^{page 55 note 1} Western authors who recognize the importance of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt are Braudel, Fernand, La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II, 2nd ed. (2 vols., Paris, 1966), vol. 2, pp. 16–18;Google Scholar and de Magalhāes Godinho, Vitorino, ‘A viragem mundial de 1517–1524 eo o império português’, in Ensaios Sobre História de Portugal (2 vols., Lisbon, 1968), vol. 2, pp. 141–53. The arguments contained herein owe much to the scholarly exchange that took place at the University of Washington conference on ‘Islam in the Later Middle Ages’, 19–21 June 1970.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} The best expression of this point of view is in Toynbee, Arnold J., Civilization on Trial (New York, 1948), pp. 62–96.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} A study of the Asian reaction to the Oceanic Revolution from the Western point of view is covered in the following article collections published under the general editorship of Stavrianos, Leften: The Muslim World on the Eve of Europe's Expansion, ed. Saunders, John J. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966);Google ScholarEuropean Expansion and the Counter- Example of Asia, 1300–1600, ed. Levenson, Joseph R. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967);Google Scholar and Asia on the Eve of Europe's Expansion, ed. Lach, Donald F. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965).Google Scholar The technological conservatism of Asians during the Age of Discoveries is the special concern of Cipolla, Carlo M., Guns, Sails, and Empires (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} This tendency reaches a climax with Lach, Donald F., Asia in the Making of Europe (vol. 1 in two books to date, Chicago, 1965), vol. 1/2, xv, where he defines the Islamic world out of Asia.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 4} For example, Saunders, John J., ‘The Problems of Islamic Decadence’, Journal of World History, vol. 7/3 (1963), pp. 701–20;Google Scholar and Cahen, Claude, ‘Quelques mots sur le déclin commercial du monde musulman à la fin du Moyen Age’, in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, ed. Cook, M. A. (London, 1970), pp. 31–6.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} Mamluk policy in the Red Sea regions at the time of the Ming voyages in the Indian Ocean is covered by Darrag, Ahmad, L'Égypte sous le règne de Barsbay 825–841/1422–1438 (Damas, 1961,), pp. 197–237.Google Scholar For the Chinese view of international relations see The Chinese World Order, ed. Fairbank, John King (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968), passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 58 note 2} The drift of events in fifteenth-century Persia has been summarized by Minorsky, Vladimir F., ‘La Perse au XV^e siècle’, in Iranica (Tehran, 1964), pp. 317–26.Google Scholar On the military and administrative history of the Ak Koyunlu dynasty and the Ottomans compare Minorsky, V., Persia in A.D. 1478–1490, in Royal Asiatic Society Monographs, vol. 26 (London, 1957), pp. 20–4, 36–41, 63, 88, 116Google Scholar, with Neşrî, Mehmed, Kitâb-i Cihan-Nümâ (2 vols., Ankara, 1949–57), vol: 2, p. 819;Google ScholarKemal, Ibn, Tevârih-i-Al-i Osinan. VII Defter, photo. reproduction in vol. 1, transcription and criticism in vol. 2 by ŞSerafettin Turan (hereafter all references to vol. 2, cited as Ibn Kemal) (Ankara, 1954–7), vol. 2, pp. 316– 19, 338–9;Google ScholarSavory, R. M., ‘The Struggle for Supremacy in Persia after the Death of Timur’, Der Islam, vol. 60 (1964), pp. 35–65;Google Scholar and Wittek, Paul, ‘De la défaite d'Ankara à la prise de Constantinople’, Revue des études islamiques, vol. 12 (1938), pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Darrag, Ahmad, L'Égypte, pp. 5–7, 162, 381, 391–9, covers the boundary problems in the early portion of the fifteenth century. The struggle between the Ottomans and the Mamluks for influence at the Ak Koyunlu court after 1453 is inGoogle ScholarTihrânî, Abû Bakr-i, Kitâb-i Diyârbakriyya, ed. Lugal, Necati and Sümer, Faruk (2 vols., Ankara, 1962–4), vol. 2, pp. 553–4. The Ottoman defeat of the Ak Koyunlu at Otlukbeli in 1473 is in Ibn Kemal, pp. 353–8.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Ehrenkreutz, A. S., ‘Contributions to the Knowledge of the Fiscal Administration of Egypt in the Middle Ages’, BSOAS, vol. 16/3 (1954), pp. 502–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} On fifteenth-century Portuguese expansion see Boxer, C. R., The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415–1825 (New York, 1969), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar The economic side of Portuguese activity in Africa is in Magalhães-Godinho, Vitorino, L'Économie de l'empire portugais aux XV^e et XVI^se siècles (Paris, 1969), pp. 33–4, et passim.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} Ibid. pp. 17–31, 290–310, 550–5, 783.

^{page 60 note 3} Boxer, The Portuguese, pp; 33–8; and Livermore, H. V., A New History of Portugal (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 122–31.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} Darrag, Ahmad, L'Égypte, pp. 210–11, 331–9.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} Elliott, J. H., Imperial Spain 1469–1716 (New York, 1963), pp. 128–60, gives a general picture of Spanish expansion. The counter-expansion of the Ottomans is described in Hayreddin Barbarossa's history.Google ScholarRang, Sander and Denis, J. F., Fondation de la régime d'Alger, histoire des Berberousse (2 vols., Paris, 1837), vol. 1, pp. 21–283.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} For a summary of Turkish naval history through the conquest of Egypt see Hess, Andrew C., ‘The Evolution of the Ottoman Seaborne Empire in the Age of the Oceanic Discoveries, 1453–1525’, The American Historical Review, vol. 75/7 (12 1970), pp. 1870–1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} Figures on the Ottoman fleet are in Ibn Kemal, pp. 42–3; ‘Aşikpaşzâde, , 'Aşikpaşazâde Tarihi (Die Altosmanische Chronik des 'Aşkpaşazâde), ed. Giese, Friedrich (Leipzig, 1929), p. 132;Google Scholar and Kritovoulos, , History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. Riggs, Charles T. (Princeton, New Jersey, 1954), p. 37.Google Scholar Italian and Greek figures are given by Runciman, Steven, The Fall of Constantinople, 1453 (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 215; 76, n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 3} Kemal, Ibn, pp. 220–1, 285, 383–5, 470–3, 500, 507–8, records the imperial use of the Ottoman fleet.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 4} Kritovoulos, pp. 37, 83, 93, 140–1, 148–9, 184–5; 'Aşikpaşazâde, pp. 133, 148; Ibn Kemal, pp. 96–8, 101;Google ScholarArgenti, Philip P., The Occupation of Chios by the Genoese and their Administration of the Island, pp. 1346–566 (3 vols., London, 1958), vol. 1, p. 219;Google Scholar and Sanjian, Avedis K., Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1301–1480 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 245, 284, 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} Compare Thiriet, Freddy, La Romanie vénitienne au Moyen Age (Paris, 1959), pp. 4–45;Google ScholarKemal, Ibn, pp. 105–6, 117, 165, 176, 180, 219–20, 287, 291, 309, 384, 388, 500; and Kritovoulos, pp. 15–16, 24, 96, 107–8, 138, 163.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} Kemal, Ibn, pp. 500–7, 528, 542, 544.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} A bibliography on Cem can be found in Inalcik, Halil, ‘Djem’, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition (hereafter EI²) (2 vols. to date, Leiden, 1960 ), vol. 2, pp. 529–31.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Tansel, Selâhattin, Sultan II Bâyezit'in Siyasî Hayati (Istanbul, 1966), pp. 93–116, describes the Ottoman–Mamluk wars. Note the reproduction on pages 97–8 of the proposal to conquer the Arab lands.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Mordtmann, J. H. and Yinanç, Mükrimin H., ‘Dulkadirlilar’, in Islam Ansiklopedisi (10 vols. to date, Istanbul, 1950–), vol. 3, pp. 654–62.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 4} Tansel, Bâyezit, p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} Minorsky, Persia, pp. 61–8; Rûmlû, Hasan-i, Ahsanut-Tawârîkh (A Chronicle of the Early Safawis), trans. Seddon, C. N. (Baroda, 1934), pp. 18, 26–7, 57–71;Google ScholarSavory, R. M., ‘The Consolidation of Safawid Power in Persia’, Der Islam, no. 41 (10, 1965), pp. 71–94;Google Scholar and Sohrweide, Hanna, ‘Der Siege der Safaviden in Persien und seine Rückwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens im 16. Jahrhundert’, Der Islam. no. 41 (10, 1965), pp. 131–7, for the Kizilbaş centers in Anatolia.Google Scholar The Ottoman response is treated in Tansel, Bâyezit, pp. 245–64; Tansel, Selâhattin, Yavuz Sultan Selim (Ankara, 1969), pp. 31–100;Google ScholarTekindağ, M. S., ‘Yeni Kaynak ve vesikalarin işiğnda Yavuz Sultan Selim'in Iran Seferi’, Tarih Dergisi, vol. 17 (1968), pp. 49–78;Google Scholar and at the propaganda level Eberhard, Elke, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safawiden im 16. Jahrhundert nach arabischen Handschriften (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1970), pp. 159, et passim.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} This is not to argue that the Ottomans were in a defensive stage of their history. On the relation between ideologies and frontier history see Khaldun, Ibn, The Muqaddimah, trans. Rosenthal, Franz, 2nd ed. (3 vols., Princeton, New Jersey, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 313–36.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 3} Iyâs, Ibn, Journal d'un bourgeois du Caire, trans. Wiet, Gaston (2 vols., Paris, 1955–1960), vol. 1, pp. 148–9.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 4} Rûmlũ, Hasan-i, Ahsan, pp. 57–64.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} Hess, ‘The Ottoman Seaborne Empire’, pp. 1904–6. The development of Ottoman sea-power makes an impact on histories from Venice to Persia.Google ScholarSanuto, Marino, I Diarii, ed. Barozzi, Nicolo et al. (58 vols., Venice, 1879–1903), vol. 1, cols. 398–9, 323; vol. 2, cols. 568–70; vol. 3, cols. 1348–9; and Hasan-i Rûmlû, Ahsan, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} Khalfah, Haji, The History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks, trans. Mitchell, James (London, 1831), pp. 19–24, observes how Bâyezid's naval victories allowed Selim the Grim to punish the ‘Persians’ and annex Syria and Egypt.Google Scholar For further references to European and Ottoman sources see Fisher, Sidney Nettleton, The Foreign Relations of Turkey 1481–1512 (Urbana, Ill., 1948), pp. 54–89; and Tansel, Bâyezit, pp. 176–225.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} Godinho, ‘viragem’, pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} For this part of South Arabian naval history see Sergeant, Robert B., The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (Oxford, 1963), pp. 41–51;Google ScholarSchuman, L. O., Political History of the Yemen at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century (Amsterdam, 1961), p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Portuguese sources are abundant. de Góis, Damiao, Crónica do Felicíssimo Rei D. Manuel (4 vols., Coimbra, 1949–1954), vol. 2, pp. 85–91, 132–7, chronicles the two battles.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} Godinho, L'Économie, pp. 713–64.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} Hess, ‘The Ottoman Seaborne Empire’, pp. 1909–14.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} Iyâs, Ibn, Journal, vol. 2, pp. 435, 440–6.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 4} al-Dîn, Sa'd, Tâc-ut Tevârîh (2 vols., Istanbul, 1862–3), vol. 2, pp. 241–2.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 5} Savory, ‘The Consolidation’, pp. 82–94; Tansel, Selim, pp. 31–72.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 1} Bey, Ahmet Feridun, Münşa' ât-us Salâtîn (Istanbul, 1858), vol. 2, p. 401;Google Scholar and al-Dîn, Sa'd, Tâc, vol. 2, p. 259, describe the Janissary revolts. On the problems of the Persian frontier seeGoogle ScholarKütüukoglu, Bekir, Osmanli-Iran Siyâsî Münâsebetleri (Istanbul, 1962), pp. 36, 144–6;Google ScholarInalcik, Halil, ‘Osmanli-Rus Rekabetinin Menşei ve Don-Volga Kanali Teşebbüsü (1569)’ Belleten, vol. 12/46 (04, 1948), pp. 349–97;Google Scholar and Peçevî, Ibrâhím, Târîh-i Peçevî (2 vols., Istanbul, 1866), vol. 2, pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} The crucial role of Idrîs Bidlîsî on the eastern frontier is clear in al-Dîn, Sa'd, Tâc, vol. 2, pp. 321–3.Google Scholar For his Ak Koyunlu background see al-Bidlîsî, Sharaf Khân, Sharaf Nâmeh, ed. 'Abbâsî, Muhammad (Tehrân, 1333/1914–1915), p. 448.Google Scholar On the fall of Mardin and its role in the history of the Ottoman invasion of Mamluk territories see Göyünç, Nejat, XVI Yüzyilda Mardin Sancaği (Istanbul, 1969), pp. 15–34.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} Tansel, Selim, pp. 101–7.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} Ibid. p. 193; and Ayalon, David, Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom (London, 1956), on the whole question of military technology.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 2} Çelebî, Seyfî, L'Ouvrage de Seyfî Çelebî, trans. Matuz, Joseph (Paris, 1968), pp. 19–25, discusses the Asian proposal. On Selim's plans after the conquest of Egypt see Hess, ‘The Ottoman Seaborne Empire’, p. 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} Tansel, Bâyezit, pp. 93–100, summarizes the reasons for Mamluk–Ottoman hostility up to the accession of Selim the Grim in 1512.Google ScholarIyâs, Ibn, Histoire de Mamlouks Circassiens 872–906, trans. Wiet, Gaston (2 vols., Cairo, 1945), vol. 2, pp. 201–11, 234–5, 240–8, 265, 280, 302–3, 357, documents the rise of Mamluk hostility toward the Ottomans.Google ScholarUzunçarşili, I. H., ‘Memlûk Sultanlari yanina iltica etmiş olan Osmanli Hanedanina mensup Şehzadeler’, Belletin, vol. 17/68 (10. 1953), pp. 519–35, underlines the use of Egypt by Ottoman political refugees. Information on the Ottoman relations with India as a cause of tension is in Gelibûlîlî Mustafa ‘Âlî, ‘Künh-ul ahbâr’, Istanbul Univ. Library TY 5959, IV, fo. 140^a ‘Aşikpaşzâde, pp. 200–34, has a long section on the reasons for Ottoman-Mamluk enmity in which the question of imperial titles is a main issue. For an analysis of that question see Haul Inalcik, ‘Padişah’, IA, IX, pp. 491–5.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} On the importance of the Holy Places see ed-Din, Cutb, Geschichte der Stadt Mekka und ihres Tempels, ed. Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand in Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka (4 vols., Leipzig, 1858–61), vol. 3, p. 278;Google Scholar and Iyâs, Ibn, Journal, vol. 1, pp. 356–7, 371–4, 401–2. Tansel, Selim, pp. 210–17, studied the problem of the Caliphal title. The drive toward political unity in the Islamic community is discussed inGoogle ScholarGibb, H. A. R., ‘The Heritage of Islam in the Modern World (I)’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 1/1 (01 1970), pp. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The world-wide implications of Selim's religious policy are covered in Inalcik, Halil, ‘Les peuples de l'Europe du sud-est et leur rôle dans l'histoire: l'empire ottoman’, in Éditions de l'Académie Bulgare des Sciences, vol. 3 (Sofia, 1969), pp. 88–94.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} Laoust, Henri, Les Gouverneurs de Damas (Damas, 1952), pp. 137, 143–7, 154–9, gives one example of the attitude of religious leaders toward the arrival of the Ottomans. For Selim's actions in Jerusalem regarding non-Muslims see Tansel, Selim, pp. 159–60. The place of Egypt in the social history of Ottoman Europe is pointed out by StanfordGoogle ScholarShaw, J., ‘The Ottoman View of the Balkans’, in The Balkans in Transition, ed. Jelavich, C. and Jelavich, B. (Berkeley, California, 1963), p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} As in so many other areas, the social history of the Ottoman Empire is only beginning. Nevertheless see the Misir Kanunnâmesi (1524) in Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, Osmanli Imparator-lugunda Zirai Ekonominin Hukukî ye Malî Esaslari (one vol. to date, Istanbul, 1945– ), vol. pp. 360–8, for the internal objectives in Egypt of the Ottoman Empire.Google Scholar The important question of guild organization is taken up by Baer, Gabriel, ‘The Administrative, Economic and Social Functions of Turkish Guilds’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 1/1 (01. 1970), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Godinho, ‘viragem’, pp. 141–4, using Venetian figures, documents Ottoman financial strength. Two studies from Ottoman sources for the captured territories support Godinho's conclusions.Google ScholarShaw, Stanford J., The Financial and Administrative Organization and Development of Ottoman Egypt (Princeton, New Jersey, 1962), pp. 283–312;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Göyünç, , Mardin, pp. 125–40. Non-Muslim sources also reflect the improvement in economic affairs after the conquest of EgyptGoogle ScholarLewis, Bernard, ‘A Jewish Source on Damascus just after the Ottoman Conquest’, BSOAS, vol. 10/1 (1939–42), pp. 179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} Shaw, Financial, pp. 272–9, 283, 305–7, 313–15, 332–5. There is abundant documentation for the importance of the sea route from Istanbul to Egypt. Matrâkcî Nasüh, ‘Dastân-i Sultân-i Suleymân’, TKS R. 1286, fos. 54^b -55^b;Google ScholarEfendî, Selânikî Mustafâ, Târîh-i Selânikî (Istanbul, 1864), p. 100;Google Scholar and Güçer, Lütfi, Osmanli Imparatorlugunda Hububat Meselesi ve Hububattan alinan Vergiler (Istanbul, 1964), pp. 32–6.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} Pachazadeh, Kemal, Histoire de la Campagne de Mohacz, trans. de Courteille, M. Pavet (Paris, 1859), pp. 7–19, 24–6, notes the connection between the conquest of Egypt, the development of the Ottoman navy, the exploitation of Hapsburg-Valois rivalry, and the victory over the Hungarians in 1526.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 3} Braudel, , La Méditerranée, vol. 2, pp. 377–82, 415–17.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} European historians, however, emphasize what limited Ottoman expansion. Koenigsberger, H. G. and Mosse, G. L., Europe in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1968), pp. 174–96.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} As an example of how Ottomans tried to take advantage of European religious difficulties see Hess, Andrew C., ‘The Moriscos: An Ottoman Fifth Column in Sixteenth Century Spain’, The American Historical Review, vol. 74/1 (10. 1968), pp. 1–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar for Eastern Europe consult Fischer-Galati, S. A., Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism, 1521–1555 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 38–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBoxer, C. R., ‘Portuguese and Spanish Projects for the Conquest of Southeast Asia 1580–1600’, Journal of Asian History, vol. 3/2 (1969), pp. 118–36, shows how the war between the Ottomans and the Iberians extended along religious lines into Southeast Asia.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} The use of this term in Ottoman history is described by Gibb, H. A. R. and Bowen, Harold, Islamic Society and the West: volume 1, Islamic Society in the Eighteenth Century (vol. 1 in 2 parts to date, 1950–7), vol. 1/2, pp. 207–61.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} On the absorption of Orthodox Christians see Babinger, Franz, Mahomet II, le conquérant et son temps (1432–1481) (Paris, 1954), pp. 130–1,.Google ScholarInalcik, Haul in ‘Arnawutluk’, EI², vol. 1, pp. 651–8Google Scholar, discusses the Albanian case. Djurdjev, Branislav, ‘Bosna’, EI², vol. 1, pp. 1261–75Google Scholar, describes the Ottoman conquest and absorption of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spanish Muslims and their impact on Mediterranean politics is developed in Hess, ‘Moriscos’, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar The activity of influential Jewish refugees from Iberia is the subject of Grunebaum-Ballin, P., Joseph Naci duc de Naxos (Paris, 1968).Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} Hamilton, E. J., American Treasure and the Price Revolution in Spain, 1501–1650 (Cambridge, Mass., 1934), pp. 32–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides the economic data; Elliot, , Imperial Spain, pp. 179–204, 281–316Google Scholar, relates the financial condition of Spain to imperial adventures. Parker, Geoffrey, ‘Spain, Her Enemies and the Netherlands, 1559–1648’, Past and Present, no. 49 (11, 1970), pp. 72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, describes the economic consequences of northern frontier warfare for Spanish policy in the Mediterranean. On the Ottoman side see Shaw, Financial, pp. 283–5, and Sanuto, vol. 61, cols. 534–5.

^{page 75 note 2} Godinho, , L'Économie, pp. 573–4, 630–1, 713–834;Google Scholar and Parry, V. J., ‘The Economy of Expanding Europe in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in The Cambridge Economic History of Europe (4 vols. to date, London, 1966– ), vol. 4, pp. 155–200.Google ScholarBoxer, C. R., ‘A Note on Portuguese Reactions to the Revival of the Red Sea Spice Trade and the Rise of Acheh, 1540–1600’, JSEAH, vol. 10/3 (12. 1969), pp. 415–28, shows how Ottoman economic activities reached out as far as Indonesia.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} Ettinghausen, Richard, Turkish Miniatures (New York, 1965), pp. 5–24.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} Morosini, Gianfrancesco, ‘Venetian Ambassador's Report on Spain, 1581’, in Pursuit of Power, ed. Davis, James C. (New York, 1970), p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} For the reflection of the Turkish menace in early sixteenth-century German hymns see Moore, Sydney H., ‘The Turkish Menace in the Sixteenth Century’, The Modern Language Review, vol. 60 (1945), pp. 30–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar