[707] Hadji Khalfa naïvely solves this doubt by rolling Masud and Kaï Kobad into one and the same person. Djihannuma, folio 1752 bis.
[708] There is no way of reaching certainty on this point. Rasmussen, Annales Islamici, pp. 34-8, reflects the confusion which attended the scholar of the early nineteenth century who wanted to make a chronological table of the later Seljuk Sultans. The two best modern tables are to be found in Sarre and Huart, scholars who became interested in the Seljuk problem through their archaeological travels in Asia Minor. The best account of the Seljuks is that of Houtsma in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is to be regretted that Professor Houtsma has not published the French translation of Ibn Bibi, which he promised in his introduction to the 4th volume of the Leyden series of Seljuk texts. Three years ago, Professor Sir William Ramsay, who knows Konia better than any European scholar, told me that he felt there was rich reward for the research student in the Seljuk period. The history of the Seljuks of Konia has yet to be written.
[709] Osman was the sole heir according to Boecler: also Donado da Lezze, 4.
[710] ‘Osman, Karaman, and Assam. Karaman retired to Syria and Assam to Persia. The house of Osman always persecuted the descendants of these two latter.’ Geuffroi, 267. Also Cuspianus, 11, and Haeniger.
[711] Spandugino, Lonicerus, and Egnatius.
[712] Mignot, 33.
[713] Tractatus de moribus; Vanell, i. 351-2; Sagredo; Cervarius; Cuspianus, 46.
[714] The historian must use the Bonn editions with caution. There are frequent glosses in the Latin translations of Byzantine texts. See foot-note on p. 263.
[715] Pachymeres, ii. 589.
[716] See Appendix B, which is really a continuation of this argument.