, p. 509, n. 63.

⁷ Published below, pp. 497–509.

⁸ Amari, Diplomi, doc. 68 (II: 42), and see the editor's note, p. 482: ‘Come ognun vede, è traduzione dei patti de’ Veneziani, della quale il magistrato di Firenze procacciò una copia per domandare in Egitto le medesime franchigie'.

⁹ See Briquet, C., Les filigranes, second ed., Leipzig, 1923: the watermark on the first copy is similar to no. 6541 (northern Italy), that on the second is no. 5904 (Venice and Florence).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Possibly Paolo da Colle or Benedetto Dei; cf. Documents from Islamic chanceries, 42, and Babinger, F., ‘Lorenzo de' Medici e la Corte Ottomana’, in Archivio Storico Italiano, 1963, 3, pp. 324–50 and 310–18, respectively.Google Scholar

¹¹ cf. Documents from Islamic chanceries, 49. I should like to thank Professor Bernard Lewis for telling me of the two treaties in the Laurenziana, listed there as O.455A.

¹² Amari, Diplomi, doc. 72 (II: 45); cf. Documents from Islamic chanceries, 46–7.

¹³ Amari, Diplomi, doc. 77 (I: 40, cf. infra, p. 509, n. 63).

¹⁴ See Documents from Islamic chanceries, 47; and BSOAS, XXV, 3, 1962, 466. It will be clear from the two specimens published here that both languages employed are colloquial and ungrammatical.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Wansbrough, , ‘A Mamluk letter of 877/1473’, BSOAS, XXIV, 2, 1961, p. 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 4. The observation by Roemer, R., in ZDMG, CVII, 3, 1957, 532, appears to me to be without foundation.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See El, second ed., Amān, S.V.; and Brunschvig, R., La Berbérīe orientate sous les Ḥafṣides, Paris, 1940, 1, 431–40.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Venice, Museo Correr, Fondo Donà dalle Rose, cod. 217, fols. 61–80, dated 26–7 Jumādā I 846/1–2 October 1442. The preamble and first three articles are missing; here the latter are supplied from the Venetian-Mamluk treaty of 818/1415, edited by Thomas-Predelli, , Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum, IIGoogle Scholar, doc. 168. Parts six and seven of the Correr document, published from another source by Amari (Diplomi, doc. 68, cf. supra, p. 484) are not included here. For Venetian orthography see Boerio, , Dizionario del dialetto veneziano, Venice, 1829.Google Scholar

¹⁸ cf. infra, p. 511, n. 70.

¹⁹ cf. infra, p. 512, n. 72.

²⁰ cf. infra, p. 512, n. 73.

²¹ cf. infra, p. 511, n. 68.

²² cf. infra, p. 514, n. 76.

²³ Arabic , cf. infra, p. 501, 1. 114.

²⁴ cf. infra, p. 514, n. 78.

²⁵ cf. infra, p. 516, n. 82.

²⁶ cf. infra, p. 516, n. 83.

²⁷ ‘Siemphesin’ and ‘Siemphedin’ in text; possibly Arabic al-dīn ibn al-muḤtasib. This article is omitted in Laurenziana.

²⁸ cf. infra, p. 517, n. 86, and p. 504, article XX.

²⁹ cf. infra, p. 520, n. 97, and p. 494, n. 35.

³⁰ cf. infra, p. 518, n. 88.

³¹ cf. infra, p. 519, n. 92.

³² cf. infra, p. 520, n. 95.

³³ cf. infra, p. 519, n. 93.

³⁴ cf. infra, p. 520, n. 96.

³⁵ Not identified; directives of this kind, in which a person rather than an office is mentioned, appear not infrequently in the Italian versions of these treaties (e.g., part I, XVIII, XXI; II, I; III, XI, XII; IV, XII; V, X, in the Correr document) but not in the Arabic versions.

³⁶ cf. infra, p. 520, n. 95.

³⁷ Probably from Arabic mudda; see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 76–7, n. 25.

³⁸ Arabic baṭṭāl, or ibṭāl; cf. infra, p. 506, 1. 264.

³⁹ Possibly from Arabic , here in the sense of regalian monopoly; see LéviProvencal, , Histoire de l'Espagne musulmane, Paris, 1953, III, 45.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ From Arabic jibāl, probably with reference to north Syria or the Lebanon; see Heyd, , Commerce, II, 612.Google Scholar

¹¹ Florence, Biblioteca Medicco-Laurenziana, cod. Or.455A, listed under entry 742 in the inventory compiled by Italo Pizzi in 1895 (manuscript).

⁴² cf. infra, p. 509, n. 62.

⁴³ Supplied from context; cf. supra, p. 486.

⁴⁴ A correction by the scribe, 'aiā, is inserted above the line.

⁴⁵ Sic; cf. 1. 94.

⁴⁶ Sic; presumably for td'ifat al-banadiqa; cf. also infra, 1. 176.

⁴⁷ Sic; cf. supra, p. 500, n. 45.

⁴⁸ Sic; presumably for al-thaghr al-sakandarī, or thaghr al-iskandarīya.

⁴⁹ Sic; cf. infra, 1. 289.

⁵⁰ Sic; presumably for al-tarājima.

⁵¹ Sic; but cf. supra, 1. 154.

⁵² Sic; wa-yarūdduhum would be grammatically consistent.

⁵³ Sic, but cf. 1. 209.ā has a stroke through it; cf. infra, p. 519, n. 92.

⁵⁶ Sic; for khamsūna, reading wusiqa in the preceding line.

⁵⁷ Sic; cf. infra, p. 520, n. 97; and 11. 253, 271, 281 in text.

⁵⁸ Sic; possibly for ‘alā kulli’l-jūlaq.

⁵⁹ Sic; cf. infra, p. 516, n 81, and J. Fuck, 'Arabiya, Paris, 1955, 90.

⁶⁰ Sic; presumably for bi-

⁶¹ Sic; cf. Amari, Diplomi, p. 209, 1. 8, and supra, p. 497, where the Arabic jumādā 'l-ūlā is transcribed in Italian zemedelave. Cf. Mehren, A., Die Rhetorik der Araber, Kopenhagen-Wien, 1853, p. 205, n.Google Scholar

⁶² The heading of the document (ṭurra) together with the second and third pieces of the scroll is missing (cf. supra, p. 485). For the format of the marsūm, or administrative decree, of which the Laurenziana document published here is an example, see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 70, n. 1, and the references given there. From the position of the seals inside and the letter‘B’ on the outside of the scroll it seems not unlikely that the heading was torn off the document before it came into the possession of the Florentine library by which it has been preserved.

⁶³ For the marks of authentication employed in the Mamluk chancery, see Stern, S. M., Fāṭimid decrees, London, 1964, 157–9Google Scholar. Here the sultan's sign manual consists of his name (13 x 13 cm.) with the address ‘his brother’ (13 X 4–5 cm.), written with a broad pen. The formula, described by , Cairo, 1914–20, VI, 345–6, VII, 21, is possibly of Byzantine origin, see Dölger, F., ‘Die “Familie der Konige” im Mittelalter’ Historisches Jahrbuch, LX, 1940, 397–420Google Scholar. The signature of the sultan Qāitbāy on this document is of particular interest: the document is dated 25 Jumādā I 902/29 January 1497, approximately six months after the death of that ruler, on 27 '1-Qa'da 901/7 August 1496 (see Ibn Iyās, Badā'i' 'l-zuhūr, ed. Kahle-Mustafa, Istanbul, 1935, III, 315 ff.). Examination of the piece (waṣl) of the roll containing the sign manual shows it to be of heavier paper and of a slightly deeper colour than the rest of the document. In the three lines of writing which the piece contains besides the sign manual both the ink and hand are different from those employed in the remainder of the document. Moreover, the repetition in 1. 5 of the title al-za'īmī, which occurs already in 1. 4 on the piece containing the sign manual, indicates clearly that the mark of authentication was one (possibly of many) made by the sultan earlier and kept for future use in the chancery. Another instance of this practice, which is remarked by al-Maqrīzī (cited in Björkman, W., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Staatskanzlei im islamischen Ägypten, Hamburg, 1928, p. 44Google Scholar, n. 5), has been published by Risciani, P. N. (Documenti efirmani, Jerusalem, 1931, p. 348Google Scholar, doc. no. 28, dated 13 Rabi' I 885/23 May 1480), though in that document the date falls well within the reign of the sultan Qāitbāy. A possible reason for the employment of the deceased sultan's sign manual in the Laurenziana document could have been the political chaos which followed his death and the resulting instability of his son's rule, copiously attested in both Arabic and Italian sources, e.g. Ibn Iyās, op. cit., III, 324–94 (Qāitbāy's son, MuḤammad, aged 14 upon his succession, took the regnal name al-Mālik al-Nāṣir Abū '1-Sa'ādāt Naṣr al-Dīn, and managed, owing to the dissension among his father's amīrs, to remain on the throne for two years and four months); Malipiero, D., Annali Veneti (Archivio Storico Italiano, VII, 2), Florence, 1844, 630–48;Google Scholar and Sanuto, M., Diarii , Venice, 1877–1902, Ì, 262, 288–90, 380, 384, 634–39, 645, 691, 726, 751, 755, 809, 882, 898, 911, 994. Thus, the reason given by Amari (Diplomi, p. 436, note to doc. 77 ( 1: 40)) for his dating that Florentine-Mamluk commercial treaty 901/1496 is not a valid one; the barely legible word (op. cit., p. 209) appears from an examination of the document in ASF to be , giving the date 903/1498, and thus making it later than the Laurenziana document.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The titles of the Mamluk official addressed in this decree are common, cf. Risciani, Doctimenti e firmani, passim; Ernst, H., Die mamlukischen Sultansurkunden des Sinai-Kloslers, Wiesbaden, 1960Google Scholar, passim. For the nisba forms cf. Wansbrough, , ‘A Mamluk ambassador to Venice in 913/1507’, BSOAS, XXVI, 3, 1963, 506–08Google Scholar, and the references there. In the Laurenziana document the title al-maqarr al-karīm refers to the atābek (cf. Berchem, van, Matériaux pour un Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum, Cairo, 1894–1930, Egypte, I, 183–85, 447; and Ḥasan al-, al-Alqāb al-islāmīya, Cairo, 1957, 489–94) who in 901/1497 was one Qānṣūh , known to the Venetians as Campson Campson (cf. Ibn Iyās, op. cit., i n, 333; and Malipiero, op. cit., 630–48, passim).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For the expositio () and the uses of the terms , fuṣūl, ṭā'ifa, jama'a, and jins (in article XIX) see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 71–2, n. 2. For t he petitio (qiṣṣa) see Stern, Fāṭimid decrees, 92 ff. The rendering of ‘signoria’ by appears to have been common throughout the Arabic-speaking world, cf. Amari, Diplomi, 185, 213; and Dozy, , Suppl., s.v., but see also the curious exception in BSOAS, XXV, 3, 1962, p. 455, 1. 11. The use of dūj for the Florentine ruler is probably adopted from the practice in the Mamluk chancery for correspondence with Venice (cf. , ṣubḤ, v, 485; and also Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 71–2, n. 2), though the appearance of the term in Ernst, op. cit., p. 134, 1. 14, raises a problem which the editor does not solve by his references, op. cit., 276.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For the dispositio (Ḥukm) see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 79, n. 35, where, however, the form is much simpler than that employed here.

⁶⁷ The words baḍā'a, matjar, and sil'a (article XXII), as well as ṣinf (articles II, III, XXVIII, and , ṣubḤ, XIII, p. 341, 1. 10) are all used in the general sense of ‘goods’, while māl and appear to designate ‘money’ and ‘personal effects’ respectively, although the latter, often rendered in Italian by ‘roba’, refers specifically to ‘cloth’ in article XXI (see Mayer, L. A., Mamluh costume, Geneva, 1952, 75–80).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For the terms ḍarā'ib dīwānīya and al- wa 'l-mūjib al-sulṭānī (article VII) see Documents from Islamic chanceries, pp. 72, 76, 78, nn. 3, 20, 32 and t h e references there.

⁶⁹ For 'udūl (sing, 'adl) see Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed., s.v., and Grohmann, A., Einfilhrung und Chrestomathie zur arabischen Papyruskunde, Prague, 1954, 111–13, 117–20.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The term arabūn, which appears to signify ‘deposit’ or ‘pledge’, is rendered ‘caparo’ in the Correr document (cf.bk supra, p. 487, article I) and as ‘arram’ (Tafel-Thomas, : Urkunden zur dlteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, Vienna, 1856–1857, II, p. 483Google Scholar, article 9) and ‘caparrum sive arbon’ (Amari, Diplomi, 328) in other Italian documents. For the history of the word, which is of Semitic origin and was possibly introduced into Arabic usage via Greek, see Schacht, J., ‘Droit byzantin et droit musulman’, in Convegno Volta, 12, 1957, 210–11.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For see the references in BSOAS, XXIV, 2, 1961, p. 212Google Scholar, n. 4; Mayer, Mamluk costume, index; but also Iorga, in Centenario Amari, Palermo, 1910, I, 139–50, where the terms ‘scioch chariri’ and ‘scioch chettan ’occur, for silk and linen, respectively.Google Scholar

⁷² For the Mamluk offices mentioned here see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p.70–1, n. 1, and the references there. To the enumeration here of officials competent to deal with mixed litigations must be added the Ḥākim (article XXI). Jurisdiction in such litigations was liable to variation according to local rules obtaining in different parts of the dār al-islām, cf. supra, p. 487, n. 16.

⁷³ For mukārīya (sing, mukārⁱⁿ), rendered in Italian ‘mochari’ and which occurs also in documents in Ottoman Turkish and Hebrew, see Risciani, , Documenti e firmani, p. 305Google Scholar, n. 12; Heyd, U., Ottoman documents on Palestine, Oxford, 1960, p. 125Google Scholar; and Lewis, B., in BSOS, X, 1, 1939, p. 184, n. 5.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See p. 511, n. 68.

⁷⁵ The term qaṭā‘i’ (sing, qiṭ'a) is rendered fairly consistently in the Correr document by ‘galie‘, see Serjeant, R. B., The Portuguese off the South Arabian coast, Oxford, 1963, p. 135Google Scholar, s.v. For the ships' names given here see Documents from Islamic chanceries, pp. 72, 77–8, nn. 3, 30 and references.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ For the expression qaṭa'a si'r al-bahár see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 75Google Scholar, n. 12 (where it is qaṭa'a si'r fi 'l-bahār) and references; for yurmī 'alaihim see Sauvaget, J., ‘Décrets mamelouks de Syrie ’, BEO, XII, 1947–1948, 8 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See p. 513, n. 75.

⁷⁸ Here ma'lūm appears to refer to the common Mamluk term jāmakīya, as it is indeed rendered in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 490, article XIII). For the latter term see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 75Google Scholar, n. 14, and BSOAS, XXVI, 3, 1963, p. 529Google Scholar

⁷⁹ For the question of collective responsibility in the Mamluk commercial privileges see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 78, n. 33. It is worthy of remark that the three instances of provision against the notion of collective responsibility in this document (articles XV, XXVII, XXXI) appear to be contradicted in one case by article XIX.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ On the rather complex problem of the fees which Christian pilgrims to the Holy Sepulchre had to pay see CIA, , Syrie du sud, I (Cairo, 1922), pp. 378–402, and the abundant documentation there in a discussion of a Mamluk inscription dated 9 Muharram 919/17 March 1513 (no. 108). The term al-jurjān appears three times in article XVI of the Laurenziana document (11. 143, 146, 149, cf. supra, p. 502); while article XVI (section I) of the Correr document contains similar references to ‘pelegrini’. Moreover, al-jurjā;n is found frequently in Mamluk documents relating to the administration of Jerusalem, e.g.:Google Scholar

, ṣubḤ, XIII, 46, 1. 6:

Ibid., 11. 10–11:

Ibid., p. 47, 11. 4–5:

CIA, Syrie du sud, n, no. 237, 1. 4:

Bisciani, Documenti e firmani, p. 28, 11. 2–4:

Ibid., p. 138, 11. 3–4:

Ibid., pp. 158, 1. 5–160, 1. 1:

Ibid., p. 168, 11. 2–3:

Ibid., p. 294, 11. 2–3:

Ibid., p. 296, 11. 10–11:

Ibid., p. 310, 11. 2–4:

Ibid., p. 328, 1. 14:

Ibid., p. 342, 11. 9–10:

Without exception the editors of the above passages have translated jurjān ‘Georgians’; adducing as evidence the frequent instances in Mamluk documents of the grant of free admission into the Holy Sepulchre to Georgian (and Ethiopian) pilgrims (e.g. CIA, , Syrie du sud, II, p. 324Google Scholar, n. 3; Bisciani, op. cit., p. 33, n.; and for , Björkman, Staatskanzlei, 53, 166). Apart from the fact that the Georgians were called in the Mamluk chancery kurj (CIA, , Syrie du sud, I, p. 395Google Scholar, n. 1; Risciani, p. 42, 1. 4; Ernst, , Sultansurlcunden, p. 230, I. 26, p. 236, 11. 12, 5, which moreover the editor wrongly translates, based possibly on a misunderstanding of , ṣubḤ, VIII, p. 27, top), and the additional fact that jurjān is a specific geographical designation in Mamluk chancery practice (cf. , ṣubḤ, IV, pp. 386–7, and Björkman, op. cit., 104), the contexts cited above in which the term appears would hardly seem to suggest a national or ethnic group at all, but rather, a generic name for pilgrims, a hypothesis supported by the term ‘pelegrini’ in the corresponding article of the Correr document. Finally, references to Georgian (and Ethiopian) pilgrims in the Mamluk documents specify clearly that no entrance fee is to be levied upon them; the jurjān, on the other hand, always pay.Google Scholar

⁸¹ For iflūrī/iflūrīya, which would appear from the context of article XXVI to be equivalent to a dīnār, see for Mamluk Egypt, Popper, W., Egypt and Syria under the Circassian sultans, Berkeley, 1955–1957, II, 45–6Google Scholar; and for the Ottoman empire, where its use in designating European coinage was more common: Lewis, B., Notes and documents from the Turkish archives, Jerusalem, 1952, p. 43Google Scholar, n. 2; Mantran-Sauvaget, , Règlements fiscaux ottomans, Paris, 1951, p. 40Google Scholar, n. 4; a nd Heyd, U., Ottoman documents, p. 120, n. 2. The common derivation of the term for ‘florin’ or ‘fiorini’ is especially interesting in light of the difficulty which the Florentines apparently had in introducing their coinage into Egypt (see article XXXV).Google Scholar

⁸² For the locution qaṭa'a muṣāna'a, see Sauvaget, ‘Decrets mamelouks’, p. 8Google Scholar (but cf. Amari, Diplomi, 196 and passim; Risciani, Documenti, 21 and passim); the corresponding article in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 491, article XVI) has ‘meterge avanie’, which is in turn derived from Arabic 'awān, for which see Ménage, V. L., BSOAS, XXVI, 3, 1963, 647, and further instances of 'awān and 'awānīya in the sense of special police force in Ibn Iyās, Badā‘i’, III, 219, 234, respectively. In article XVIII of the Laurenziana document appears the verb ta'āwana 'alā, which can in that context only mean ‘to extort’. Indeed, the corresponding article in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 491, article XIX) has ‘lieva ge avanie’.Google Scholar

⁸³ For al-samsara see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 74Google Scholar, n. 8, and BSOAS, XXVI, 3, 1963, p. 526, n. 6 and references. The corresponding article in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 491, article XVII) specifies 16 and 3 per cent, instead of 6 and 4 per cent.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See p. 511, n. 68.

⁸⁵ See p. 516, n. 82.

⁸⁶ Actual enumeration of former Mamluk rulers (al-mulūk al-sālifa) is not common in the Mamluk documents; the ones named here represent the major reigns between 658/1260 and 857/1453, probably of those sultans who issued the greatest number of administrative decrees.

⁸⁷ See p. 511, n. 67.

⁸⁸ See Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 75–6, n. 17; here the expression is more explicit than simply malbūs al-mamālik. The Italian articles have variously ‘habito rabescho’ (supra, p. 493, article VIII ), ‘a la morescha’ (supra, p. 495, article VIII), and ‘vestimente mamalochesce’ (Amari, Diplomi, p. 366, article XVII).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See p. 512, n. 72.

⁹⁰ For the term tanjīl see Serjeant, , Portuguese, 84Google Scholar, 100, and idem, , BSOAS, XXV, 2, 1962, 350, who explains najala as ‘to discharge cargo’. It is possible that the second form of the verb used here means discharge by lightering, though it may be synonymous with the term tafrīgh employed in article XXVII.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See p. 513, n. 75.

⁹² The translation offered here for is conjectural: Dozy, , Suppl., II, 597Google Scholar, gives for miṣīṣ the following definition, based on Bustānī, , al-MuḤīṭ, II, 1893Google Scholar, ‘cordes ou fils faits d'étoupe de lin’, a commodity which seems to be accounted for in article XXVIII of the Laurenziana document. From what appears to be the corresponding article in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 493, article XI) the translation suggested is ‘hides’ or even ‘furs’, an opinion somewhat strengthened by the appearance of the phrase ‘agnelline bianche et nere’ in another Florentine Mamluk document which appears also to have figured in the formulation of the present treaty (cf. supra, p. 486; and Amari, , Diplomi, p. 367, article XXI).Google Scholar

⁹³ See Mantran-Sauvaget, , Règlements, p. 13, n. 2, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Translation of the term shakhs must also be to some extent conjectural: in his article ‘Ein Firman des Sultans Selim I. für die Venezianer’ in Festschrift, E.Sachau, Berlin, 1915, B. Moritz suggests for the Italian spice measure called ‘sporta’ (p. 442, n. 48). While it is likely that are the same word, the appearance of the former in article XXVIII of the Laurenziana document, possibly as a measure or container for something other than spices, would suggest that ‘sporta’ is not the only possible translation. The corresponding article in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 494, article IV) has in fact ‘coli’.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ The mutawallī of Beirut, certainly to be distinguished from the nā'ib of Beirut (article XXVIII) and possibly also from the nāẓir of Beirut (Correr, section III, article XII, cf. supra, p. 494), is not mentioned in the familiar administrative tableaux of Mamluk Syria (e.g. Popper, Egypt and Syria; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, , La Syrie a I'époque des mamelouks, Paris, 1923, based on , but appears to have been in charge of the office dealing with merchants.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ For buls (sic, instead of bals) see Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 75Google Scholar, n. 15, and Mantran-Sauvaget, , Réglements, p. 69, n. 4.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ For al-Ḥāssakīya, usually , see the references in BSOAS, XXVI, 3, 1963, p. 525Google Scholar, n. 3; for the spelling, cf. Zetterstéen, , Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlukensultane, Leiden, 1919, I;Google Scholar and Fück, ‘Arabiya, 90. Although the scribe may have omitted the diacritical point for this seems unlikely in view of his comparative liberality with them throughout the text. For ‘Beredi’ (Arabic barīdī) in the Correr document (cf. supra, p. 495, article I), here synonymous with . see Sauvaget, , La poste aux chevaux dans l'empire des mamelouks, Paris, 1941, esp. pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See p. 512, n. 72.

⁹⁹ For al-qurṣān see Barbera, , Elementi italo-siculo-veneziano-genovesi nei linguaggi arabo eturco, Beirut, 1940, 127Google Scholar; Kahane-Tietze, , Thelingua franca in the Levant, Urbana, 1958, pp. 193–6 (no. 251); Moritz, ‘Firman’, p. 432, last line.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Context here would appear to demand bi 'l-qāhira instead of ilr 'l-qāhira, though the latter is also attested in Amari, Diplomi, p. 207, 1. 2; cf. El, second ed., s.v. 'Akd.

¹⁰¹ The concluding formulae (cf. plates iv, v, vi), traditionally as here in a nearly illegible scrawl, conform entirely to Mamluk chancery practice, cf. the references in Documents from Islamic chanceries, p. 79, n. 35.Google Scholar

I should like to thank the directors and staff of the Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana and the Archivio di Stato in Florence, and of the Museo Correr and the Archivio di Stato in Venice for their helpfulness, and the Central Research Funds Committee of the University of London for material assistance.