^{page 1 note 1} At that time pronounced, and sometimes written,‘Aḍm (similarly: Ẓāhir—Ḍāhir). Beside the transliteration system used for Arabic names and terms, this article also uses the modern Turkish spelling for Turkish names and terms. Since the article deals with Arabic-speaking provinces, the Arabic forms of names and terms existing in both languages are usually preferred (thus walāyah is used instead of vilayet). Geographical place-names, titles, and the like which are in common usage in the English language appear in their anglicized forms.

^{page 1 note 2} The origin of the family is a controversial matter to this day: one view maintains that the ‘Aẓnis were originally Beduin of the Banū ‘Azīm tribe in northern Hijaz who joined the Ottoman service; the other has it that they were the descendants of a Turkish family from the vicinity of Konya. See ‘Abd al-Qādir al-‘Aẓm, al-Usrah al-‘AƓmīyah, Damascus, 1951; Muḥammad Kurd ‘Alī, Khiṭaṭ al-Shām (6 vols., Damascus, 1925–7), n, 279; Mehmet Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani (4 vols., Istanbul, A.H. 1038), i, 362. There is no doubt, however, that to eighteenth century local annalists and European observers the ‘Aẓms were known as a family of Arab(= Beduin) origin. Mikhā'īl Burayk, Ta'rikh al-Shām, 1720–1782, MS, Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek,9786 (the work was published by Quṣṭanṭīn al-Bāshā, Harissa, 1930), p. 14a; ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Fāsī, Ta'rikh, MS quoted in al-Ma'lūf, ‘Isā Iskandar, ‘Qaṣr As'ad Bāshā al-‘Aẓm fl Dimashq’, al-Mashriq, XXIV, 1926, 5–6Google Scholar; France, Archives Nationales, Affaires Éitrangères, BI, 1118 (Tripoli), report by Yon dated 10 October 1746; 1032 (Seyde), ‘Bulletin’ enclosed in a report by Clairambault, dated 16 July 1763. It may very well be that the latter view is a mistaken conclusion based on the family's long residence in the province of Konya.

^{page 1 note 3} The political history and institutions of the Arabic-speaking provinces of the Ottoman Empire have not yet been sufficiently investigated. For a general background see H. A. R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic society and the West (Vol. I, 2 parts, London, 1950, 1957), particularly Pt. 1, 200–34; Hourani, Albert, ‘The changing face of the Fertile Crescent in the xvmth century’, Studia isUmica, VIII, 1957, 89–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 2 note 1} See Shimon Shamir, The ‘Aẓm wālīs of Syria, 1724–1785 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1960). The reconstruction of the historical events was made in that study on the basis of contemporary Arabic, Hebrew, Ottoman, and European sources.

^{page 2 note 2} The most prominent were Ismā'īl b. Ibrāhīm (1725–30), Sulaymān b. Ibrāhīm (1734–8,1741–3), As'ad b. Ismā'īl (1743–57), Muḥammad b. Muṣṭafā (1771–2, 1773–83), and ‘Abdullāh b. Muḥammad (intermittently up to 1807). Members of the ‘Aẓm family play a leading role in Syrian politics to this day.

^{page 3 note 1} See Aff. Étr., BI, 1116 (Tripoli), ‘Relation de la punition des rebelles de Tripoli de Syrie arrivée la nuit des 28 au 29 férrier 1732’, enclosed in a report by Martin dated 9 March 1732.

^{page 3 note 2} Abu al-Mawāhib Ibn Mīrū, Ta'rīkh, MS quoted in Kurd ‘Alī, II, 292.

^{page 4 note 1} Aff. Étr., BI, 1026 (Seyde), report by Arassy dated 30 January 1742.

^{page 4 note 2} It should be remembered that the walāyah of Sidon had been created in 1660 with the purpose of controlling the Druze of Lebanon; Sidon also constituted the most important French échelle on the Syrian coast. See Charles-Roux, F., Les échelles de Syrie et de Palestine au XVIIIe siècle,Paris, 1928Google Scholar.and Masson, Paul, Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIIIe siècle,Paris, 1911Google Scholar. As‘ad’s policy enabled the French to establish closer relations with the Druze. Thus, on 22 December 1741, a meeting was arranged between the Druze emir and the French consul, in which the former promised to protect the Catholic missions and French trade in his area;Aff. Étr., BI, loc. cit.

^{page 4 note 3} The best study of this remarkable ruler is Uriel Heydt (Heyd), al-‘Umar, Ḍāhir, Shallīṭ ha-Gālīl ba-mē āh ha-yōd ḥēt, Jerusalem, 1942Google Scholar. A detailed list of contemporary sources is include

^{page 5 note 1} Huseyn şakir, Mustafa Sami, and Mehmet Subhi, Tarih, Istanbul, A.H. 1198, 223.

^{page 5 note 2} The Dawrah was usually begun at the end of Rajab or the beginning of Sha'bān and completed in one month. The Ḥajj usually left around the middle of Shawwāl and returned at the beginning of Ṣafar.

^{page 5 note 3} This is the concluding sentence of Muḥammad al-Maqqār Ibn Jum‘ah, al-Bāshāt wa’Iquḍāh, ed. Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjidin Wulāt Dimashq fī al-'ahdal-'Uthmānī, Damascus, 1949, 69.

^{page 5 note 4} The historical account of this chapter is based on the following sources (in addition to those previously mentioned): AḤmad b. Budayr al-Budayrī, Ḥawādith Dimashq al-yawmīyah, [A.H.] 1154–1176, MS, Damascus, al-ẓāhirīyah, ‘āmm 3737 (this work was published by Aḥmad‘Izzat’ Abd al-Karīm, Cairo, 1959), pp. 8b–12b; Rislān b. Yaḥyā al-Qārī, al-Wuzarā’ allādhīna ḥakamū fī Dimashq, ed. al-Munajjid, op. cit., 79; Ḥaydar Aḥmad al-Shihābī, al-Ghurar al-ḥisān fī akhbār dbnᄁ’ al-zamān, ed. Rustum, A. and Bustānī, F. A. in Lubnān fī ‘ahd al-Umarā’ al-Shihabīyīn, Beirut, 1933, II, 29–30Google Scholar (for that period this source is often erroneous); al-Kaylānī, Ibrāhīm, ‘Abqarīyāt Shāmīyah fī al-ḥukm wa’ l-siyasah wa ’l-idārah, Damascus, 1946, 8–9Google Scholar;Süreyya, i, 333; Aff. Étr., BI, 1116 (Tripoli), report by Le Maire dated 30 July 1732; 1026 (Seyde), reports by Arassy dated 10 November 1741, 7 March 1742

^{page 7 note 1} An apocopated form of Kapikulu. In the provinces the main task of these Janissaries was to guard the fortresses, hence the term Nöbetçis. See İsmail Hakki Uzunçarşih, Osmanli devleti teşkilatindan Kapukulu ocaldan (2 vols., Ankara, 1943–4), I, 325–30; Djevad, A., Éta, t militaire Ottoman, Paris and Istanbul, i, 1882, 164–71Google Scholar. For Ottoman terms mentioned in this article see Pakahn, Mehmet Zeki, Osmanh tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü, 3 vols., Istanbul, 1946–56.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 2} Levend (the Arabic form being lāwand): from the Italian Uvantino ‘a sailor of the fleet’, or from the Persian laxoand ‘free, volunteer, adventurer’. Dālī (the Arabic form of the Turkish Deli): from the Arabic dalīl ‘guide’, or from the Turkish deli ‘mad, brave’. Both Levends and Dālīs used to serve under local governors. In Syria the former units consisted mostly of Kurdish cavalry (at that time loosely connected with the Imperial Levends); the latter consisted of Kurdish, Turkoman, and other horsemen, who were usually natives of Syria and strongly affiliated with local ṭarīqahs. See Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. 1, pp. 99, 192, n. 9, 193, n. 3, 229, n. 1;Uriel Heyd, Ottoman documents on Palestine, 1552–1615, Oxford, 1960, p. 161, n. 1; Jean Deny, ‘Persan lévénd dans l’usage Osmanli’, Akten des vierundzwanzigsten Internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses, München, 1957, ed. H. Franke, Wiesbaden, 1959, 408–9; İ. H. Uzunçarşih, ‘Deli’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition, n, 201–2.

^{page 7 note 3} The Yerliya body in Damascus apparently parallels the Yerlikulu organization found in many other provinces. See Uzunçarşih, I, 3–4, 330. The Yerliya organization is, perhaps, a later development of units of‘fortress soldiers’ (Hisar eris or Mustaḥfiẓes) existing in Damascus in the sixteenth century. See Heyd, Documents, pp. 73, n. 3, 77, 104, n. 2, 112, 190. It is difficult to establish to-day the exact relations between the original Yerliya body and the Kapikulu Janissaries; but the fact that in Damascene sources the term ‘Janissaries’ is used exclusively for the Yerliya may indicate that the early Yerliya units did not differ much from the Janissaries proper. The enmity between the Yerliya and the Kapikul goes back to some time in the seventeenth century, when the Kapikul were restored to Damascus, taking over the citadel and other key posts and privileges which had for a long time been in the hands of the Yerliya. See Muḥammad al-Muḥibbī, Khulāṣat al-athar fī a‘yān al-qarn al-ḥādī ‘ashar (4 vols., Cairo, 1868), iv, 311, 448; Muhammad Khalīl al-Murādī, Silk al-durarfi a'yān al-qarn al-thānī ‘ashar (4 vols., Bulaq, A.H. 1301), II, 61. Numerous contemporary sources refer to Yerliya units participating in parades and campaigns as cavalry, e.g. al-Budayrī, p. 53a; Ḥasan Ibn al-Ṣiddīq, Gharā’ib al-badā’i‘wa-‘aja’ib al-waqā’i‘, MS, Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek, 9832, p. 12.

^{page 8 note 1} Yet their power did not reach that of the Ashrāf in Aleppo, where the main axis of conflict was between them and the Janissaries. See Bodman, H. L., Political factions in Aleppo, 1760–1826Google Scholar (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1955), ch. iii-v.

^{page 8 note 2} For the dīwān of Damascus see Shamir, 219 ff.

^{page 8 note 3} For the early history of the post of the defterdar in Damascus see Heyd, Documents, 42.

^{page 9 note 1} ‘Agent of expenditure’, see Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. 1, p. 329, n. 9; Pakahn, III, 586.

^{page 9 note 2} The official who used to arrive every year carrying the Sürre, the Sultan's presents to the Hijaz. See Sakir, Sami, and Subhi, Tarih, 69; Shaw, Stanford J., The financial and administrative organization and development of Ottoman Egypt, 1517–1798, Princeton, 1962, 257 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} A ‘purse’ (kīs) equalled 500 piastres (qurūsh). For its purchasing value see below.

^{page 10 note 2} Al-Budayrī, p. 10b.

^{page 11 note 1} An interesting Turkish-Arabic combination which may be translated ‘Lady Sa'adīyahu sleeping’.

^{page 11 note 2} Another Kapikul orta, the seventy-second, arrived in Damascus in a pompous parade in May 1751. In 1750 the total number of Kapikul in the citadel of Damascus was 722. See Djevad, op. oit. The problem of preserving the Turkish character of the Janissary contingents in Damascus was not new—cf. Heyd, Documents, pp. 68–9 and n.1.

^{page 13 note 1} The defterdar was replaced by Muḥammad Efendi b. Farrūkh, who held his post for thirty years; the Agha of the Yerliya was replaced by Darwīsh Agha b. ‘Abdullāh who held his post for thirteen years. Both appointees were Damascus-born members of the a'yān. See al-Murādī, rv, 38; II, 107–8.

^{page 13 note 2} The most recent conflicts had been: 1738–9—the wālī's mercenaries against most of the local forces; 1739–40—Kap%kid against Yerliya; 1741–3—the wātī's mercenaries against the Yerliya and the defterdar's men.

^{page 14 note 1} Al-Budayrī, p. 24a.

^{page 14 note 2} Ibid., pp. 25a-b.

^{page 14 note 3} The historical account of this section is based on the following sources: al-Budayrī, pp. 10a–19b, 21a–24a, 26a–30a, 32a, 34b–37b, 42a, 46a; al-Shihābī, n, 32–9; Burayk, pp. 5a–7b;Ibn al-Qārī, op. cit.; Ibn Mīrū, Ta'rīlch; Yūsuf Karāmah, Ta’rīkh, Rūfā'īl b., ed. Bāsīlīyūs Qaṭṭān in Maṣādir ta’rīkhīyah li-ḥawādith Lubnān wa Suriyā, Beirut, 1929, 11Google Scholar; Aff. Étr., BI, 1026(Seyde), reports by de Lane dated 18 August and 1 September 1745 and by Porry dated 22 October 1745; C. F. C. Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (tr. from the French, 2 vols., London, 1805), n, 64–5, 213. For the biographies of the persons mentioned in this section see al-Murādī, n, 63, 83–5; III, 219–28, 279–87.

^{page 15 note 1} For more information about the a'yān see Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. 1, 198–9, 256–7.

^{page 15 note 2} Al-Budayrī, pp. 25a–b.

^{page 16 note 1} Isma‘il had employed two brothers of this family, Yūsuf and Ni‘mab. Yazici—Burayk, p. 3a; As‘ad appointed ‘Abdullāh Yazici as governor of Homs, the family's place of origin—Ibid., p. 96; Sa‘d al-Din Pasha, As‘ad’s brother, employed Ilyās Yazici as his kâhya—Karāmah, p. 10. It was through Ilyās (who two years after As‘ad’s fall had found refuge in a Catholic monastery) that a branch of the family, originally Greek Orthodox, turned Greek Catholic, Ibid., p. 22.

^{page 16 note 2} Hitti, Philip K., History of Syria, 2nd ed., London, 1957, p. 665Google Scholar. For descriptions of this saray see also al-Ma‘lūf, loc. cit.; Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid, ‘Qasr As‘ad Bāshā al-‘Azm bi-Dimashq’, al-Adīb, No. 9, 1946, 37–44; Lorey, Eustache de and Sauvaget, J., Le palais Azem à Damas, Paris, 1929Google Scholar. For descriptions of other buildings (and of the harsh methods employed in constructing them) see al-Budayrī, pp. 33a–34a, 37b, 39b–41b, 43a; Burayk, p. 7b; al-Kaylānī, 18–19; al-Munajjid (ed.), Kitāb tvaqf As‘ad Bāshā al-‘Azm, Damascus, 1953.

^{page 16 note 3} Burayk, pp. 24b–25a. However, the clashes between the two principal Christian communities, the Greek Orthodox and the Greek Catholic, continued. A climax in this conflict was reached in 1745, when Cyril, the Greek Catholic, almost succeeded in seizing the patriarchate from Sylvester, the Greek Orthodox. A modus vivendi between the two communities was reached in 1751, evidently thanks to the intervention of As‘ad. Burayk, pp. 5a–10b; Karāmah, 8–9;Aff. Étr., BI, 1026 (Seyde), reports by de Lane dated 18 August and 1 September 1745. In 1738 the number of Christians in Damascus was estimated at 20, 000 (of whom about 10, 500 were Greek Orthodox and 8, 000 Greek Catholics). Richard Pococke, A description of the East and some other countries (3 vols. in 2, London, 1743–5), rr, 124. In 1784 their number was estimated at above 15, 000 (of whom 10, 000 were Greek Orthodox) out of a total population of 80, 000. Volney, II, 224–5.

^{page 17 note 1} e.g. al-Budayrī, who was a barber by trade. See ‘Abd al-Karīm’s edition of al-Budayrī’s work, pp. ix-xvii.

^{page 17 note 2} One para (bārah or Miṣrīyah) equalled one-fortieth of a piastre.

^{page 17 note 3} Al-Budayrī, pp. 38b–39a.

^{page 18 note 1} There were also exceptions. In 1752, for example, Aḥmad Agha, the mutasallim, fixed prices in the markets, prevented speculation, and refused to take bribes. But by this he antagonized so many influential persons that nothing further is heard of his career. Al-Budayrī, p. 40a.

^{page 18 note 2} Several reports on the Damascene market in 1753 are to be found in Aff. Étr., BI, 1029(Seyde). The reports reflect a considerable increase in French activity in that market. As‘ad himself traded with the French, mostly through his ṣarrāf. Aff. Étr., BI, 1026 (Seyde), 2 January 1745.

^{page 19 note 1} According to an anecdote given in Volney, n, 213–15. This anecdote has it that instead of imposing new taxes on the millets and the guilds, as proposed by his men, As‘ad collected four times that sum without even allowing it to be known in Damascus. What he did was to hint in turn to the Naqīb, the muftī, the qāḍī, the muḥtasib, the Agha of the Janissaries, and the wealthiest merchants that their abuses were known to him and that he was considering reporting them to Istanbul. They eagerly paid the required sums in order to prevent those reports from being sent. The historical account in this chapter is based mainly on the following sources:Burayk, pp. 4b, 7b, 10a; Ibn al-Qārī, 79; al-Budayrī, pp. llb–12b, 14b–16b, 19a–24a, 36b–39b, 42b–45b.

^{page 19 note 2} Burayk, p. 4b.

^{page 20 note 1} This aspect of the Ottoman system is clearly analysed in Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. 1, 208–16.

^{page 20 note 2} ‘Abbūd al-Ṣabbāgh, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir fī ta‘nlīch Ẓāhir, MS, Paris, 4610, p. 10a.

^{page 21 note 1} Al-Shihābī, II, 34–41; Burayk, p. 13a; al-Budayrī, pp. 35a, 39b, 44b, 45b; Mikhā’īl Niqūlā al-Ṣabbāgh, Ta‘rīkh al-Shaykh Ẓāhir al-‘Umar al-Zaydānī, ed. Quṣṭanṭīn al-Bāshā(2 vols., Harissa, ՛1935՝), I, 67–74; Volney, II, 80–8; reports and other documents (including a few letters from Ẓāhir) in Aff. Étr., BI, 1027, 1029–31 (Seyde). For more details see Shamir, 101, 113–27.

^{page 21 note 2} As‘ad’s request for his brother Muṣṭafā, in 1747, was not granted, as erroneously assumed by‘Abd al-Karīm in the introduction to his edition of al-Budayrī's work (p. xxxvii); cf. Süleyman Izzi, Tarih-i vakayi, Istanbul, A.H. 1199, 184, 210, 218. Towards the end of As‘ad’s rule this walāyah was finally given to his brothers, but only for a short term each.

^{page 21 note 3} Ḥusayn Agha was descended from a Beduin family that had settled in Gaza and had been engaged in trade. His father served under the ‘Aẓms in Damascus and received Gaza as a malikâne. He remained in the Jerusalem post for nine months; he was then deposed and returned to Gaza. Burayk, p. 14a; al-Budayrī, p. 44a; al-Murādī, n, 80–II.

^{page 22 note 1} For information about this outstanding personality see Norman Itzkowitz, Mehmed Raghib Pasha: the making of an Ottoman grand vezir (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1960).

^{page 22 note 2} Al-Budayrī, p. 46b.

^{page 22 note 3} This is reported by Clairambault in the ‘Bulletin’ enclosed with his report dated 16 July 1763. Aff. Étr., BI, 1032 (Seyde). There is no other confirmation of this report; it is known, however, that Sa‘d al-Dīn conferred with his brother As‘ad in Aleppo before assuming the Mar‘ash post. Aff. Étr., BI, 87 (Alep), report by Thomas dated 21 March 1757. Sa‘d al-Dīn was also the first wālī of the ‘Aẓm family to be restored to a Syrian post after As‘ad’s fall.

^{page 23 note 1} Aff. Élr., BI, 87 (Alep), report by Thomas dated 21 March 1757.

^{page 24 note 1} Ahmet Vasif, Maḥâsin ül-âsâr ve-ḥaq໢’iq ül-akhbâr (2 vols., Būlāq, A.H. 1243–6), i, 72.

^{page 24 note 2} Some of the Syrian sources—e.g. al-Shihābī, II, 35—suggest that As‘ad had been promised that, because of his distinguished service to the Ḥajj, he would never be punished by the sword and that this was the reason for the unusual method chosen for his execution. A verse quoted by Vasif saying ‘he who does not die by the sword dies another way’ evidently refers to thesame story.

^{page 24 note 3} The confiscation of this property was, of course, in accordance with the common Ottoman practice. The fortunes of the former Damascus wālīs of the ‘Aẓm family, Ismā‘īl and Sulaymān, had similarly been confiscated. As‘ad, in his turn, had confiscated the property of his own officials upon their death, e.g. that of his wakīl al-hharj, Ibn Dayri, and of his divan efendisi.Al-BudayrI, pp. 19a, 39b. The historical account of this chapter is based on the following sources:Burayk, pp. 17a–18b, 23b; Ibn al Qari, 79–81; M.N. al-Ṣabbāgh, i, 67–80; A. al-Ṣabbāgh, pp. 9a–lla; al-Murādī, II, 60–2, 111–12, III, 161, iv, 98, 433; Kāmil b. Ḥusayn al-Ghazzī, Nahr al-dhahab jī ta‘rīkh Ḥalab (3 vols., Aleppo, 1824–6), III, 299–300; al-Budayrī, pp. 39b, 44b–50a; Vasif, I, 46, 57, 64–5, 72; Volney, II, 215–17, 320; Aff. Étr., BI, 1026 (Seyde), report by de Lane dated 2 February 1745; 1029 (Seyde), report by Gautier dated 30 March, and by de Verrayon dated 1 July 1752; 1030–1 (Seyde), reports by Bourguignon dated 10, 11 April, 23 November, 30 December, 1755, 4 February, and others of 1756; 1119 (Tripoli), report by Gautier dated 8 July 1756; 87–8 (Alep), reports by Thomas dated 10, 21, 26 March, 5 April, 2 May, 30 August, 7 October 1757, 1, 31 May 1758.

^{page 25 note 1} Burayk, p. 23b.

^{page 26 note 1} Burayk, pp. 19b–28a; al-Budayrī, pp. 50a–54b; al-Murādī, I, 98, in, 81–2; Vasif, I, 90–2, 95, 107, 122–3. Volney, in II, 217–22, relates a story according to which èeteci was even then already conscious of the fact that in spite of his accomplishments and success, his end would not differ much from that of As‘ad.

^{page 26 note 2} For the conditions in Syria in those years see, in addition to the sources listed above, the MSS summarized in al-Mashriq, XLII, 1948, 334–9; contemporary letters in Avrāhām Ya‘arī (ed.), Igrōl Ereṣ-Yisrā’ēl, Tel-Aviv, 1943, 290–8; Aff. Étr., BI, 1032 (Ṣeyde), report by Clairambault dated 28 December 1759.

^{page 26 note 3} Some of these conclusions do not agree with the views expressed in Gibb and Bowen's chapter on the Arab provinces. Their work, to which this article owes a great debt, is nevertheless often inaccurate in its presentation of the events of the ‘Aẓms’ incumbency. Perhaps as a result of these inaccuracies the authors tend to overrate the administration and government of As’ad Pasha (and his predecessors) and reach the conclusion that ‘apart from the weakening control of the Porte there is practically no indication prior to 1760 or so that a crisis was so near at hand’ (p. 231, also pp. 204, 207, 218). The numerous accounts of revolts, massacres, and destruction which had taken place in the Syrian provinces in the first half of the eighteenth century (if not earlier), contradict this statement. Nor do the accounts support another view expressed by the authors (partly based on their first conclusion), namely, that the decline of the provinces does not owe its origin to the Ottoman system itself, but to the fact that ‘during the course of the eighteenth century various factors … created new problems which the old organization was totally unable to deal with’ (p. 216, also pp. 200, 231). In the Syrian provinces, as we have seen, the Ottoman system had started the process of disintegration and devastation long before new factors emerged.

^{page 27 note 1} Al-Murādī, iv, 102. For the rule of this wāiī, see Shamir, 154–216.

^{page 27 note 2} This substitution was finally decided upon by the central government in a meeting which took place on 19 January 1785, in the konak of şeyhulislam. A detailed report of its discussions is given in Ahmet Cevdet, Tarih-i Cevdet (2nded., 12 vols., Istanbul, A.H. 1309), in, 152–7.