LAUSR

In this book Dimitri Kastritsis presents a translation of what he describes as “one of the most important texts for understanding the development of early Ottoman historiography in the fifteenth century” (p. 1). Part of the manuscript, that dealing with the reign of Mehmed I and taking up almost one third of the text, has been translated into English before by Kastritsis himself,1 but he notes that this is “an improved translation” that supersedes his earlier work (p. 4, note 9). The manuscript has also been published in facsimile with a transliteration in Latin script but this edition is severely criticised by Kastritsis who describes it as “best avoided” (pp. 9–10).2 Still sometimes referred to as Ruhi’s History, although Ruhi was not in fact the author as demonstrated by Ménage in his 1964 publication on Neşri (pp. 1, note 1, and 9),3 this anonymous manuscript covers the history of the Ottomans from their rise around 1300 to 1484. According to Kastritsis, it was most probably a presentation copy produced for Bayezid II (1481-1512) (p. 1). The manuscript begins with a preface, apparently an original composition by the author, followed by two chapters, one on the supremacy of the house of Osman and the second on the Ottoman dynastic myth. There are then eight “inquiries” covering the reigns of Osman, Orhan, Murad I, Bayezid I, Mehmed I, Murad II, Mehmed II and the beginning of the reign of Bayezid II. Unfortunately much of the section on Osman and the initial part of the section on Orhan I are missing. However, by comparison with the works of Ruhi and Neşri, among others, both closely related to this anonymous work, Kastritsis suggests that these missing parts probably covered Ertuğrul’s death, Osman’s coming to power, Osman’s dream, accounts of Osman’s conquest in Bithynia and Orhan’s early conquests including that of the beylik of Karasi, and concludes that what is missing was probably not substantial and was made up mostly of abridged versions of early Ottoman legendary accounts (pp. 13 and 31). One interesting divergence in the anonymous history from other accounts of Ottoman dynastic origins is the claim that Osman was not connected to the Seljuks, something which contrasts with other accounts which trace Ottoman authority to their position as clients of the Seljuks (p. 12 and p. 53 of text). In Chapter 1, the author notes that it was only after the Mongols “completely destroyed”