[430] Sura V, verse 53 (ibid., p. 77). [431] Hammer, iii. 302-4. Rambaud, _Histoire générale_, iii. 831, is mistaken in attributing this law to Bayezid. [432] Ruled 1350 to 1369. [433] In 1330. Panaretos, p. 7. [434] In 1320 at Salonika: Greg., VII. 13, p. 271. [435] Month of Shaban, a.h. 791: MS. turc, Bibl. Nat., Paris, No. 79, pp. 35, 40. Cf. Langlès, in _Notices et Extraits_, v. 672. [436] Froissart, IV. c. 47, in Kervyn ed., xv. 216-17. Froissart calls Bayezid ‘Amoruth-Baquin’, confusing him with Murad. See below, p. 213, _n._ 2. [437] Abul Yussif ibn Taghry, _Elmanhal Essafy_, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, No. 748, ii, fol. 70. [438] Vuk Brankovitch, as the reward of his treason, received half of Lazar’s inheritance, however, with Pristina as capital. His family continued as Ottoman vassals, with varying fortunes, for a hundred years. [439] Ducas, 4, p. 6. [440] Kantitz, _Serbien_, pp. 254 f. [441] Busbequius was informed at Constantinople that marriage had been abolished in the Ottoman royal family because Bayezid took to heart the disgrace of Despina by Timur. But Ricaut, p. 296, thinks that it was because of dowry expense and the desire of the Ottoman sovereigns to keep free from family alliances. Naturally, the difference of religion in time prevented the Osmanlis from finding brides for their sovereigns among the European royal families. If they married among their subjects, there was always fear of intrigues in the wife’s family. At a time when family alliances meant so much in Europe, the Ottoman Empire suffered greatly from this disability. [442] Seadeddin, i. 158. [443] Klaić, p. 248. I think Romanin, iii. 331, has confused Stephen Bulcovitch with Stephen Tvrtko. For it is difficult to understand what he means by the ‘pace vergognosa’ with Venice. [444] Old Servian chronicle, quoted by Klaić, p. 271: ‘quasi totaliter destruxerunt Bosniam et populum abduxerunt.’ [445] Klaić, pp. 324-5. [446] Accounts differ as to the place. There is some doubt as to whether the independence of Aïdin was totally destroyed before the restoration of Isa’s sons by Timur. Cf. Schlumberger, p. 484; Mas-Latrie, _Trésor de Chronologie_, col. 1800. Hammer, i. 300, cites no authorities for his statements about this usurpation. [447] Bosio, ii. 143. [448] Ibid., ii. 148. [449] There is the same dearth of information about the details of the destruction of the power of the emirs of Sarukhan and Menteshe as there is about Aïdin. Hammer says simply, ‘Les principautés de S. et M. furent incorporées à l’empire ottoman,’ i. 300. He gives no authorities. [450] Ducas, 13, p. 47. [451] _Dialogi XXVI cum Persa quodam de Christianae religionis veritate_, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253: partly printed in _Notices et Extraits_, vol. viii, 2e partie, and in Migne, 156, pp. 111-74. In _Notices et Extraits_, loc. cit., C. B. Hase has given an interesting critical account of the dialogues, and the circumstances under which they were written.