¹ Hottinger, Arnold, ‘Patriotismus und Nationalismus bei den Arabern’, Neue Züricher Zeitung, 12 May 1957.Google Scholar On modern Muslim views of the Mongol invasions see further Cantwell Smith, W., Islam, in Modern History (Princeton, N.J., 1957), pp. 32 ff., 164 ff.Google Scholar; von Grunebaum, G. E., Modern Islam: the Search for Cultural Identity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1962), pp. 44 ff., 185, 213, 255–6.Google Scholar

¹ Browne, E. G., A Literary History of Persia from Firdawsi to Sa'di (London, 1906), pp. 426–27;Google Scholar cf. idem., A History of Persian Literature under Tartar Domination (Cambridge, 1920), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar Like most other Western writers, Browne bases his account of the Mongols largely on d'Ohsson's, Baron C.Histoire des Mongols, 1st ed. 1824, 2nd considerably amplified ed., The Hague and Amsterdam, 1834–35.Google Scholar

¹ Bartold, V. V., Mussulman Culture, translated from the Russian by Shahid Suhrawardy (Calcutta, 1934), pp. 110–12;Google Scholar cf. the very much better Turkish translation edited by Köpriilu, M. Fuad, Islam medeniyeti tarihi, 2nd ed. (Ankara, 1963), p. 62.Google Scholar Bartold's views on the Mongol invasions and their effects are developed in many of his writings. In attempting a more positive assessment of the Mongols, he was to some extent anticipated by SirHoworth, Henry (History of the Mongols, London, 1876-1888)Google Scholar and, still more, by Cahun, Léon (Introduction à l'his wire de l'Asie, Paris, 1896).Google Scholar These works were, however, written without reference to oriental sources, and are of no scholarly significance. Cahun's book, written with some skill and much enthusiasm, became a source of inspiration for Turkish and pan-Turkish nationalist theories.

² Petrushevsky, I. P., Zemledelie i agrarniye otnosheniya v Irane xiii-xiv vekov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960), p. 36;Google Scholar Persian translation by Kashāvarz, Karīm, Kashāvarzī va munāsabāt-i aril dar Irān 'ahd-i Moghūl, i (Tehran, 1344 solar), p. 48.Google Scholar This statement is obviously prescriptive, not descriptive, and, like other such decisions recorded on behalf of Soviet historiography, may not be determined exclusively by the findings of historians and the evidence of the sources. A clue may be found in hostile allusions, without citation of authors or titles, to ‘pan-Turkists’, i.e. those who ascribe a com mon identity and purpose to the Turkic peoples inside and outside the U.S.S.R. Bartold is declared innocent of complicity in such villainy. His errors are attributed to his lack of Marxist discipline, not to sinister pan-Turkist motives. Cf. Professor Petrushevsky's introduction to the new edition of Bartold's collected works (Sochineniya, i (Moscow, 1963), especially pp. 32–3).Google Scholar

¹ Ibn Wāsil, Mufarrij al-kurüb, MS. Paris, Arabe 1703, fol. 126 b, cit. Ayalon, D., ‘Studies on the transfer of the 'Abbāsid Caliphate from Baghdad to Cairo’, Arabica, vii (1960), p. 59.Google Scholar

¹ Constantine Zurayk, K., The Meaning of the Disaster, trans. Winder, R. B. (Beirut, 1956), p. 48;Google Scholar cit. von Grunebaum, G. E., Modern Islam, p. 255.Google Scholar

² See Lambton, Ann K. S., Landlord and Peasant in Persia (London, 1953), p. 77 ff.,Google ScholarPetrushevsky, , op. cit.,Google Scholar and, on the Mongol Empire in general, Saunders, J. J., ‘Le nomade comme bâtisseur d'empire: conquête arabe et conquête mongole’, Diogène, no. 52 (1965), pp. 85–109, where other recent literature is cited.Google Scholar

¹ Even in Iraq, however, the extent of the economic damage done by the Mongols has been exaggerated. See the important study by DrKhesbak, Ja'far H., ‘Ahwāl al-'Irāq al-iqtisādiyya fi ‘ahd al-Ilkhānīyīn al-Mughūl’, Majallat Kulliyyat al-Ādāb (Baghdad), (1961), pp. 1–56.Google Scholar

¹ Kotwicz, Wladyslaw, ‘Les Mongols, promoteurs de l'idée de paix universelle au début du xiii_e siècle’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Cracow), xvi (1950), p. 429.Google Scholar

¹ Shāma, Abu, Tarājim rijāl al-qarnayn al-sādis wa'l-sābi, ed. al-Kawthari, Muhammad, Cairo, 1947, p. 208.Google Scholar

² Hatto, A. T., ‘Hamāsa iv’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, revised ed., iii, 116.Google Scholar The whole problem of Turkish-Mongol relationships is discussed in an important article by ProfessorKafesoĝlu, Ibrahim, ‘Türk tarihinde Moĝollar ve Cengiz meselesi’, Tarih Dergisi, v (1953), pp. 105–36.Google Scholar

¹ Barthold, W., Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion (London, 1928), p. 305.Google Scholar

¹ Khaldūn, Ibn, Kitāb al-Ibar, v (Cairo, 1867), p. 371.Google Scholar Professor Ayalon was the first to draw attention to this very important passage: ‘The wafidiyya in the Mamluk kingdom’, Islamic Culture (1951), p. 90;Google Scholar cf. idem in Jewish Observer, 23 November, 1956, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹ Turan, Osman, ‘The idea of world domination among the medieval Turks’, Studia Islamica, iv (1955), pp. 80–81;Google Scholar Ann K. S. Lambton, ‘Quis custodiet custodes: some reflections on the Persian theory of government’, ibid., vi (1956), p. 130. Cf. Köprülü, Fuad, ‘Les institutions juridique turques au moyen-age’, Belleten, ii/5–6 (1938), 41–76;Google Scholaridem, ‘Bizans müesseselerinin Osmanh müesseselerine te'siri hakkinda bâzi mülâhazalar’, in Türk Hukuk ve Iktisat Tarihi Mecmuasi, i (1931), 165–313;Google Scholar Italian translation, Alcune osservazioni intorno all’ influenza delle istituzioni bizantine sulk istituzioni ottomane (Rome, 1953).Google Scholar

¹ My thanks are due to Professor Ann K. S. Lambton for reading and commenting on this paper, and to Mr G. R. Hawting for drawing my attention to a serious omission.