Introduction to Mamluk Historiography: An Analysis of Arabic Annalistic and Biographical Sources for the Reign of al-Malik an-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāʹūn 9780773594258

Citation preview

FREIBURGER ISLAMSTUDIEN • BAND II

AN INTRODUCTION TO MAMLUK HISTORIOGRAPHY An Analysis of Arabic Annalistic and Biographical Sources for the Reign of al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un

BY

DONALD PRESGRAVE LITTLE

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH • WIESBADEN

DONALD PRESGRAVE LITTLE AN INTRODUCTION TO MAMLtJK HISTORIOGRAPHY

FREIBURGER ISLAMSTUDIEN herausgegeben von

HANS ROBERT ROEMER BAND II

AN INTRODUCTION TO MAMLUK HISTORIOGRAPHY An Analysis of Arabic Annalistic and Biographical Sources for the Reign of al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un

BY

DONALD PRESGRAVE LITTLE

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH • WIESBADEN 1970

Alle Rechte vorbehalten Gedruckt mit Unterstiitzung des ,,Humanities Research Council of Canada . Ohne ausdriickliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, das Werk oder einzelne Teile daraus nachzudrucken oder auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie usw.) zu vervielfaltigen. © 1970 by Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden • Gesamtherstellung: Rheingold-Druckerei, Mainz Printed in Germany

To My Parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the help of many persons and institutions I could not have even tried to solve the problems inherent in studying Arabic manuscripts. I would like therefore to express my gratitude to all those who did help me, first of all to librarians in London, Paris, Berlin, Istanbul, New Haven, and above all, Cairo, who gave me access to the materials analyzed in this study. Special thanks are due to Mr. Rasad 'Abd al-Muttalib of the Arab League Institute of Arabic Manuscripts for his enthusiastic assistance and to Dr. Christel Kessler, who made the Creswell collection, including a photographic copy of al-Muqri's manuscript, available to me. Friends who acted as couriers and expediters to facilitate the passage of books and manuscripts between Cairo and Los Angeles I also sincerely thank, in particular Mrs. Helen Dillon, executive secretary of the U.C.L.A. Near Eastern Center. The expense incurred in collecting the material for this study was borne by the American Research Center in Egypt Inc., to whose directors I am grateful for their patient and generous support. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Humanities Research Council of Canada, using funds provided by the Canada Council. I am greatly indebted to Professors G. E. von Grunebaum and Moshe Perlmann, who over a period of four years read my work in the form of sections of a Ph. D. dissertation, commented on it, and more often than I would like to admit corrected it. Professor Andreas Tietze and William H. Brinner and one of my students, Mr. Hasan Q. Murad, I wish also to thank for valuable suggestions. Mr. Ulrich Haarmann generously gave me access to his research in Marnluk historiography even before submitting it as a doctoral dissertation to the Orientalisches Seminar of Freiburg University. He was also kind enough to call attention to my work to Professor Hans R. Roemer, who honored me by agreeing to include it in the Freiburger Islamstudien and took on the difficult task of editing it. I am especially grateful to both these German colleagues. Professor Charles Adams, Director of the McGill Institute of Islamic Studies, gave me encouragement when I needed it most. Finally, I wish to thank my wife for her immeasurable help at all stages of preparing this work. McGill University, Montreal, Canada. June, 1969 DONALD PRESGRAVE LITTLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS C H A P T E R I. A R A B I C A N N A L I S T I C S O U R C E S F O R T H E R E I G N O F AL-MALIK AN-NASIR

VII j

A. C O N T E M P O R A R Y E G Y P T I A N H I S T O R I A N S 1. Baibars al-Mansuri 2. I b n ad-Dawadarf 3. Author Z 4. an-Nuwairl 5. Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il 6. M u h a m m a d 'Abd Allah as-Safadi 7. al-'Umari 8. al-Muqn

xg 24 32 38 40 40

B. C O N T E M P O R A R Y S Y R I A N H I S T O R I A N S 1. Abu 1-Fida' 2. al-Birzali 3. al-Gazari 4. al-Yunini 5. a d - D a h a b i 6. I b n al-Wardi 7. a l - K u t u b i 8. I b n K a t l r

42 42 46 53 57 61 66 67 69

C. L A T E R H I S T O R I A N S 1. I b n a l - F u r a t 2. I b n Haldiin 3. al-Maqrlzi 4. al-'Aini 5. I b n Tagri BirdI 6. I b n Iyas

73 73 75 76 80 87 92

D. M I N O R S O U R C E S

94

E. CONCLUSIONS

94

C H A P T E R I I . A R A B I C B I O G R A P H I C A L S O U R C E S F O R T H E R E I G N O F AL-MALIK AN-NASIR

4 4 IO

100

A. B I O G R A P H I C A L D I C T I O N A R I E S 1. Salah ad-Din Halll ibn Aibak as-Safadi 2. I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani 3. I b n Tagri BirdI

102 102 106 108

B. O B I T U A R Y N O T I C E S

no

C. T E N T A T I V E C O N C L U S I O N S A N D G E N E R A L C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

112

D. C O N C L U S I O N S

135

A P P E N D I X : MASTER TABLES

137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

143

INDICES 1. Proper names, persons and peoples 2. Place n a m e s 3. W o r d s , titles, things 4. A u t h o r s a n d works

148 148 149 150 153

CHAPTER I

ARABIC ANNALISTIC SOURCES FOR THE REIGN OF AL-MALIK AN-NASIR A close textual analysis of the sources for the reign of the sixth Bahri Mamliik sultan, alMalik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un, would seem to be worthwhile for several reasons other than the obvious one of classifying and evaluating the material which is available for the biography of an important but neglected figure of medieval Egyptian history. Indeed, it is hoped that even though the analysis covers only three years - 694/1294-95, 699/1299-1300, 705/130506 - it will provide a framework of reference for the historiography of the entire Bahri period, or, if such a hope is inflated, at least for the entire reign of al-Malik an-Nasir, a period which, including the times he was deposed, comprises some forty-eight years of Mamluk history, 693-741/ 1293-1341, or two-fifths of the entire Bahri dynasty, 659-784/1259-1382. Furthermore, since what is proposed is not merely biographical identification of the chroniclers who wrote about these years or simply an indication of their access to sources, informants, and events, but close study of the way in which each historian used his sources and the type of events which he chose to describe, it is also hoped that some insight will be gained into the principles and methodology of Muslim historiography of this period. Unfortunately, I lack the qualifications to fit my findings for this period into the larger frameworks of Muslim historiography and of Mamluk culture; the tantalizing question as to why so many historians of high calibre flourished at a time when all other arts and sciences save those connected with architecture were in decline will therefore be avoided, with the hope, however, that this study may serve those scholars who do venture to answer it. This analysis of sources might have more immediate practicality. The richness of the Bahri period in historical sources is a mixed blessing. It is true that the sources are gradually being edited and published, but some of the most important exist still only in manuscript form, in such bulk, moreover, that the difficulties involved in procuring them even in microfilm and photostats are prohibitive, especially at such times as today when unstable political conditions in the Middle East complicate even more than usual the scholar's attempt to communicate with libraries of the area. A textual analysis will indicate at least the nature of the contents of these relatively inaccessible documents and thus may be useful to the scholar who wishes to familiarize himself with the sources for the Bahri period. It is true that surveys of many of these sources are already available in the form of introductory material to specialized studies of the period; ripe in suggestion and valuable as indices to Mamluk historians, they do not obviate the need for analysis and comparison of the sources themselves1. But this analysis will not encompass all available sources; it is limited to Arabic chronicles and biographical dictionaries which I have been able to examine. Thus it must be admitted at the outset that a vast amount of material which bears on the man and his time will not be surveyed. Such important works, therefore, as al-Maqrizi's al-Hitat and al-Qalqasandi's Subh al-a'sd will not be analyzed though they contain relevant data; poetry, geography, religious tracts, monographs on such varied 1

See S A D E Q U E , S. F., Baybars I of Egypt, p p . 1-28; C A H E N , C , La Syrie du Nord , p p . 73-89; S U R U R , M., Daulat az-Zdhir Baibars, p p . 9 - 1 5 ; S C H R E G L E , G., Die Sultanin von Agypten, p p . 9-26.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

2

subjects as military training, philology, and law - all these sources which bear indirectly on our subject - will be ignored because of the limitations of space, purpose, and approach1. Here a word should be said about methodology, even though I believe that the best explanation of it can be deduced from its application in the book. The nature of the method is disarmingly simple; it is nothing more than comparison, close word-by-word comparison of individual accounts of topics within annals and biographies, with a threefold aim. One, given the fact that historians followed in most cases the conventions of the annalistic and biographical genres almost slavishly, what variations can be found in the treatments of individual authors? It is obvious that the variations constitute the historian's originality, whether they consist of stylistic innovations, departures from the conventions of the genres, or the introduction of original subject matter. One of my aims, then, though not necessarily the primary one, is to characterize the individuality of the various practitioners of two types of historical writing. A second, related, purpose is to characterize Mamluk historiography in general, within, that is, the limitations of my research; in other words, having pointed out variations, I would attempt to establish the similarities in approach, technique, and subject matter. Included under this purpose is the desire to indicate the type of data which can be gleaned from Mamluk sources, both as to quantity and quality, so that the beginner in Mamluk studies can readily discover what variety of subjects the historians both discuss and omit, as well as the difficulties which he can expect to encounter as a result of the mode of presentation. Third and most importantly, I am trying to establish what Claude Cahen calls a ''repertorium" 2 of the sources of the period, by which I mean an analytical survey of the sources which aims at classifying them in terms of their value to modern historians. All these goals can be achieved by comparison, which, in the last analysis, aims at disentangling the inter-relatedness and inter-dependence of the sources so as to discover the original contribution of each historian. In order to be perfectly clear about my intentions, I shall cite Cahen's explanation of the importance of such endeavors: "Now coming to something less self-evident, chroniclers can be divided into kinds, or rather in their works there are two kinds of parts. Sometimes the author writes about events and matters on which he is the first to write, whether he was himself a witness or whether he heard the story from others; and sometimes he only copies, paraphrases or abbreviates the narration of a predecessor. It needs no explanation to say that in the first case his work is of primary importance to us, while in the second case what we must do is look for the predecessor's work, even if it is more difficult to find or less agreeable to read. Now it may be that this predecessor's work no more exists, or at least is no more to be found in the known libraries; in that case the later author, though not the original one, is as important for us as the original one. Thus the first thing to be done, when one happens to study a chronicle, is to see whether he is, or at least whether he is for us the equivalent of, an original author. In most chronicles, some parts are, or are to us, original, and others not. Our first care must be to make the distinction clearly"3. Although it is evident that the only way to achieve this is through comparison, the criteria, technique, and framework of comparison are not evident and must therefore be set forth so that the reader will understand the limitations under which I have proceeded. The first question is what is to be compared with what. In the case of chronicles, I chose to compare the units into which chronicles are broken - annals; for biographical dictionaries, biographies. Obviously whole annals and whole biographies are too large for purposes of comparison 1

For an encyclopedic survey of Mamluk literature which does little more t h a n indicate its vastness, see M., 'Asr salatln al-mamdllk wa-nitdguhu al-ilml wal-adabi. See also H A M Z A , 'A., al-Haraka al-fikrlya flMisrfi l-'asrain al-ayyubi wal-mamlukl al-awwal, for a somewhat sketchy account of Ayyubid and Bahri Mamluk literary production. 2 "Editing Arabic Chronicles: A Few Suggestions," Islamic Studies, I, No. 3 (September, 1962), p . 4. 3 Ibid., p . 2. SALIM,

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

3

without some form of subdivision, so that I have broken each annal and biography into the topics comprising each. How were the annals and biographies to be analyzed chosen ? Let me state first that I had hoped that a comparison of the various accounts of a single year would yield the desired information, but since it did not I had to move to a second and then a third year before finding sufficient data. Undoubtedly the analysis would have been more valuable if I had selected years covering a greater span of time in the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir, especially since all three fall in the early phase of his rule when he was but a youth, under the tutelage of his officers of state. But a biography of al-Malik an-Nasir is not the purpose of this study; rather, the goal is to analyze the way in which as many Muslim historians as possible have written about his reign in chronicles and biographical dictionaries. This goal introduced the practical consideration of selecting representative years covered by the largest number of extant chronicles, and it was this consideration which led me to choose years in his early reign. The limitations incurred by this choice have been partially overcome, I hope, by selecting for biographical study a figure whose career extended well into al-Malik an-Nasir's reign - al-Amir Sams ad-Din Qarasunqur al-Mansuri (d. 728/1327-28); in this case there was so much material to be found both in chronicles and biographical dictionaries that a single biography was sufficient for my purposes. Once the choice of years and biography had been made, what order of presentation was to be followed? The need to separate contemporary from later historians is plain, and the differences in background and approach between Egyptian and Syrian historians justify separating the two, as I have tried to demonstrate in the text. Within these categories I have followed a chronological order, though this was not altogether possible, of course, in the case of the several historians who were contemporaries. For these the initial choice was arbitrary, at least until I could determine the direction in which borrowing lay; thereafter I tried to introduce the authors according to their position in the pattern of borrowing as well as the chronological framework. It must be admitted that the book could have been arranged differently, perhaps even more efficiently, but I chose to leave it in this order, which reflects to a large extent the order in which I studied the materials, so that the reader could follow the process of discovery and deduction which was brought to bear on the sources. This arrangement creates certain difficulties for the reader. For example, the first characterization given to Ibn ad-Dawadari, based solely on a comparison with Baibars al-Mansuri, is revised in the course of the book as additional historians are studied. This simply means that the reader must persevere to the end or make full use of the index in order to gain a complete picture of my views on any single writer. As for the basis and method of comparison, I have resorted to the somewhat cumbersome device of tabulating each author's annals and biography according to the topics which each presents. Though cumbersome, the tables give the reader a clear outline as a guide through the detailed analysis of each annal. As the comparative analysis grows more and more complex with the study of more and more authors, the tables grow progressively more detailed. In order to present a handy tabulation of all the historians on a uniform level of complexity I have included master tables of each year as an appendix. The analysis itself consists of textual collation which aims at locating similarities which would indicate that one author was indebted to another and variations which, in addition to external evidence, would indicate who was indebted to whom. When the evidence was inconclusive, I tried to indicate the options and also to indicate my own preference based on what I like to consider as intuition educated by close study of texts. This procedure served to establish the originality of each author and his indebtedness to others and thus lay the foundation for a repertorium. In the section on biography I went a step further to attempt to assess the reliability and validity of certain original, indeed unique, material, using as my criteria internal consistency, external checks, and common sense.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

A. Contemporary E g y p t i a n Historians i. Baibars al-Mansuri Baibars Rukn ad-Din ad-Dawadar al-Mansuri (d. 725/1324-25), by dint of the high administrative posts which he held in the Mamluk state under al-Malik an-Nasir, must be considered as one of the most authoritative writers of the period1. Even before the accession of al-Malik an-Nasir to the throne, Baibars al-Mansuri had served in military campaigns against both the Crusaders and the Mongols in Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor under sultans Qala'un (678-89/ 1279-90) and al-Asraf Halil (689-93/1290-93) and as governor of the fortress al-Karak 2 . When al-Malik an-Nasir was enthroned in 693/1293-94, Baibars al-Mansuri, who had just returned from a military expedition to Hims, was given the highest feudal rank in the Mamluk army amir of a hundred and general of a thousand - and appointed chief of chancery {diwan al-insa')3, in which capacity he was in charge of the sultanas correspondence but was employed for special missions as well. Around the beginning of 694/1294-95, for example, he was sent to Alexandria to put down acts of piracy by Frankish ships4 and stayed on to distribute famine taxes levied on the rich to feed the poor5. When Lagin became sultan in 696/1296-97, Baibars al-Mansuri lost his position but was reinstated in 698/1298-99 when al-Malik an-Nasir was himself reinstated as sultan6. Later in that year he was left in charge of the Cairo citadel when the sultan marched to Syria against the Mongols7. Twice in 700/1300-01 he was sent at the head of military detachments to quell tribal uprisings8, and in 702/1302-03 he fought in the Mamluk army against the Mongols in Syria, leaving us with an eyewitness account of the battle 9 . Al-Malik an-Nasir sent him on still another mission to Alexandria late in 702/1302-03, where he undertook the repair of the fortifications10. Having lost his post as chief of chancery in 704/1304-05, Baibars al-Mansuri participated in the following year in an expedition against the Armenians of Sis as assistant to the commander of an advance detachment, in which capacity he could record a personal account of the campaign11. When in subsequent years al-Malik an-Nasir fell under the tutelage of two powerful amirs, Baibars al-Mansuri, according to his own account at least, worked in the sultan's behalf, continuing his efforts throughout the sultan's exile in al-Karak until his restoration in 710/1310-n 12 . Probably as a reward for loyalty, al-Malik anNasir appointed him again to a high rank and in 711/1311-12 increased his fiefs and bestowed on him the second highest title in the Mamluk state, viceroy of the empire (na'ib as-saltana)1*, which he held for less than a year14. Deposed and imprisoned for five years15, he no longer played 1

I t has been suggested t h a t his work was wholly composed b y secretaries; even if this were t r u e , they would have enjoyed the prestige of his high position to gain access to t h e official documents reproduced in the text. Moreover, personal references to the author's own role in state affairs would indicate t h a t such secretaries had their master's confidence. For references to this problem see A S H T O R , E., "Some Unpublished Sources for the Bahri Period," Studies in Islamic History and Civilization, p . 12; A S H T O R , E., "Baibars al-Mansuri," Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. J. H. Kramers et al., 2d ed.; I, 1127-28. 2 2 3 ASHTOR, EI , I, 1127. Ibid. 4

BAIBARS AL-IMAXSURI, Zubdat al-fikra fi tank al-higra, Vol. I X , Cairo University Library MS 24-28 (Photographic copy of British Museum Or. MS, Add. 23325), fol. 187 v o . ; at-Tuhfa al-mulukiya fi d-daula at-turktya, Cairo University Library MS, 24-29 (Photographic copy of Austrian National Library Fliigel MS, 904), fol. 64 ro. s ASHTOR, EI2, I, 1128. • Ibid. 7 Zubda, I X , fol. 205 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 73 vo. * Zubda, I X , fols. 221 vo 223 vo 9 Zubda, IX, fols. 238 r o . - 3 8 vo. 10 Tuhfa, fol. 83 vo. 11 Zubda, IX, fol. 245 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 85 vo. 12 Zubda, IX, fol. 252 vo., 269 ro.; Tuhfa, fols. 88 ro., 89 ro., 90 ro., 90 vo., 95 vo. 13 15 Tuhfa, fols. 117 r c - 1 7 vo. i* Ibid. Ibid.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

5

a prominent role in state affairs and died an old man in 725/1324-25, leaving two important sources for events in which he had participated or which he had witnessed. One, Zubdat al-fikra fi tarih al-higra, is a general history of Islam up to 724/1323-24 whose extant parts end, however, with 709/1209-101. The other, at-Tuhfa al-mulukiya fi d-daula at-turkiya, is a compilation from the sections of Zubdat al-fikra that deal with the Turkish or Bahri dynasty, ending with an annal for 711/1311-12. Comparison of these two works should yield insight into the author's methodology and, at the same time, establish a basis of comparison with other histories, many of which are indebted to Baibars al-Mansuri's works. To present the contents of each annal as concisely as possible, I have introduced the analysis of each with a table listing the main topics covered for that year; and to facilitate what soon will become an intricate process of cross reference, I have appended master tables for each year which will allow quicker comparison of the materials discussed by the historians. TabUI 694/1294-95 Zubda, IX 1. An uprising of a group of Royal Mamluks (Fols. 187 vo.-88 vo.). 2. The accession of Zain ad-Din Kitbuga to the sultanate; his procession (188 vo.89 ro.) 3. A low Nile resulting in famine and high prices (189 ro.-89 vo.) 4. Mongol strife resulting in the accession of Gazan (190 ro.~9i TO.) 5. Death of the ruler of Yemen (191 ro.) 6. Arrest of an amir (191 ro.) 7. Death of three notables (191 ro.-9i vo.)

Tuhfa 1. Frankish raids on Muslim ships (Fol. 64 ro.) 2. Royal Mamluk uprising (64 VO.-65 vo.) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (65 ro.) 4. Famine and high prices (65 ro.-66 ro.) 5. Changes in Ilhanid succession (66 ro.-66vo.) 6. Death of ruler of Yemen (66 vo.)

On the basis of this tabulation at-Tuhfa looks like a summary of Zubdat al-fikra with the addition only of an account of raids against Muslim ships, but close collation of the texts proves this impression to be misleading. For most of the topics, at-Tuhfa presents as detailed an account as Zubdat al-fikra and in at least one instance - the description of the uprising of the Royal Mamluks - adds the important fact that the insurgents' plea for support from fellow mamluks in another quarter of the city was rebuffed2. Both versions list the same reasons for the uprising with only one difference: at-Tuhfa fails to mention delay in the payment of the Mamluks' salaries. Both, too, label the uprising as a contributory factor to the deposition of al-Malik anNasir and the accession of Kitbuga 3 , but, surprisingly enough, at-Tuhfa explains in detail the conspiracy which lay behind this development: whereas Zubdat al-fikra states merely that Kitbuga had been persuaded to usurp the throne 4 , at-Tuhfa names the amirs involved in the conspiracy and defines their motives 5 . The routine description in Zubdat al-fikra of Kitbuga's enthronement and procession through the city is omitted in at-Tuhfa; though both list his new appointees, at-Tuhfa adds a statement on the new sultan's favoritism toward his own mamluks 6 . It should be pointed out that although Baibars al-Mansuri was not present in Cairo during the 1 3 b

C , Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Zubda, I X , fol. 188 v o . ; Tuhfa, fol. 64 vo. e Tuhfa, fol. 65 ro. Ibid., fol. 65 vo. BROCKELMANN,

4

2 I I , p . 44. Tuhfa, fol. 64 vo. Zubda, I X , fol. 188 vo.

5

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

insurrection or the accession, he takes care to record that his informants were eyewitnesses1. And it should be noted, too, that in both works he shows that he is a partisan of al-Malik anNasir by deploring the accession of Kitbuga 2 . The two accounts of the drought, famine, and epidemic which struck Egypt in this year are much the same except for a few minor details3, the most significant addition to at-Tuhfa being that the people blamed Kitbuga for their adversity4, and the only interesting omission, that the author himself was charged with famine relief in Alexandria 5 . He presents the same details in both works - the consumption of dogs and cats, corpses, and even human flesh - to illustrate how desperate the situation had grown6. The only important topic which receives more extended treatment in Zubdat al-fikra than in at-Tuhfa is the struggle over the succession to the Ilhanid throne. At-Tuhfa summarizes only the bare facts of the detailed version in Zubdat al-fikra, which sets forth the motives behind the internecine strife and explains the causal connections which brought it about. Each annal ends with a notice on the death of the ruler of Yemen, both substantially the same. To this, however, Zubdat al-fikra adds brief obituaries of two prominent 'dlims and an announcement of the arrest of a Syrian official. On the basis of comparing two annals for a single year, the following tentative conclusions might be drawn. First, at-Tuhfa is not simply a summary of Zubdat al-fikra; although it treats some topics in less detail, especially those concerning the Mongols, it offers details and interpretations which are absent from the earlier work. Second, discrepancies, minor ones it is true, do occur. Third, Zubdat al-fikra contains more obituary notices than at-Tuhfa. If, however, we turn to the qualities which both works share, additional hypotheses are forthcoming. First, in both works Baibars al-Mansuri focuses his interest as an officer of state on events which affect the Mamluk polity, be they foreign or domestic, economic, military, or purely political; in fact, he turns away from political matters only twice, to record briefly the death of two (dlims. Second, he keeps himself well informed on important events which he could not witness, both in Egypt and at the Ilhanid court, though he does not reveal his source of information for the latter. Third, he represents himself as a loyal supporter of the sultan, who controlled his advancement in the state. Finally, he usually tries to assign causes to the events which he narrates. The validity of these hypotheses can be tested by analyzing annals for subsequent years. Table II 699/1299-1300 Zubda, IX 1. Abortive Oirat insurrection (Fols. 206 ro.-o6 vo.) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (206 ro.-07 vo. 3. List of Mamluk casualties (207 vo.-o8 ro.) 4. Siege of citadel of Damascus (208 ro.-o8vo.) 5. Text of Cazan's farewell message to Mongol leaders (208 vc-12 vo.)

1

Tuhfa 1. Oirat insurrection (Fols. 72 VO.-73 ro.) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (73 ro.-73 vo.) 3. Mamluk casualties (73 vo.) 4. Siege of citadel (74 ro.) 5. Mamluk remobilization and return (74 ro --75 ro.) 6. Golden Horde strife (75 ro.-75 vo.)

Zubda, IX, fol. 188 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 65 ro. Zubda, IX, fol. 188 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 65 ro. 8 Zubda, I X , fol. 184 vo., states t h a t the price of wheat rose to 150 dirhams per irdabb; at-Tuhfa, fol. 65 ro., 160 dirhams. The former asserts t h a t 300.000 irdabbs of wheat were imported from Sicily; t h e latter 200.000. * Tuhfa, fol. 65 vo. 5 Ibid>f f o l l 8 g VQ ^ f ' Qi ^ rQ> e ZuMa> I X j fQl i g 9 v Q . 2

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

7

6. Gazan's farewell message to Damascus leaders (212 v c - 1 4 vo.) 7. Gazan's decree appointing Qibgaq viceroy of Damascus (214 vo.-i6 ro.) 8. Gazan's decree appointing Baktamur viceroy of Northern Syria (216 ro.-i7 ro -) 9. Remobilization and return of Mamluk troops (217 vo.-ig vo.) 10. Strife in the Golden Horde (219 V0.-21 vo.) As is readily apparent from this tabulation the most striking difference in the annals for this year is the omission from at-Tuhfa of the texts of the Mongol decrees; also omitted are certain details on events during and after the Mongol occupation. Such, of course, are the deletions we should expect in an abridgment of a comprehensive history, especially since the author was left behind in charge of the citadel in Cairo during the campaign against the Mongols and therefore witnessed none of the events which occurred in Syria1. Closer examination of the two versions confirms this general impression but indicates also that the more compact narrative sometimes contains data not found in the original. The comments on the abortive attempt of the Oirats to assassinate al-Malik an-Nasir and restore Kitbuga to the sultanate are, for example, practically the same, except that at-Tuhfa sketches in the roles of various amirs who supported al-Malik an-Nasir during this crisis2. Baibars al-Mansuri's reports on the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (east of Hama), in which the Mamluk forces were for the first time decisively defeated by the Mongols, are brief; of the two, the version in at-Tuhfa is somewhat clearer and perhaps more precise. For instance, in Zubdat al-fikra he transcribes the important fact, without comment, that the Mamluk army in its haste to reach the Mongols covered three days' journey in one day; in at-Tuhfa he transforms this precise information into an explanation for the Mamluk defeat by stating instead that the horses were exhausted when they reached the battleground and were therefore not ready to charge3. Furthermore, in the interval which elapsed between the composition of the two works, the author seems to have increased his knowledge of the course of the battle, which helps to explain a curious discrepancy in the two accounts. In both versions he asserts that the Mamluk left launched an attack on the Mongol right, stating emphatically in Zubdat al-fikra that this attack succeeded: "The Islamic left attacked the Tatar right and defeated it, overturned it, contained it, and checked it (Fa-hamalati 1-maisaratu 1-islamiyatu 'ala maimanati t-Tatari fa-hazamatha wa-dahdahatha wa-kaffatha wa-nahnahatha)" 4 . But in the later work he tones down this claim considerably, stating more judiciously, perhaps, that "The victorious left attacked the Tatar right and breached it, and, but for a little, would have defeated it (Hamalati 1-maisaratu 1-mansuratu 'ala maimanati t-Tatari fa-kasafatha wa-lau-la qalilan la-hazamatha) " 5 . Otherwise, the reports on the battle are substantially the same except for the omission from at-Tuhfa of the detail that Gazan, when he saw the defeat of his right wing, withdrew to one side of the field with a small body of horsemen6. The lists of Mamluk amirs slain in the battle differ slightly, in that each contains names missing from the other and thus provide further proof of the value of at-Tuhfa as an independent source. Only Zubdat al-fikra records that Gazan took booty and tribute in northern Syria before marching to Damascus 7 . Though terse, the account in at-Tuhfa of Gazan's attempt to 1 3 5

2 Zubda, I X , fol. 205 v o . ; Tuhfa, fol. 73 vo. Tuhfa, fol. 73 ro. 4 Zubda, I X , fol. 207 r o . ; Tuhfa, fol. 73 ro. Zubda, I X , fol. 207 ro. 6 7 Tuhfa, fol. 73 v o . Zubda, I X , fol. 207 ro. Ibid., fol. 208 ro.

2 Little

8

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

conquer the citadel of Damascus and other fortresses in Syria adds some information not contained in the larger work; we are told, for instance, that two Mamluk amirs who had defected to the Ilhans and served in Gazan's army helped the commander of the Damascus citadel by inducing the Mongols to lighten their siege1. The dominant note of this passage, however, is the author's insistence that the Mongols failed to achieve their ends in Syria since no citadels or fortresses surrendered to them 2 ; this same note he strikes in Zubdat al-fikra and gives a fuller account of the Mongols' activity in and around Damascus 3 . But the superiority of the earlier work as a source for this year lies mainly, of course, in the inclusion of four Mongol decrees issued by Gazan. The story of the retreat of the defeated Mamluk army to Egypt and the measures adopted to rebuild and re-equip the army is practically the same in both sources, though Zubdat al-fikra gives more detail, especially regarding the effect of taxes and heavy spending on the price of gold4. Nor is there much difference concerning the Mamluks' return to Syria or the redistribution of administrative offices after the Mongols' departure. Both annals end with a report on the civil war between Mongol princes of the Golden Horde; at-Tuhfa merely states the outcome and its effect on Egypt 5 , while Zubdat al-fikra devotes four pages to the contest with a full discussion of its background, sequel, and consequences6. The main problem raised by the data recorded by Baibars al-Mansuri for 699/1299-1300 concerns sources: how did he succeed in garnering so much information on events which occurred outside Egypt? As commander of the citadel he would have received, as we know he did, reports from the sultan's army7. And since he did hold a high state office he would naturally have talked to leaders of the defeated forces on their return to Cairo. But what of those events in Syria and Damascus after the Mamluks had evacuated? It is probable that reports sifted through to Egypt from spies and it is possible that he talked to the Mamluk defectors who had figured so prominently in the Mongol occupation and had returned to Egypt after the Mongols' departure. Then again there is always the possibility that when he was writing his histories he had access to a report - a letter, perhaps, or even a chronicle - written by an eyewitness. But how did he obtain such detailed information on events in Golden Horde territory? We can only guess: probably through the reports of messengers, merchants, and spies. The answers to these questions, though largely speculative, are crucial because, as we shall see, later Historians used Baibars al-Mansuri as one of their principal authorities. Table 3 705/1305-06 Zubda, IX Tuhfa 1. Messengers from the Magrib and Yemen 1. Messenger from the Magrib (Fol. 85 ro.) (Fols. 244 V0.-45 ro.) 2. Raid on Sis (85 ro.-86 ro.) 2. Raid on Sis (245 ro.-46 ro.) 3. Prices in Syria (86 ro.) 3. Arrival of Salar's Mongol relatives (246 4. Salar's family (86 ro.) ro.- 4 6 vo.) 5 . D e a t h o f i i h a n i d viceroy (86 ro ) 4. Retirement of an amir (246 vo.) 6. Gabal al-Kasrawan campaign (86 ro.-86 5. Low prices in Syria (247 ro.) vo.) 6. Foreign messengers in Egypt (247 ro.47 vo.) \ ^ 1 \ f1°1' 7 4 r 0 '

'

Ibld

Ibid., fol. 218 ro. ' Tuhfa, fol. 73 vo.

s Tuhfa, fols. 75 r o . - 7 s vo

-

3 Zubda

>

75

IX

> fo1- 208 ro. 6 7,lhrin ZuMa "

Tv I X

t 1

'

fols

-

219

vo

~21

v0

-

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

9

7. Currency problem (247 vo.) 8. Death of Ilhanid viceroy (247 vo.) 9. Campaign against Gabal al-Kasrawan (247 vo.) 10. Detention of Ibn Taimiya (247 vo.) 11. Developments in Spain (248 ro.~48 vo.) 12. Pilgrimage (248 vo.) For this year, more so than for the other two years, at-Tuhfa is practically a summary of Zubdat al-fikra. Several topics are omitted altogether: the delivery of tribute from Yemen, the arrival of messengers from foreign states, the detention of Ibn Taimiya, the annual departure of the pilgrimage to the Higaz, and the progress of a military campaign in Spain. Another item from Zubdat al-fikra Baibars al-Mansuri reduces to a single sentence in at-Tuhfa: the particularized account of the arrival of Salar's family in Egypt from Mongol territory. Other reports the return of a messenger to the Magrib, the heavy rain and resultant cheaper prices in Syria, and the death of Qutlusah, the Ilhanid viceroy - are, except for changes in wording, the same. Only in the reporting of the military expeditions of this year do we find appreciable additions in at-Tuhfa. As for the expedition against the Armenians of Sis, involving a victorious Mamluk raid, a Mongol ambush, and the threat of Mamluk retaliation against the Armenians, the two accounts coincide with few exceptions. Realizing his own complicity in the Mongol ambush, the Armenian ruler immediately offered to deliver the unpaid tribute which had occasioned the Mamluk raid in the first place. Zubdat al-fikra states only that the Mamluks rejected the offer and decided to launch a new campaign against Sis: "Fa-waradat kutubu 1-amiri 1-musari ilaihi [viceroy of Aleppo] ila 1-abwabi l-'aliyati ya'ridu dalika 'ala 1-ara'i s-sarifati wa-yadkuru ma ltamasahu 1-madkuru [sahib of Sis] wa-yasta'dinu fi hadihi 1-umuri fa-afda 1-halu an yugarrada 'askarun ila Halaba wa-yuktaba h-sahibi Sisa bi-annahu ugiba ila ma talaba . . ," 1 . But at-Tuhfa, again following a tendency which we have noted, amplifies this statement significantly, adding that the Mamluk court demanded an increase in the tribute and the release of the prisoners taken in the ambush: "Fa-lam yaqna' minhu bi-ma badala wa-lam yugib ila ma sa'ala ilia bi-sarti muda'afati 1-humuli wa-itlaqi s-sara [sic] 1-muslimina lladi [sic] 'indahu mina 1-qubuli"2. On the other hand, the author's explanation in Zubdat al-fikra of his important role in the second expedition, which turned back from Gaza once the ruler of Sis had promised to pay the tribute, is omitted in at-Tuhfa3. The two versions of the assault against Gabal alKasrawan in retaliation for the harassment inflicted on the retreating Mamluk armies from the battle of Wadi al-Hazindar differ only in small details, the only substantial omission in atTuhfa being the roster of troops which served in the campaign4. On the other hand, at-Tuhfa gives a more graphic description of the offenses which the mountain inhabitants had committed against the Mamluks5. By now it should be apparent that at-Tuhfa cannot be dismissed as a summary of a larger work, for it does contain facts and interpretations lacking in the original. True, Zubdat al-fikra narrates more events and provides more information on foreign, especially Mongol, affairs than does at-Tuhfa; but there is no question here of which is the more valuable source. The point is rather that both must be used if we are to collect all data recorded by Baibars al-Mansuri. As to the principles which he followed in adapting his earlier work, few conclusions of any consequence can be drawn. In theory he would have omitted or shortened what he considered to 1

Zubda, I X , fol. 245 vo. * Ibid., fol. 247 vo.

2

5

Tuhfa, fol. 85 vo. Tuhfa, fol. 86 ro.

3

Zubda, I X , fol. 245 vo.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

I 0

be relatively unimportant, added significant new findings, corrected erroneous statements, and clarified his explanations and interpretations of events. Omission and abridgment we see mainly in those events which occurred outside Egypt - in the Mongol territories and Spain - and in the missions of comparatively unimportant foreign envoys to Egypt. The desire for conciseness probably best accounts for the omission of Gazan's four decrees in Syria. In at-Tuhfa there is evidence of few, if any, major changes in substance for these three years, but there are many new details. Readily identifiable corrections are few; the addition of details which increase our understanding of what previously was only implied or suggested is more frequent. In sum, as far as the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir is concerned, at-Tuhfa represents a compact, slightly refined version of those developments which directly affected the central Mamluk government. Even if we cannot infer much about Baibars al-Mansuri as a historian from comparing and contrasting these two works, we should not blind ourselves to the characteristics which are common to both. First of all, we can reiterate that his main interest lay in political events and those phenomena - military and economic, domestic and foreign - which affected the power and stability of the Mamluk polity. This granted, his motives for recording squabbles between the Mongols in such detail become obvious; but why, then, did he feel compelled to record a battle in Spain? Evident, too, are his reasons for reducing to a sentence or two the great religious controversy of his time which stormed about Ibn Taimiya. As a high-ranking Mamluk statesman and commander, he would not be expected to take any great interest unless he himself was directly involved or was especially pious or perceived the implications in the controversy for the Mamluk government. Second, he mentions sources, never by name, only for information which the reader might erroneously assume he had collected at first hand. Otherwise we know only that by virtue of his high rank, authoritative informants and documents were readily available to him. Third, we can conclude that, whatever his sources, he did keep himself informed on political, economic, and military aspects of the contemporary Mamluk state and had an impressive knowledge of developments in foreign states. Fourth, like most medieval historians, he focuses on the narration of the event itself, rather than attempting a comprehensive explanation of its causes and consequences. This is not to say that he ignores either or both, as will become apparent later in the course of comparing his annals with those of other historians. 2. Ibn ad-Dawdddri Saif ad-Din abu Bakr ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Aibak ad-Dawadari, though by no means as highranking an officer of the Mamluk state as Baibars al-Mansuri, is of comparable importance as an authority on the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir. We know little or nothing of the life of Ibn adDawadari other than that which emerges from his work: no later historian cited his work by name; no compiler of biographies of eminent statesmen and scholars took note of him1. And yet the autobiographical details contained in his chronicle suffice to demonstrate the timeliness and significance of the material which he compiled. We do not know when he was born or when he died, only that he lived throughout al-Malik an-Nasir's reign and that he began his chronicle in 709/1309-10 and completed it in 736/I335-362- On the other hand, we know much more about the career of his father3, with whom the son was closely associated and whose stories 1

R O E M E R , H. R., (ed.) "Einleitung", Die Chronik des Ibn ad-Dawadari. Neunter Teil. Der Bericht uber den Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un, p . 16. This volume contains p a r t nine, entitled adDurr al-fahir fi sir at al-Malik an-Nasir. Hereafter, references to this work will be m a d e as Kanz I X . 2 Ibid., p . 14. 3 In addition to the details sketched by R O E M E R , "Einleitung," p p . 17-18, see A L - M U N A 6 6 I D , S., "Introduction," Die Chronik des Ibn ad-Dawadari, Sechster Teil, Der Bericht uber die Fatimiden, p p . 2-4.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

II

served as one of the principal sources for the events which occurred during his lifetime. The son of a governor of Sarhad (in the Hauran district south of Damascus), al-Amir Gamal ad-Din 'Abd Allah ibn Aibak ad-Dawadari served in various military campaigns in Syria and Asia Minor1 before being made a general in the halqa2 by the sultan al-Asraf Halil in 693/1293-94, who also increased his fiefs and made him one of his attendants 3 . In 709/1309-10, al-Malik anNasir appointed him charge d'affaires of the eastern province of Egypt, in which capacity he served for eleven years as supervisor of Bedouin affairs and for which he was chosen, according to his son, because he was known for "his honesty and his determination to save the sultan's money" 4 . At this post he kept himself well informed on affairs in Cairo - once, at least, through Ibn ad-Dawadari, who sent him reports on the progress of the opposition to the sultan Baibars al-Gasnakir5. This circumstance, once the sultan got wind of it, forced Ibn ad-Dawadari to go into hiding until he joined his father and marched with him to meet al-Malik an-Nasir and accompany him on his triumphal return to Cairo6. Recognized as an expert on the Arab tribes, 'Abd Allah, accompanied by his son, was sent as guide to the amir Qarasunqur, whom al-Malik an-Nasir had delegated to capture and bring back to Cairo the fleeing Baibars al-Gasnakir7. Probably as a reward for his loyalty during the exile, the sultan gave Ibn ad-Dawadari's father an amirate in Syria and appointed him to posts which Ibn ad-Dawadari claims ranked second only to the viceroyship of Damascus8. Although he served in the second post for only a short time, the first he held until his death in 713/1313-14, on a mission to inspect Syrian fortresses9. It is evident that Ibn ad-Dawadari was present with his father in Syria, even though his own fiefs were in Egypt, where his troops were stationed too; on one occasion, when he accompanied his father on an official scouting mission to ar-Rahba 10 in 712/1312-13, he states that he went along only "out of solicitude for his father" 11 . I have sketched at such length the career of the author's father only to establish, first, that he was by dint of his rank and duties a valid source for his son's history; second, that the son, as his constant companion, was in a position to witness many important events; and, third and perhaps most important, that Ibn ad-Dawadari, even if he was not himself a high-ranking official, had access through his father and his father's friends to authoritative sources. The chronicle is, in fact, replete with quotations from officials - military, religious, and scholarly, either friends of his father or acquaintances of the son himself12. Not only does this frequent citing of sources lend an air of authenticity to the chronicle; it gives a personal, sometimes intimate quality to the narrative, which is lacking in the pronouncements of Baibars al-Mansuri. As a minor functionary, Ibn ad-Dawadari often takes pains to point out his father's celebrity or his own familiarity with famous men13.. In this respect he is not only following the tradition of Muslim historians to cite authorities; he is a

1

Kanz ad-durar, V I I I , D a r a l - K u t u b al-Misriya MS, 2578 tarih (Photographic copy of Saray Ahmed I I I MS, 2932/VIII), 216, 250, 292. This volume contains p a r t eight, entitled ad-Durra az-zakiya fi ahbar daulat al-muluk at-turkiya, hereafter referred to as Kanz MS, V I I I . 2 A corps of n o n - m a m l u k cavalry. For t h e evolution of this corps, see A Y A L O N , D., "Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk A r m y , " BSOAS, XV, No. 3 (Oct., 1953). PP- 449-593 4 Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz MS, V I I I , 305. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 117. 5 6 7 Ibid., p p . 177-79. Ibid., p p . 179-81. Ibid., p . 198. 8 Ibid., p p . 117-18. H e was appointed mihmandar, t h e official charged with receiving envoys, and sadd ad-dawawin, supervisor of t h e export of the sultan's goods. Cf. G A U D E F R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , La Syrie a Vipoque 9 des Mamelouks, p p . 149-50. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 266-67. 10 A fortified t o w n on t h e E u p h r a t e s in Upper Mesopotamia. Cf. L E S T R A N G E , G., The Lands of the Eastern n Caliphate, p p . 105-06. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 260. 12 See, for example, Kanz, I X , t h e viceroy of Damascus, 51-52; an envoy t o the Mongols, 7 1 ; a chancery 13 official, 179; controller of t h e armies, 267. See, e. g., Kanz, I X , 117, 118, 179, 183, 267, 323.

12

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

name dropper. We are, in other words, very much aware of the personality of the author as he continually stresses his own role, small though it was, in the affairs of the great. His chief work, Kanz ad-durar wa-gdmi' al-gurar, is a universal history, the ninth part of which, ad-Durr al-fdhir fi sir at al-Malik an-Ndsir, he devotes to the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir from 698/1298-99 to 736/1335-36. Although entitled sira - biography - the ninth part takes the form of a chronicle subdivided into topics, which is the same format as that of the two works of Baibars al-Mansuri with only slight variations, mainly those in the form of digressions, such as that on the causes of earthquakes 1 and in lists of rulers of major states and administrative officers of the Mamluk government, invariably placed at the beginning of each annal 2 . For most years he keeps this list short, mentioning only the changes in office from the previous year, but for 700/1300-01 he fills almost three pages by enumerating the chief domestic and foreign officers of state in addition to foreign kings and rulers3. This penchant for lists is shown elsewhere, notably when at the end of the volume he names the mosques built and restored during al-Malik an-Nasir's reign4; he makes his motive plain when he records in 732/1331-32 the names of all the amirs who accompanied the sultan on his third pilgrimage to Mecca, as well as the names of those who stayed at home, and the amount of carpeting which each had to provide: "In the event that the sultan makes still another pilgrimage, this history can be used to establish the levy on each amir" 6 . If this means that Ibn ad-Dawadari conceived of his book as a practical reference work, there is no evidence that it enjoyed success as such. Nor is there much additional evidence that such an idea influenced the contents and organization of his work, which, when compared with Baibars al-Mansuri's books, is strikingly similar in these respects. What differences do exist should probably be attributed to other causes, as further comparison and analysis will show. Table 4 694/1294-95 Kanz MS, VIII 1. List of rulers (312) 2. Sultanate of Kitbuga (312-13) 3. Level of Nile (313) 4. Arrest of an amir (313) 5. Yamani succession (314-15)

6. Obituary (315) 7. Administrative changes (315) 8. Accession and conversion of Gazan (313, 3i6) 9. Defection of Oirats (317)

If we compare this tabulation with that for the same year from Zubdat al-fikra and at-Tuhfa, three types of discrepancies emerge: (1) topics discussed only by Ibn ad-Dawadari; (2) topics discussed only by Baibars al-Mansuri; (3) topics which though discussed by both receive differing treatments. In the first category we find several minor details which apparently escaped, or were beneath Baibars al-Mansuri's notice. It is not his custom, as it is Ibn ad-Dawadari's, to list rulers and or some reason or other he does not mention either the appointment of a new vizier, the replacement of the viceroy of Damascus by one of Kitbuga's mamluks, or the 1

Ibid., pp. 104-06. M b i d p p 41-43. strictly speaking, Ibn ad-Dawadari follows the format of "dynastic historioeraDhv » u which is classified by Franz ROSENTHAL as a "1P^«- W™ „4 K- * • , • ,. J'"d-bl:lc nistonograpny,

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

13

death of a Damascus poet. The inclusion in the annal for 694/1294-95 of the arrival of some ten thousand Oirat immigrants in Mamluk territory, fleeing from the wrath of a sultan whose candidacy they had opposed, is probably an error in chronology; otherwise it is difficult to explain why Ibn ad-Dawadari should place at the end of the annal an event which he states took place in Rabi' I, the third month of the Muslim year. As we shall see, moreover, most historians agree with Baibars al-Mansuri in including this item in the annal for 695/1295-961. At any rate this discrepancy should be considered under the third, not the first, category. How are we to explain Ibn ad-Dawadari's silence on the uprising of the Royal Mamluks, which was, as described by Baibars al-Mansuri, a key factor in the deposing of al-Malik anNasir, and the accession of Kitbuga, and thus one of the most important events of the year? It is conceivable, but not very likely, that Ibn ad-Dawadari hoped by suppressing the events which led to Kitbuga's accession to brand it as blatant usurpation and so provide corroborating evidence for the diatribe which he delivers against Kitbuga's reign2. For the present we can only point out that Ibn ad-Dawadari's whole treatment of Kitbuga's accession is curious in that, in contrast to Baibars al-Mansuri's accounts, it neglects the steps which led up to it. Instead, to illustrate Kitbuga's duplicity, he records a set speech which Kitbuga used to make, assuring al-Malik an-Nasir that he had no ambitions for the sultanate 3 . In the absence of evidence for any personal animus against Kitbuga, it seems likely that Ibn ad-Dawadari wrote this passage to establish his loyalty to al-Malik an-Nasir and that he may, or may not, have omitted the uprising as part of his attempt to discredit Kitbuga. It is much easier to explain his failure to report on the famine and epidemic; since both continued into the next year, Ibn adDawadari postponed his discussion of them to the following annal where he gives a vivid eyewitness account 4 . The discrepancies which fall exclusively into the third category suggest that it is Ibn adDawadari's point of view that sets him apart from Baibars al-Mansuri. Take the example of such a routine matter as the appointment of a new administrative official in Syria. Typically, Baibars al-Mansuri treats it for what it is - a routine administrative change to be recorded as a matter of fact. But Ibn ad-Dawadari expands it into an arresting example of coincidence by pointing out that both persons involved had similar names, were both imprisoned in the same jail for the same amount of time, and both held the same office. Such embroidery is a characteristic feature of his style; more important, however, is his willingness to mention and elaborate points which Baibars al-Mansuri ignores altogether. Thus, although Baibars al-Mansuri's detailed narration of the struggle for the Ilhanid throne is superior as a source for Mongol political history, Ibn ad-Dawadari's summary account of the same episode earns distinction for recording the fact - which is of great significance in the history of Islam - that Gazan, the winner in the struggle, in this year converted to Islam5. Since it is impossible to believe that Baibars al-Mansuri had no knowledge of this fact, it must be concluded that he took little interest in events of religious import; his conception of history, unlike Ibn ad-Dawadari's, was not broad enough to embrace such material, either the conversion of Gazan or the activities of Ibn Taimiya. Ibn ad-Dawadari's willingness to pause over relatively unimportant matters is also evident from his long report on the circumstances preceding and following the death of the ruler of Yemen. Unless Baibars al-Mansuri did not have access to Ibn ad-Dawadari's source, it is reasonable to conclude that he saw no necessity to dwell on palace politics in Yemen. That Ibn ad-Dawadari did is a measure of his originality and importance as a source for this year. Nevertheless, on the basis of a single year, we are left with a somewhat unfavorable impression of Ibn ad-Dawadari's historical methods. He omits important events, reduces one of the most 1 3

Zubda, I X , fols. 191 vo. - 92 r o ; Tuhfa, fols. 66 v c - 6 7 ro. 4 6 Ibid., p . 313. Ibid., p . 318. Ibid., p . 316.

2

Kanz MS, V I I I , 312.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

important - the accession of a new sultan - to an expression of his own subjective feelings; magnifies one - the death of the ruler of Yemen - out of proportion to its significance within the framework of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign; and probably misdates still another. And yet, even if this impression were verified by analysis of subsequent years, some of these very deviations from the histories of Baibars al-Mansuri demonstrate the value of Kanz ad-durar as an auxiliary historical source, since it does present some information not contained in Baibars al-Mansuri's work and records the material from a different point of view. Table 5 699/1299-1300 Kanz, IX 1. Rulers (13-15) 2. Oirat uprising (15) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (18-31) 4. Mongol occupation of Damascus (15-18) a. Text of Gazan's decree granting amnesty to Damascus (20-23) b. Text of Gazan's decree appointing Qibgaq viceroy (25-27)

5- Gazan's departure and Mongol evacuation (3 I_ 37) 6. Remobilization and return of Mamluk armies (37-39) 7. Attack against Gabal al-Kasrawan (40) 8. Obituaries (40)

Here, too, comparison of the tables reveals surface similarity and individual variations in the events which each historian chooses to record. Again Ibn ad-Dawadari begins with a list of important officials; again Baibars al-Mansuri lays greater stress on Mongol affairs. Curiously, though both see fit to record official documents, they do not choose the same ones. But fuller understanding of these and other variations depends on a closer analysis of the annals than that permitted by comparing tables. The treatment of two topics gives the first clear proof that they did not always rely on the same sources. If they did, it is difficult to explain contradictions in their reports of the Oirat uprising. In a short account, Ibn ad-Dawadari states only that the Oirats had agreed to kill Salar, the viceroy of Egypt, and Baibars al-Gasnakir, the ustdddr1; that their plot was uncovered; that they were apprehended and imprisoned or executed. But Baibars al-Mansuri's two accounts, besides giving a much fuller version, contradict Ibn ad-Dawadari's key points. First of all, the ultimate aim of the plot according to Baibars al-Mansuri was not just assassination, but an attempt by the Oirats, in collusion with a disgruntled Royal Mamluk, to restore Kitbuga (who was himself of Oirat descent) to the throne 2 . Secondly, the plot was not uncovered and forestalled; it was unleashed in the form of an attack against the sultan's tent. Thirdly, Baibars al-Mansuri does not even mention that Salar and Baibars al-Gasnakir were targets for assassination3. It is clear, therefore, that the two historians record different versions of the same episode, and that of the two, Baibars al-Mansuri's, though fuller and more comprehensive than Ibn ad-Dawadari's, is not complete. To describe the battle of Wadi al-Hazindar, Ibn ad-Dawadari resorts to rhetoric and quotations from the Koran. As will be recalled, Baibars al-Mansuri, too, was absent from the battle and changed some details in his later description of it, neither of his versions being free from 1

The official in charge of the royal-household staff and stores. See G A U D E F R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , La Syrie, 2 pp. lx-lxi. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, I X , fol. 206 ro.; Tuhfa, fol. 72 vo. 3 Zubda, I X , fol. 206 ro.; Tuhfa, fol. 73 ro.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

15

rhetorical embellishment. Some of the discrepancies in the reports on the battle might be attributed to such flourishes, but it is likely that here, too, different informants were consulted by each author. No wonder then that collation of the three versions leaves some confusion as to what exactly happened. Although they agree that the Mamluk forces were fatigued when the battle began, Baibars al-Mansuri claims that they had covered a three days' march in one day1, while Ibn ad-Dawadari avers that they had been fully armed and in the saddle for three consecutive days and nights 2 . Baibars al-Mansuri implies that the two mounted armies clashed in battle 3 . Ibn ad-Dawadari asserts that the Mongols were resting when the Mamluks approached - that this, indeed, was the decisive factor in the outcome of the battle since the Mamluks were exhausted - and that it was the Mamluks who attacked 4 . Not even the dates assigned to the battle coincide. Baibars al-Mansuri claims that it took place both on 18 and on 28 Rabi' I (13 and 23 December, 1299)5; Ibn ad-Dawadari, on the twenty-ninth (24 December)6. Ibn adDawadari states that it was the Egyptian right which attacked the Mongol left7, but Baibars al-Mansuri states in contradiction that the Mamluk left attacked the Mongol right8, and his description of the decisive action whereby the Mamluk center was immobilized by the Mongols in the front and by their Mamluk squires in the rear9 Ibn ad-Dawadari reduces to a vague exclamation: "Wa-hasala lil-Muslimina hasrun wa-ayyuma hasrun!" 10 But in addition to contradictory claims, Kanz ad-durar contains unique information on the battle, specifically on the retreat of the Mamluk armies, which corroborates the hypothesis that Ibn ad-Dawadari and Baibars al-Mansuri recorded separate and distinct accounts. Separate sources are even more apparent for the aftermath of the battle, when the Mamluks had fled and the Mongols were moving into Damascus. Baibars al-Mansuri's accounts are short and focus on the Mongols and Armenians' maraudering and their failure to capture the citadel11; Ibn ad-Dawadari's report concentrates on the reaction of the Damascenes to imminent Mongol occupation and even lists those notables who fled from the city as well as those who remained to form a delegation to sue Gazan for amnesty 12 . If they did not use separate sources, it is impossible, moreover, to explain their choice of Mongol documents: Ibn ad-Dawadari alone transcribes Gazan's decree granting amnesty; only Baibars al-Mansuri records Gazan's two farewell messages. Even more curious, it would seem that both saw fit to reproduce the decree appointing the Mamluk defector Qibgaq viceroy of as-Sam, and yet the text in Ibn ad-Dawadari 13 is that which Baibars al-Mansuri presents as the decree appointing Baktamur viceroy of Northern Syria.14 Up to this point the two historians have covered more or less the same ground; here, however, their narratives diverge as Ibn ad-Dawadari devotes page after page to a subject which Baibars al-Mansuri skims - the Mongol occupation of Damascus. It is true that some aspects of the occupation are discussed by both, such as the Mongol attempts to seize the citadel. But even here discrepancies arise, such as when Ibn ad-Dawadari attributes the burning of the buildings surrounding the citadel to the Mongols15, a deed which Baibars al-Mansuri ascribes to the Mamluk garrison itself in its attempt to deprive the Mongols of mangonel bases16. Aside from variants, Ibn ad-Dawadari gives many details on Mongol atrocities and the events following Gazan's departure from Damascus which are found neither in Zubdat al-fikra nor in at-Tuhfa al-mulukiya. Obviously Ibn ad-Dawadari must have used a source left untapped by Baibars alMansuri, perhaps 'Alam ad-Din al-Birzali, the famous contemporary Damascus scholar and I

2 Zubda, IX, fol. 207 ro. Kanz, IX, 16. 3 i Zubda, IX, fol. 207 ro.; Tuhfa, fol. 73 ro. Kanz, IX, 16. 5 6 7 Zubda, IX, fol. 206 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 73 vo. Kanz, IX, 16. Ibid. 8 9 10 Zubda, IX, fol. 206 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 73 vo. Ibid. Kanz, IX, 17. II 12 13 Zubda, IX, fols. 208 ro.-vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 74 ro. Kanz, IX, 18-19. Ibid., 25-27. 14 15 16 Zubda, IX, fols. 216 ro.-i7 ro. Kanz, IX, 28. Zubda, IX, fols. 208 ro.-o8 vo.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

i6

historian who is actually cited for an episode involving Ibn Taimiya 1 . For the present, however, until al-Birzali's chronicle can be considered in its appropriate place, one can only surmise that Ibn ad-Dawadari made much more copious use of it than this single acknowledgment would indicate Whatever his sources may be, the fact remains that Ibn ad-Dawadari gives detailed information on the occupation of Damascus up until the departure of the last Mongols, little, if any of which is mentioned by Baibars al-Mansuri. On the remobilization of the Mamluk army in Egypt and its return to Syria the two historians also complement each other, for each stresses a different phase of the operation. Baibars al-Mansuri records the day-by-day arrival in Cairo of the retreating Egyptian and Synan forces2. Ibn ad-Dawadari does the same for the army's return to Damascus 3 . Oddly enough, Ibn adDawadari makes only oblique mention of the return to obedience of the Mamluk defectors who collaborated with the Mongols in occupying Damascus, but he does report the retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan. Neither gives much concrete information on the remobilization of the Mamluk army except to state that the huge expenditures cheapened the value of the dinar. Baibars al-Mansuri reports that it reached a low of seventeen dirhams 4 . Ibn ad-Dawadari gives eighteen as the correct figure and cites a story told to him by a speculator whose personal experience probably accounts for the discrepancy5. The annal for 699/1299-1300 closes in Kanz ad-durar with a single obituary for a Mamluk amir; there is no information whatsoever on the struggle for supremacy which raged within the Golden Horde. Lest, however, the impression be given that Kanz ad-durar contains little information on the Mongols, it should be pointed out that this volume teems with personal reports transmitted on the authority of visitors to the Ilhanid state but lacks Baibars al-Mansuri's narrations of Mongol political history. Nevertheless, the omission of this material underlines once more the fact that neither the interests nor the sources of these two historians were altogether the same. This is an impression which analysis of the annal for 705/1305-06 confirms. Table 6 705/i305-o6 Kanz, IX 1. Rulers (130) 2. Attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan (131) 3. Raid on Sis (131-32)

4. Discovery of huge emerald (132-33) 5. Trials of Ibn Taimiya (133-44) 6. Digging of a canal (145)

For this year differences outweigh similarities. The only items which all three works cover are two military expeditions of this year, and even these reports diverge widely. Neither author assigns a date to the campaign against Gabal al-Kasrawan, but by placing it toward the end of the year Baibars al-Mansuri suggests that it occurred late in 705/1305-06, whereas Ibn adDawadari leaves the opposite impression by placing it toward the beginning. The latter's account, moreover, is short and adds nothing except an estimate of the number of Mamluk troops involved. To the campaign against Sis he devotes considerably more space and many details, few of which agree with Baibars al-Mansuri's version. Ibn ad-Dawadari furnishes no reason for the raid except to label it as a raid, and there is no question of the Mongols' learning of the Mamluks' presence and laying an ambush. On the contrary, the Mamluks learned of the presence of three thousand Mongols who had been pursuing Salar's relatives (this is the only mention we hear of them)6 and whom the Armenians enlisted for help against the Mamluk's 1 5

Kanz, I X , 32. Kanz, I X , 37-38.

2 6

Zubda, I X , fol. 217 vo. Ibid., p . 131.

3

Kanz, I X , 39.

4

Zubda, I X , fol. 218 ro.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

Vj

Furthermore, when the Mamluk leaders heard of the Mongols' approach, they disagreed on their strategy, with the result that a third of the army abandoned the main body of troops. Six1, and not four2 or three 3 amirs were taken prisoner along with many troops. There was no march of Egyptian troops in retaliation, no conciliatory moves by the Armenians, no payment of tribute. Instead, Ibn ad-Dawadari adds a personal touch in the form of a long description of the leader of the Mamluk expedition, who, it turns out, was a neighbor of his in Cairo4. Since Baibars al-Mansuri actually participated in the expedition and knew the results at first hand 5 it is evident that Ibn ad-Dawadari missed the outcome of the venture as a whole, even though his informant apparently provided him with such details as verbatim conversations among the leaders and the number of troops involved in the raid. Perhaps the author talked with a member of the original expeditionary force and for some reason neglected, or was ignorant of, the dispatch of a new contingent of Egyptian troops. And yet he did manage to hear from a post-rider about the discovery of an enormous emerald in Upper Egypt and to follow all the details of its sale, its transport to Yemen, its return to Egypt, etc. And with a flourish of erudition he recalls that al-Mas'udi had mentioned in his history the existence of another emerald mine but finds no corroboration for this report. "God knows best" 6 . The rest of the events of the year - the arrival of envoys, monetary fluctuations, the death of the Ilhanid viceroy, the battle in Spain - Ibn ad-Dawadari does not mention. Instead he uses over twelve pages to narrate and explain the complicated Ibn Taimiya affair (which Baibars al-Mansuri dismisses in a sentence) beginning with his interrogation in Damascus and ending with the repercussions of his imprisonment in Egypt. No sources or informants are cited, even though the text of a relevant official document is reproduced7. The year ends with the digging of a canal to Alexandria. Comparison of Ibn ad-Dawadari with Baibars al-Mansuri on the basis of these three years raises more questions than we can answer at this point. In the cases of outright discrepancies and contradictions we can only await the testimony of other contemporary historians, without guarantee that they will be free of further complications. Besides, it is not so much the purpose here to decide on such limited, arbitrarily selected evidence who is the better, more reliable historian, though this is certainly an important consideration. More significant are the general problems posed by the history of the period as a whole and the scope and methodology of each historian. Within these limits, comparison and contrast are instructive. First of all, Ibn adDawadari's conception of the subject matter of history is wider than Baibars al-Mansuri's. Instead of restricting himself almost exclusively to politically significant events, Ibn ad-Dawadari branches out into topics outside his contemporary's ken: he obviously takes great interest in the religious controversy surrounding Ibn Taimiya, which was not, however, devoid of political significance, and relishes the discovery of the great emerald. He does not hesitate to fill page after page with occasional verses that add little if anything of substance and he is not immune to the historian's disease - finding parallels in the past to illuminate the present8. And as the true universal historian should, he digresses according to whim, pausing to wonder at length about the causes of earthquakes. He is not, like Baibars al-Mansuri, glued to the progress of affairs of state. Even for these, Ibn ad-Dawadari's attitude and approach often differ markedly from Baibars al-Mansuri's, partly, at least, because he did not enjoy the latter's 1

2 Ibid., p. 132. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 245 ro. 4 Baibars al-Mansuri, Tuhfa, fol. 85 vo. Kanz, IX, 132. 5 6 7 Zubda, IX, fol. 245 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 85 vo. Kanz, IX, 133. Ibid., pp. 135-41. 8 In addition to the reference to al-Mas'udi, see the contrast which he draws between the Mongol and the Fatimid occupations of Damascus; ibid., p. 28. 3

l8

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

high rank and had, therefore, to rely to a great extent on the accounts of eyewitnesses whose vantage point might not have afforded a comprehensive view. Nevertheless, in spite of this liability, Ibn ad-Dawadari succeeded in collecting an impressive amount of material, and he would seem to have treated it scrupulously. Like Baibars al-Mansuri he is well aware of the historical significance of official documents though surely he could not have acquired them so easily. As ROEMER, his editor, points out, Ibn ad-Dawadari apologizes when he cannot produce a document but refrains from trying to render it from memory because "My heart and my pen do not permit me to record fabrications in my history; they have no validity, being pretentions" 1 . But there is another reason for this difference in attitude and approach, closely related to the first. Since he had to rely sometimes on personal, not necessarily authoritative, witnesses often friends of his or of his father - his version of history takes on a personal flavor which smacks at times almost of gossip when contrasted to the pronouncements of Baibars al-Mansuri. Even though Baibars al-Mansuri played an important role in many events which he describes, we are rarely aware of him in his histories, even as a public figure. Ibn ad-Dawadari intrudes himself upon our consciousness at every opportunity. For the most part, except when he is demonstrating his loyalty to his sultan, Baibars al-Mansuri reads as if he wrote a hundred years after the events of his own lifetime. Ibn ad-Dawadari lives on his pages. But in spite of our sympathy for Ibn ad-Dawadari's personal approach, we must not overemphasize it or blind ourselves to its limitations. Far more often than not, he too sounds like the typical medieval historian, unrecognizable as an individual. And even then he sometimes misses the full story or neglects the general for the particular. Nevertheless he does present information not contained in Baibars al-Mansuri's works and thereby increases our knowledge of the period. 3. Author Z. Not even the name is known of the author of the manuscript edited by ZETTERSTEEN covering the years 690-709/1291-1309-10 2 , but the few autobiographical remarks which appear in the text show that he was a contemporary of al-Malik an-Nasir. He was a soldier: in 690/1290-91 he participated in the victorious campaign of al-Asraf Halil which culminated in the conquest of 'Akka 3 and in 691/1292 took part in the conquest of Qal'at ar-Rum 4 . We learn t h a t in 694/ 1294-95 he was back in Cairo, where he witnessed the Royal Mamluk uprising 5 . When in 700/ 1300-1301 the sumptuary laws were imposed upon the Christians and Jews he was on a trip to al-Bahnasa, just south of Fayyum*5, and he witnessed the great earthquake of 702/1302-03 in Munyat ibn Hasib 7 . That his rank was not high is clear from references to himself and his friends. He was not, for example, among the notables who comprised a truce delegation at 'Akka nor was he among the "amirs" who managed to escape from a tower in that city but stuck dose to a friend, one Qarabuga as-Sukri, who like himself bore no title*. During the Mamluk uprising of 694/1294-95, detachments of "agnad al-umara'" were stationed throughout the city to suard the gates, and the author refers to himself as one of the "gund" who were stationed at Bab azZuwaila - the east gate of the Fatimid city - which seems to indicate on the treacherous ground of terminology alone that he was not a mamluk but merely a soldier, probably in the service 1 2

Kanz, I X , 160.

Z E T T E R S T E E N (ed.), Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Mamlukensultane, p p I - I 4 S Hereafter this a n n m ™ , K author will be referred to as Author Z. a Author Z., Beitrdge v 2 anonymous 4 Ibid., p . 17. Qal'at ar-Rum was a fortress on the E u p h r a t e s canturpH h v ai AS™* u 11 • , ,

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

19

of a Mamluk amir1. One other passage - an obituary notice of 697/1297-98 for an amir - bears on this question: 'This Amir Saif ad-Din al-Fahiri was extremely good to me. I had a brother who was an adjutant [naqib], named 'Ala' ad-Din 'AH, who had a son called Raslan. This amir used to visit us and spend the night with us. He took (ahada) fiefs for us - for my nephew and me - and he did us great service . . . He died an amir of forty" 2 . If the author felt honored by the visits of a medium-grade amir who could do him favors, his own rank as well as his brother's and his nephew's must have been low. All then that we really know about this author is that he was a contemporary of al-Malik an-Nasir, a soldier of low rank, but a well-educated one, since he did, after all, write a history. ROEMER has pointed out that the author of this work and Ibn ad-Dawadari "were closely associated": "Thus Ibn ad-Dawadari transmits a hutba (102 f) which one of his friends (ba'd al-ashdb) delivered on the occasion of the earthquake in 702. It is the same sermon which is found in the ZETTERSTEEN chronicle (127 f), which the author designates as his own work. Moreover, ZETTERSTEEN'S author also provides the report of al-Mugiri (101-103), for which, however, according to the circumstances, Ibn ad-Dawadari holds priority. The question whether Ibn ad-Dawadari or the other author has more originality . . . or whether both dipped from a third, common source, must for the present remain unanswered" 3 . Analysis of the three years under discussion will show that in all probability the two authors used a common source. Table 7 694/1294-95 Beitrdge 1. List of rulers (P. 31) 2. Mamluk uprising (32-33) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (33) 4. Appointment of vizier (33)

5. Accession of Gazan (33-34) 6. Conversion of Gazan (34-36) 7. Famine and high prices (36)

Comparison with Ibn ad-Dawadari shows that Author Z. omits mention of the administrative changes and the death of the ruler of Yemen; he adds reports on the Mamluk uprising, the conversion of Gazan, and the famine in Egypt. Like Baibars al-Mansuri he does not discuss the coming of the Oirats until 695/1295-964. In fact, his annal, in terms of events mentioned and sequences followed, stands closer to Zubdat al-fikra than to Kanz ad-durar. Like Ibn ad-Dawadari he names only the caliph and the sultan in his list of officials for this year. His description of the Mamluk uprising is in some respects more detailed than that of Baibars al-Mansuri, but he fails to give all the information contained in Zubdat al-fikra. More important, he presents no reason whatsoever for the uprising; instead, he devotes fully half his account to the minor in1

Ibid., p. 32. I t is not altogether sure t h a t gund and agnad always refer to non-mamluk elements. See AYALON, BSOAS, X V . No. 3, 473. 2 Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 46. 3 Kanz, I X , 21. T h e passage cited b y R O E M E R raises another point: w h a t was a soldier doing delivering a hutba ("eine hutba . . ., die einer seiner Freunde . . . gehalten habe") ? I b n ad-Dawadari does not state t h a t his friend delivered a hutba b u t t h a t " a friend of mine has [li-ba'di 1-ashabi] a good hutba on the e a r t h q u a k e . " Kanz, I X , 102. A u t h o r Z. says t h a t he " m a d e ['amiltu]" a hutba and elsewhere t h a t he "composed [ a n s a ' t u ] " one. Beitrdge, p p . 127, 89. I t would be strange indeed if a soldier served as an imam; more probably, he incorporated a hutba into his t e x t simply as an appropriate genre for exhorting his readers. On the other hand, Ibn as-Sihna al-Haggar (d. 1330), a Damascus scholar, served as a catapulter under al-Malik as-Salih. See H. A. R. G I B B (ed.), The Travels of Ibn Battuta, I, 155, note 320. See also L A P I D U S , I. M., Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages, p. 134. 4 Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 46.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

2 0

cident in which he himself was involved, telling how he managed to escape from a band of Mamluks who attacked his post at Bab az-Zuwaila1. His account of Kitbuga's accession to the sultanate reveals much about his methods as a historian since it consists of little more than a compilation from other sources, some acknowledged, some not. The first four lines of his report are the same which open the description of the accession in Zubdat al-fikra*. Who borrowed from whom? It would seem from the rest of his version that Author Z. lifted these four lines from Baibars al-Mansuri and then summarized the rest of his account. That he did indeed use Baibars al-Mansuri as a source he acknowledges later when quoting a passage pertaining to al-Malik an-Nasir's exile3. To this summary he adds mention of a banquet and then tells an anecdote, citing as-Saih Abu 1-Karam an-Nasranr4 as his source, about a prediction that a Mongol named Kitbuga would rule Egypt 5 . No ready explanation emerges as to why Author Z. should acknowledge his indebtedness to one source and not to another or why, for that matter, he should have used Zubdat al-fikra for an event which its author did not witness. Like Ibn ad-Dawadari he reports the appointment of a new vizier in one sentence and gives only the bare facts of the accession of Gazan to the Ilhanid throne. Though he cites no source for his information, the text indicates that a report must have been generally circulated by stating that this news arrived on such-and-such a date 6 . He must have deliberately deleted Baibars al-Mansuri's long description of the Ilhanid strife, but he adds an extended account of Gazan's conversion to Islam, citing as his source as-Saih Sadr ad-Din, who was an intimate of Gazan's vizier and who according to his own account assisted in Gazan's conversion7. This momentous development Baibars al-Mansuri ignores and Ibn ad-Dawadari barely mentions8. In addition to the evidence provided by this long narrative Author Z. cites as-Saih 'Alam adDin (al-Birzali?) to attest to the sincerity of the Ilhan's conversion to Islam9. He closes his annal for 694/1294-95 with an account of the high prices and famine which afflicted Egypt this year, which is remarkably different from that of the two other historians. Curiously, he ignores the cause of the famine - the lowness of the Nile - identified by both Baibars al-Mansuri and Ibn ad-Dawadari - claiming rather that it was caused by high prices in Barqa10, which had been ravaged by man-eating locusts, whereupon over forty thousand of its starving inhabitants flooded into Cairo, causing a food shortage and high prices. Obviously - and inexplicably since he had read Zubdat al-fikra - Author Z. mistook a side effect of the drought for the real cause, since Baibars al-Mansuri leaves no doubt that the mass migration into the capital was a result of the drought11. Stranger still in the light of this basic misunderstanding, the author produces exact figures on the number of people who died daily in Cairo and an estimate of those who fled the eastern provinces to Syria, and he states the highest price paid for wheat during the year12. As this point we can only guess how the author was able to coUect such precise information on the details of the catastrophe and still remain ignorant of its causes, despite having read Zubdat al-fikra and having seen for himself, presumably, the lowness of the Nile.

1 Ibid

2 - PP- 32-33Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, I X , fol. 188 ro. 3 Beitrdge p 137 * Identified in later sources only as al-kdtib. See I b n Tagri BirdI, an-Nugum, V I I I , 55, who transmits the anecdote on the authority of al-Gazarl. 5 Beitrdge, p . 33. « Ibid ' Ibid, p p . 34-35. This person is Sadr ad-Din Ibrahim ibn M u h a m m a d ibn al-Mu'ayyad . . . al-Guwaini (d. 722/1322). Cf. Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalanl, ad-Durar al-kamina fi a'ydn al-mi'a at-tdmina I 67-68. 8 Kanz MS, V I I I , 316. »Beitrdge, pp. 35-36. "" ' ' of t h i s u11 l°W^heT^°U^arioes P r o v i n c e o f t h e w e s t e m desert, see P O P P E R , Egypt and Syria, Zubda, IX, fol. 189 vo.; Tuhfa, fol. 66 ro. 12 Beitrdge, p . 36.

I, 14.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

21

Table 8 699/1299-1300 Beitrdge 1. Rulers (P. 57) 2. Oirat insurrection (58) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (58-59) 4. Mongol occupation of Damascus (59-72) a. Gazan's decree granting amnesty to Damascus (62-64) b. Gazan's decree appointing Qibgaq viceroy (66-68)

5, Gazan's departure and Mongol evacuation (75-70,) 6. Mamluk remobilization and return (79-80) 7. Attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan (80-81) 8. Obituary (81)

With the annal for this year we are confronted squarely with the problem of the relationship between Author Z. and Ibn ad-Dawadari, for the similarity of their narratives leaves no room for doubt that either both of them used the same, third, source or that one of them copied from the other. This we can prove simply by pointing to the surface similarity of the organization and sequence of events treated for the year1. What is more, both produce the same obituary for al-Amir 'Alam ad-Din ad-Duwaidari at the end of the year, and both quote the same verses deploring Mongol extortions and atrocities2. Nevertheless, it is not so easy to determine the exact nature of the borrowing. Each author apparently compiled his list of rulers independently. Author Z. gives the names of the important officers of state in Egypt, some of the viceroys of Syria, and non-hostile foreign rulers, while Ibn ad-Dawadari gives only the caliph and sultan and foreign - including hostile - rulers. There are minor discrepancies, so that it is unlikely that both used the same source. The accounts of the Oirat conspiracy are short and similar in organization and substance, but Ibn ad-Dawadari gives more details, which indicates that both authors summarized the same source or that Author Z. epitomized Ibn ad-Dawadari. The reverse, of course, is possible, in which event Ibn ad-Dawadari would have been plagiarizing from an author less well informed than he. As for the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar, Author Z. in all probability lifted his account from a Syrian chronicle for he relates it within the context of reports of the defeat reaching Damascus 3 . Actual news of the battle is terse. Having left Damascus on 17 Rabi' I (12 December, 1299), the army later set out from Hims and remained fully armed and in the saddle for three consecutive days and nights until they reached Wadi al-Hazindar where the Mongols rode out to meet them. The two armies clashed in battle, and the Egyptian right launched a successful charge (against which flank?), killing many Mongols with few losses. The Egyptian center also charged but was defeated, whereupon the right fled, followed by the sultan and, apparently, the rest of the army, which discarded their gear on the field. If we extract the substance from the rhymed prose and Koranic quotations of Kanz addurar we can note several similarities and discrepancies in the two versions. Both mention that the sultan marched from Damascus on the same date and that the battle took place on a Wednesday (which Ibn ad-Dawadari erroneously dates as the twenty-ninth) and that the troops spent three days and nights in the saddle (without, however, Author Z.'s drawing the obvious conclusion that this contributed to the Mamluk defeat). More important are various similarities in phraseology, such as the following: 1

But in the tabulation I have followed Author Z.'s sequence, not his own topic headings, in order to point up the similarity. 2 3 Author Z., Beitrdge, pp. 72-73; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 30-31. Beitrdge, p. 58.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

22

Author Z.: "Tumma tahassala tahadulun auqa'ahu llahu." 1 Ibn ad-Dawadari: "Tumma hasala tahadulun mina llahi." 2 Author Z.: "Fa-harabati 1-maimanatu wa-haraba kullu man kana musafiran wara'a s-sanagiqi s-sultaniya."3 Ibn ad-Dawadari: "Fa-harabat maimanatu 1-Muslimina wa-taba'aha man kana wara'a s-sanagiqi s-sultaniya."4 Author Z.: "Wa-saqa s-sultanu bi-ta'ifatin yasiratin nahwa Ba'labakka." 5 Ibn ad-Dawadari: "Wa-saqa maulana s-sultanu fi ta'ifatin yasiratin nahwa Ba'labakka." 6 Author Z.: "Wa-baqati 1-gana'imu wal-'udadu wal-atqalu mulqatan bi-tilka 1-ardi wa-ramawi n-nasu qumasahum tahfifan 'ani 1-haili."7 Ibn ad-Dawadari: "Wa-'adati 1-gana'imu wal-amwalu wal-'udadu wal-atqalu mulqatan mil'a 1-ardi fi tuliha wal-'ardi wa-ramawi 1-gundu sa'ira 'udadihim li-yuhaffifu 'an huyuhhim." 8 The possibility that one of the authors is indebted to the other is indisputable, but since each presents information not mentioned by the other it can be concluded that neither relied exclusively on the other as a source; Author Z., for example, gives precise figures for the amount of money which al-Malik an-Nasir distributed to his troops before the battle 9 , and Ibn adDawadari mentions that before the battle the Mongols had tried to trick the Egyptians into believing that they had retreated10. Therefore, a third source must have been involved unless Ibn ad-Dawadari merely added this detail as a guess, on his own authority. This still leaves us to account for discrepancies in the battle report itself, for Author Z. diverges from Ibn ad-Dawadari (and thus agrees with Baibars al-Mansuri) by stating that it was the Mamluk left which made the successful charge and adds new, or at least more explicit, information when he states that the Egyptian center also made a charge. It is possible that Ibn ad-Dawadari made a transposition error in describing the charge; as for the latter discrepancy, Ibn ad-Dawadari may have meant by the phrase, "Ka-dalika 1-qalbu mina 1-mushmina,"11 that the center also charged, but this is not completely clear from the context. At any rate if we can discount these two discrepancies it becomes highly probable that both used the same source for the reasons argued above, namely, both use the same phraseology and both introduce information not recorded by the other. The long narratives for the remainder of the year corroborate this hypothesis, for again we see each historian presenting virtually the same material with just enough new information introduced to show that neither relied exclusively on the other and that therefore they probably used a common source. The only alternative is that Ibn ad-Dawadari copied extensively from Author Z., whose annal is much more detailed, and added some material from still another source. But such seems highly unlikely, since if he were trying to abridge Author Z.'s narrative, he would have had no reason to add extraneous information. It is evident both from omissions12 and a statement in the text concerning the Mongol raid against Gabal as-Salihiya (a district outside the city walls of Damascus) that Ibn ad-Dawadari was probably borrowing from someone's chronicle: "Prodigious things were done against them which do not bear hearing; I have abstained from mentioning all that." 1 3 That chronicle 1 Ibid

2 Kan 3 ' *> I X > J 7 . Beitrdge, p . 58. 4 Kanz> I x , 5 Beitrdge, p. 58. « Kanz, I X , 17. ? Beitrdge, p . 58. * Kanz I X 18. 9 Beitrdge, p. 58. 10 Kanz, I X , 15-16. " Ibid., p. 17. » Such as, for example, an incomplete list of the Damascus delegation sent to Cazan, I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 19; Author Z., Beitrdge, p. 60; a shorter account of the negotiations for t h e surrender of the citadel, Ibn ad-Dawadari Kanz, IX, 24; Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 65; the omission of I b n T a i m l y a ' s a t t e m p t to conciliate the Mongol leaders, Author Z., Beitrdge, pp. 69-70; and the omission of t h e Diyar B a k r incident, A u t h o r Z., Beitrdge, p. 81. 13 Kanz, I X , 28.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

23

1 not have been Author Z.'s since in at least three instances Ibn ad-Dawadari records new lis1. Earlier it was suggested that Ibn ad-Dawadari was indebted to al-Birzali for much of riformation on events in Syria, but it seems now that both Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. using instead a source which contained quotations from al-Birzali since both of them cite only once, in the same place, for the same event 2 . Surely if both had copied from al-Birzali would not have decided independently to mention his name at the same point in the narrabut the possibility remains that one of them borrowed the quotation and the other copied )m him3. 5 for the remobilization of the Mamluk army in Egypt it is apparent from Author Z.'s use le said (qala)" 4 that he was relying on another historian for this development. It is apparent from similar phraseology either that Ibn ad-Dawadari was that historian or that he - Ibn )awadari - borrowed from him too. Whatever the case, Ibn ad-Dawadari transmits an nal anecdote told him by a soldier and gives other details 6 on the re-equiping of the army mentioned by Author Z. Their accounts of the re-entry of the Egyptian army into Syria the same, except that Ibn ad-Dawadari fails to mention that the Mamluk defectors reed with al-Malik an-Nasir to Cairo6. Undoubtedly, then, Author Z. did not rely on Ibn adradari, and both, here too, used a common source. Table 9 705/1305-06 ydge

ulers (P. 131) mding of messengers (132) etirement of an amir (132)

4. Arrival of Salar's family (132) 5. Currency problem (132)

Dr the years 703-707/1303-1307-08 Author Z. reduces his annals to the bare mention of a events. Fully half the annal for 705/1305-06 he devotes to listing rulers and officers of state; of the other events he dismisses with a sentence, except for Salar's reunion with his family, tfhich he breaks into rhymed prose lifted without acknowledgment from Zubdat al-fikra. 5 he ignores entirely the momentous occurrences of the year - the expeditions against Sis Gabal al-Kasrawan and the trials and detention of Ibn Taimiya, not to mention several ients of minor significance. He adds nothing new for this year; in fact, except for the list llers, he has relied exclusively on Zubdat al-fikra1. e cannot escape the conclusion that Author Z. is a historian of little originality for the years h we have examined. We have demonstrated that for 694/1294-95 and 705/1305-06 he i little of importance to Zubdat al-fikra save the account of Gazan's conversion to Islam. 699/1299-1300 - concerned mainly with happenings in Syria - he, along with Ibn ad-Daari, relies on an unnamed source. The chief value of his history, therefore, lies in preserving )re detailed and faithful resume of that source than did Ibn ad-Dawadari. And even that e will be diminished if not negated if we succeed in identifying and finding the common

he presence of the ruler of the Armenians in the Mongol camp, Kanz, IX, 33; the price of grain in iscus, ibid., p. 34; the return of Biilay to Damascus, ibid., p. 35; and an inventory of Mongol destruc2 p. 40. Author Z., Beitrdge, p. 76; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 32. >ddly enough, this for both authors is the only citation of al-Birzali by name. Author Z. does cite twice one '"Alam ad-DIn," Beitrdge, pp. 35, 38, whom Zettersteen identifies as al-Birzali, ibid., p. vii. 5 6 eitrage, p. 79. Kanz, IX, 37-38. Author Z., Beitrdge, p. 80. ie Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fols. 239 vo., 246 vo., 247 vo.

24

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

source. In the meantime we must consider these two authors together as valuable supplement chiefly for events in Syria and reports on the Ilhans - to Baibars al-Mansuri. 4. An-Nuwairi With Sihab ad-Din Ahmad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab an-Nuwairi (d. 732/1331-32), we come to the first historian who belonged exclusively to the bureaucratic, as opposed to military, institution. Son of a "katib of note," 1 an-Nuwairi served in various state offices during al-Malik an-Nasir's reigns, the first for which we have any record being the directorship of the sultan's properties in Syria in 701/1301-02, when he was in his early twenties 2 . He stayed in Damascus in this post for approximately four years, until 705/1305-06, when he returned to Egypt as director of the Bureau of Privy Funds (diwdn al-hdss) and of the Qala'iin complex of buildings (which consisted of Qala'un's mausoleum, madrasa-mosqae, and hospital), in which capacity he served, on occasion, in attendance on the sultan 3 . These positions he held for about two years - until 707/1307-08. In 710/1310-11 he was sent to Tripoli as intendant of the Diwan (sahib ad-diwdn), and later in the same year he was appointed controller of the armies (ndzir al-guyus) in the same province4. There he served until 712/1312-13 when he was separated from this post and returned to Egypt 5 . Sometime thereafter he became controller of Financial Bureaus (ndzir ad-diwdn) in the eastern provinces of ad-Daqahliya and al-Murtahawiya6. AnNuwairi's role in the Mamluk administration is reflected in his work - Nihdyat al-arab fi funun al-adab - a vast encyclopedia designed to contain "all the knowledge that was indispensable for a first-class scribe."7 Nearly half the work is devoted to history, arranged, however, not in the manner of a universal chronicle but in the form of regional or dynastic sections, the last of which recounts the history of Egypt beginning with the Tulunids and continuing through the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir. Like Baibars al-Mansuri, an-Nuwairi would have had access to state documents by virtue of his positions and like Ibn ad-Dawadari he was an intimate of highranking officials, many of whom he quotes as authorities in his work8. Few written sources are cited other than the writings of al-Birzali9 and al-Gazari10 for events in Syria and in Mongol territory. Otherwise, we must test the originality of his work by analysis. Since, however, he devotes a separate section to the history of the Mongols, we shall have to combine it with the section on Egypt in order to cover all the information recorded for each year. Table 10 694/1294-95 Nihdya Mamluk section. Vol. XXIX 1. Royal Mamluk uprising (80) 2. Accession of Kitbuga (80-81) a. Announcement sent to Damascus (80) 1

I., An-Nuwairi, Nihayat vols. (Photographic copy 3 An-Nuwairi, Nihdya, 2

KRATSCHKOWSKY,

Mongol Section. Vol. XXV 1. Struggles leading to accession of Gazan (130) 2. Accession of Gazan (130)

"Al-Nuwairl," Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. Th. H o u t s m a et al., mi 968 al-arab fi funun al-adab, Dar al-Kutub al-Misrlya MS, 549 ma'drif 'dmma, 32 of Bibliotheque Nationale Arabic MS, 5050), X X X , 2. X X X , 19, 29, 45.

* Ibid 59. "The Diwan" probably refers to several financial bureaus. Cf. al-Qalqasandl, Subh al-a'Sa, V, 464. A n ^ u w a i r l , Nihdya, X X X , 77. e KRATSCHKOWSKY, EI I I I 968 ' ' 1 Ibid 1 8 * K - g c ^ f ^ ^ - D m Baibars, Nihdya, X X I X , 78; al-Qadl Sams ad-Dln'ibn 'Adlan, ibid., X X X , 29; al-Amir Saif ad-Dm Balaban al-Gukandar al-Mansuri. ibid., p . 4 1 ; al-Amlr 'Ala' ad-Din Mugultay al-Baisari, ibid., p. 46; al-Amir Gamal ad-Din Aqiis al-Afram, ibid., p . 71. 9I b i d p I2c 10 Ibid., pp. 33, 130. '' ^'

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

3. Appointments (80-82) 4. Famine and high prices (82) 5. Appointments (82)

25

6. Arrest of an amir (82) 7. Confiscations (82) 8. Obituaries (83)

Combined, the two sections cover almost the same material as that in Zubdat al-fikra, to which an-Nuwairi's indebtedness will become increasingly evident. For the insurrection of the Royal Mamluks, an-Nuwairi gives virtually the same information as Baibars al-Mansuri, without, however, ascribing causes to the uprising. He does give one new detail, namely, that Kitbuga took charge of punishing the insurgents 1 , but fails to produce some of the information presented by Baibars al-Mansuri. Curiously, both authors use a few similar phrases to describe this episode, the most striking of which states that it led to Kitbuga's usurping the throne: Nihdyat al-arab: "Wa-kanat hadihi 1-haditatu sababan li-harakati l-Amlri Rukni d-Dini warukubihi fi s-saltanati." 2 Zubdat al-fikra\ "Wa-kanat sababan bi-harakati 1-Amiri Zaini d-DIni Kitbuga wa-rukubihi fi s-saltanati." 3 Alone, such similarity in phrasing is probably too slim to prove that either author was indebted to the other, but it is important to remember that an-Nuwairi was only sixteen at this time and may well, therefore, have relied on an informant, oral or written. The same holds true for his report on the accession of Kitbuga, which contains, moreover, some information not brought forth by any of the other historians. We are told, for example, that he had been preparing to usurp the throne since his appointment as viceroy and that the insurrection provided only a propitious occasion for this move4. But the fact that this interpretation could have been based on little more than conjecture is indicated by the somewhat conflicting testimony of Baibars al-Mansuri, who, it will be recalled, claims that Kitbuga had been persuaded to depose al-Malik an-Nasir by a group of ambitious amirs5, whereas an-Nuwairi suggests rather that the amirs had been wooed by Kitbuga 6 . It is possible, of course, that both versions represent different aspects of the truth. At any rate, an-Nuwairi is the first historian so far examined to state what must have been the truth concerning al-Malik an-Nasir's extreme youth: that other than the accessories of the sultanate - the hutba and the sikka - which belong to the legitimate ruler, Kitbuga enjoyed the real exercise of power7. Like Author Z., an-Nuwairi relates (without citing a source) the anecdote foretelling that a Mongol named Kitbuga would rule Egypt 8 . Although the two versions of this anecdote are practically the sarrie, there is no evidence to prove who borrowed from whom. Finally, it is worth noting that of all historians so far studied, an-Nuwairi is the first to refrain from using Kitbuga's succession as an occasion to denounce him. To the appointment of a new vizier an-Nuwairi devotes several lines but gives only a short account of the drought with accompanying sickness and high prices, mentioning only that it occurred as a result of a low Nile in Egypt and lack of rain elsewhere. The figure he cites for the highest price paid for wheat - 150 dirhams per irdabb - agrees with that mentioned by Baibars al-Mansuri. In addition to the replacement of the viceroy of the conquered lands (nd'ib al-futuhdt)9 in Syria and the appointment of a new one, mentioned by both Baibars al-Mansuri and Ibn ad1 4 7 9

2 3 Ibid., X X I X , 80. Ibid. Zubda, I X , fol. 188 vo. 5 6 An-Nuwairi, 'Nihdya, X X I X , 80. Tuhfa, fol. 65 ro. Nihdya, X X I X , 80. 8 Ibid., p . 8 1 . Ibid. The futuhat refer t o lands previously held b y the Crusaders. Cf. G A U D E F R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , La

p. 222, note 2.

Syrie,

26

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Dawadari, an-Nuwairi records other administrative changes in Syria, especially those within the judicial system. The obituary notices, including that for the ruler of Yemen, are briel As for developments in the Mongol states, the passages in Nihdyat al-arab are similar to those in Zubdat al-fikra - so much so, in fact, that one obviously is a copy of the other with only a few changes in phraseology. An-Nuwairi probably went through Zubdat al-fikra and picked out the passages on the Ilhans and incorporated them into his section on the history of the Mongols. It is improbable that Baibars al-Mansuri relied on an-Nuwairi, for at-Tuhfa contains additional information on the Mongols - namely on the Golden Horde - none of which is found in Nihdyat al-arab; however, the alternative always remains that both copied from the same source. Table u 699/1299-1300 Nihdya Mamluk section, XXIX Mongol section, Vol. XXV 1. Oirat uprising (111-12) 1. Gazan marches on Syria (131) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (112) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (131) 3. List of Muslim casualties (112-13) 3- Occupation of Damascus (131-32) 4. Occupation of Damascus (113-17) 4- Mamluks in Egypt (132) a. Gazan's decree granting amnesty (113-14) 5. Remobilization and return (117-19) 6. Reprisals against collaborators (119) 7. Attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan (119) 8. Obituaries (119-20) Analysis of these sections sheds further light on this problem. An-Nuwairi's account of the Oirat plot to seize power during the march of the Mamluk armies to Syria closely resembles the version in Zubdat al-fikra. Like Baibars al-Mansuri, and unlike Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z., he leaves the impression that the sultan rather than his lieutenants was the object of the plot and records the same narrative with the same details as that recorded by Baibars alMansuri. His two descriptions of the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar - short, clear, and intelligible are practically the same. Again he agrees with Baibars al-Mansuri in attributing the cause of the Mamluks' fatigue to their having covered three days' journey in one day 1 rather than to their having been mounted for three consecutive days and nights. Nevertheless, despite their fatigue the Muslim left launched a successful attack on the Mongol right, whereupon Gazan isolated himself and would have fled had not Qibgaq, a Mamluk defector, persuaded him to stay, hoping, as he later claimed, to insure the Mongol ruler's defeat. Then a fresh Mongol contingent attacked the Mamluk center, and the Mamluk right weakened upon clashing with the Mongol right. The Mamluks were defeated. Now the first few sentences of this account are so similar to those in Zubdat al-fikra that some connection between the two is certain. Probably an-Nuwairi, the younger author, copied from the older and added, either from his own knowledge or from another source, the detail about the role of Qibgaq in dissuading Gazan from flight. If, however, he did borrow from Baibars al-Mansuri, he suppressed the important details telling how the Mongols succeeded in hemming in the Mamluk center. Furthermore the same close similarity exists in their lists of Mamluk casualties except that an-Nuwairi adds one name 2 not mentioned by Baibars al-Mansuri in Zubdat al-fikraz. The concluding sentences of each author, summing up the 1 3

Nihdya, X X I X , 112. Zubda, I X , fol. 207 vo.

2

Al-Amir Sarim ad-Din Uzbak, c o m m a n d e r of t h e citadel of Tripoli. Ibid.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

27

number of casualties, are so similar in phraseology that one author must have copied from the other; the only alternative, which is much less likely, is that both paraphrased the same source in the same places and then suddenly decided to reproduce the same wording of the same sentence: An-Nuwairi: "Wa-nahwa am farisin mina 1-halqati wal-mamaliki s-sultaniyati wa-agnadi 1-umara'i wa-mamalikihim wa-ha'ula'i 1-umara'u minhum mani stushida fi 1-ma'rakati waminhum man asabathu garahatun fa-mata ba'da nfisali 1-waq'ati."1 Baibars al-Mansuri: "Wa-nahwa alfi nafsin mina 1-halqati wal-mamaliki wa-ha'ula'i 1-umara'u minhum man kana stishaduhu fi 1-ma'rakati wa-minhum man asabathu fiha garahatun fa-mata ba'daha." 2 Who borrowed from whom ? On prima facie evidence we would conclude that an-Nuwairi, the younger author, would have borrowed from the older, especially since we know that he was acquainted with Zubdat al-fikra and at-Tuhfa al-mulukiya2, and no doubt would have made some comment on Baibars al-Mansuri's indebtedness to him had such existed. An-Nuwairi's two versions of the Mongols' occupation of Damascus and their raids on the surrounding territory are curious in that each was lifted from a different source. The version found in the section on the Mongols offers little difficulty, inasmuch as similarity in organization and phraseology indicates that it is obviously a summary of the account in Zubdat al-fikra, but the version in the Mamluk section requires more attention. Though considerably less detailed than either Author Z.'s or Ibn ad-Dawadari's accounts, an-Nuwairi's report on the first phase of the Mongol occupation closely resembles both of them in substance and often in phraseology and therefore was probably based either on one of these authors or, more probably, on the same source used by them. If the former instance be true, then he must have used Author Z.'s account, to which his version bears greater resemblance than to Ibn ad-Dawadari's. The most striking deviation from the pattern followed by Author Z. and Ibn ad-Dawadari is an-Nuwairi's failure to reproduce the decree appointing Qibgaq viceroy of Syria. Instead, he merely summarizes it4, though he does transcribe the firman granting amnesty to Damascus. But the fact that he includes bits of information contained neither in Author Z. nor in Ibn adDawadari - namely, one or two details on Ibn Taimiya's attempts to intercede on behalf of the people of Gabal as-Salihiya5 - would indicate that he borrowed from neither but summarized a third source, perhaps the same used by them. Furthermore, the obvious similarity ceases when an-Nuwairi begins discussing the second phase of the occupation. He concentrates on the measures taken by the commander of the citadel to prevent its falling into Mongol hands 6 , whereas Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. focus on the tribute levied on the Damascenes, going so far as to quote verses deploring this hardship 7 . Here it is apparent that an-Nuwairi did not rely for his information on either of these two authors but on a third source which may or may not have been the same used by them, since he chose to stress different aspects of the course of events in Damascus. But the same pattern holds true for the remainder of the year: he presents some data not contained in the other two authors, such as, for example, the raids of the Mongols as far south as Jerusalem 8 and omits altogether the description of how Qibgaq, once the Mongols had departed, assumed the office of the sultanate in Syria. Except for some minor but important details, an-Nuwairi records practically the same information on the re-equipping of the Mamluk army in Egypt as does Baibars al-Mansuri in Zubdat al-fikra, and scattered similarities in phrasing indicate that here too an-Nuwairi used 1

2 Nihdya, X X I X , 112-13. Zubda, IX, fol. 207 vo. 3 4 See an-Nuwairi's obituary of Baibars al-Mansuri, Nihdya, XXXI, 62. Ibid., X X I X 115. 5 An-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 115; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 28; Author Z., Beitrdge, pp. 69-70. 6 7 8 Nihdya, X X I X , 115-16. Kanz, IX, 70-73; Beitrdge, pp. 28-31. Nihdya, XXIX, 117.

2g

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Zubdat al-fikra in compiling his description of these activities Similarity in organization rather than in phrasing betokens an-Nuwairi's indebtedness to Zubdat al-fikra for the march of he Egyptian armies on Syria along with the return to obedience of the Mamluk defectors and the reassignment of offices in Egypt and Syria; new information on the order of arrival of Egyptian troops in Damascus must have come from a Syrian source1. There is no mention at all in either of Baibars al-Mansuri's works of the retaliatory measures taken by the viceroy of Damascus against Damascenes who had collaborated with the Mongok and against the inhabitants of Gabal al-Kasrawan who had harassed the retreating Mamluk forces. Both Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. recount the attack against Gabal al-Kasrawan but do not mention the retaliation against the Damascus collaborators, described in detail by an-Nuwairi2. Therefore we can assume that an-Nuwairi probably used a Syrian source different from that employed by the other two authors, unless they for some reason saw fit to delete these occurrences. Omitting all mention of strife within the Golden Horde, an-Nuwairi closes 699/1299-1300 with several short obituaries, none of which appears in Baibars al-Mansuri and only one of which shows up in Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. Naturally enough an-Nuwairi mentions the death of his father in addition to that of an Ayyubid amir and a prominent qddt. Table 12 7 0 5/i305-o6 Nihdya Mamluk section, Vol. XXX 1. Arrival of Magribi and Yamani envoys (27) 2. Raid on Sis (27) 3. Arrival of Byzantine and Georgian envoys (28) 4. Arrival of Salar's family (28) 5. Retaliatory raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan (28)

6. Administrative changes (28) 7- T r i a l s o f I b n Taimiya (29-38) 8. Retirement of an amir (38) 9. Obituaries (38)

Comparison of an-Nuwairi's annal for this year with those of his contemporaries best illustrates his outlook and methods as a historian, for here he shows most originality. As we shall see, he must have used Zubdat al-fikra as a source, and of the topics treated by Baibars alMansuri he ignores only monetary and Spanish affairs. His interest focuses on the two major political-military events of the year - the campaigns against Sis and Gabal al-Kasrawan - diplomatic and administrative developments, and, most importantly, the Ibn Taimiya episode, which he treats as a separate unit, breaking away from the annalistic pattern. An-Nuwairi undoubtedly lifted his account on the Magrib and Yemen envoys from Zubdat al-fikra with only a few changes in phrasing. But, inexplicably, he rejected Baibars al-Mansuri's report on the expedition to Sis to give one closer in substance and details to that of Ibn ad-Dawadari. In fact, the two accounts are so similar even in wording that one might suspect that they used the same source were it not for some significant differences in detail, the most important being that Ibn ad-Dawadari relates that the leader of the Aleppan army - al-Amir Saif ad-Din Qustumur - was killed in battle 3 , while an-Nuwairi states, in agreement with Baibars al-Mansuri4, that he escaped safely to Aleppo5. Furthermore, whereas Ibn ad-Dawadari ends his report with the defeat of the Aleppan army, an-Nuwairi narrates the aftermath in 1

Ibid., p. 118.

2

Ibid., p. 119.

3 Kanz, IX, 132.

* Tuhfa, fol. 85 vo.

5

Nihdya, XXX, 27.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

29

which the ruler sued for and obtained peace in exchange for paying tribute. Here, however, it must be noted that an-Nuwairi missed the full story told by Baibars al-Mansuri in which the Mamluks refused at first the Armenians' request and stipulated certain conditions. What probably happened is that an-Nuwairi and Ibn ad-Dawadari used closely related, though not the same, Syrian source, or - if they did use the same source - an-Nuwairi corrected it and added to it from still another source. Whatever the case, it seems strange that he should have omitted several important details mentioned by Baibars al-Mansuri, most notably the mounting of a retaliatory attack against the Armenians. Strange, too, that immediately thereafter he should return to Zubdat al-fikra for a report on the mission of a Georgian envoy, which he follows with a short note on the arrival of Salar's relatives, reversing Baibars al-Mansuri's chronology in the process. The former report contains almost all the information recorded in Zubdat al-fikra; the latter, considerably less. An-Nuwairi's capsule account of the death of the Ilhanid viceroy may or may not have come from Zubdat al-fikra. For the second major event of the year - the Syrian expedition against Gabal al-Kasrawan an-Nuwairi uses a source other than Baibars al-Mansuri. This event, it will be recalled, Ibn ad-Dawadari gives only passing mention and Author Z. completely ignores. Though an-Nuwairi, like Baibars al-Mansuri, links this expedition directly to the harassment inflicted by the mountain inhabitants on the retreating Mamluk army in 699/1299-1300, he stresses that these people had since then grown increasingly bold and despotic, even though more than one conciliatory mission had been sent to them since then 1 . His information on the composition of the army is more precise than Baibars al-Mansuri's, as is his description of the punishment meted out to the mountain inhabitants once they had been defeated. Whether an-Nuwairi gleaned this information from a Syrian chronicle or whether such information was available to him from Egyptian sources cannot at this point be determined. An-Nuwairi's items on the transfer of a Syrian amir to a new post and the release from prison of another appear in none of the other authors so far studied. r From his long report on the Ibn Taimiya episode we gain some insight into his methods as a Y historian, as well as illumination on the problem of the sources used by other historians. As has been noted above, an-Nuwairi deviates in this passage from a strictly chronological recording of events, to treat the episode covering some five years as a unit, more or less as a digression within the annal for 705/1305-06. That this modification was not simply a whim of an-Nuwairi's, but based on the desire to impose some semblance of order on the writing of history is indicated by the fact that elsewhere too he diverges from the chronological arrangement 2 , and that in this particular instance he sees and wants to describe a chain of events as a unit. He introduces the main body of his report as follows: "The Saih Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taimiya Episode; what happened to the Hanbalites; the incarceration of Taqi ad-Din; news of him until his ultimate release. The incident to which we are referring occurred in 705 [1305-06] and ended in the last part of 709 [1309-10], the causes, motives, and development of which lay in Cairo and Damascus. We deem it appropriate to narrate and explain the causes of this event from beginning to end without interruption, even though one year may end and another begin" 3 . In addition to seeing the episode as a whole, an-Nuwairi, in yet another deviation from his pattern, identifies his sources. In general, for these events which occurred in Syria, he uses the work of the contemporary Syrian historian al-Gazari, whereas for those events which occurred in Egypt and which preceded Ibn Taimiya's being sent to Cairo, he relies on the reports of a student and a qddi, both of whom were living along with the author himself at the Nasiriya madrasa*. The source for the events which took place in Egypt after Ibn Taimiya's arrival 1

Ibid.

2

See

ASHTOR,

Studies, p. 13.

3

Nihdya, XXX, 29.

4

Ibid.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

30

• - x -i +r» indicate where he there cannot yet be determined with certainty since an-Nuwairi tails to mui ^ ^ ^ stopped summarizing al-Gazari; but it would be strange, though certainly not un ^ s e l f ' w a s him to refer to a Syrian chronicler for Egyptian occurrences, especially w y e n * al_£azari present in Egypt at the time. A further complication is added when it is realize isode> a also served as the unacknowledged source for Ibn ad-Dawadari's report on 1 1 ^ ^ comphcation which, however, enables us to compare the historical methodo ogy ^ 1 authors who used the same source . The following tables will indicate how eacn org discussion of the event. Table 13 Nihdya, XXX 1. Ibn Taimiya denounces Ahmadiya faqirs before the viceroy of Damascus, 9 Gumada I (27 November, 1305), source unidentified (29). 2. Reason for summoning Ibn Taimiya to Cairo, oral sources identified (29-33) a. A Cairo qddi2 attributes an incriminating futya to Ibn Taimiya (29) b. Text of the futya (29-33) c. Council identifies the futya as Ibn Taimiya's (33) 3. Two councils in Damascus, 8 and 12 Ragab (24 and 28 January, 1306) (34) 4. Strife between Ibn Taimiya and other 'ulamd', al-Gazari (34) 5. Third council, 30 Ragab (15 February, 1306) al-Gazari (34) 6. Ibn Taimiya summoned to Cairo, 12 Ramadan (28 March, 1306), al-Gazari (34) 7. Cairo council, 23 Ramadan (8 April, 1306), imprisons Ibn Taimiya, source unidentified (34-35) 8. Copy of decree concerning Ibn Taimiya sent to Damascus (35) 9. Text of decree (35-36) 10. Hanbalis harassed in Egypt (36-37) 11. Ibn Taimiya freed in 707/1307-08 but reimprisoned (36-37) 12. Ibn Taimiya freed in 709/1309-10 (37) 1

Kanz, IX 1. Two councils in Damascus, 8 and 12 Ragab, source unidentified (i33~34) 2. Strife between Ibn Taimiya and other 'ulamd' (134-35) 3. Third council, 3° Ragab (135) 4. Ibn Taimiya sent to Cairo (136-37) 5. Cairo council imprisons Ibn Taimiya (137-38) 6. Ibn Gama'a's statement (138) 7. Decree sent to Damascus (138) 8. Text of decree (139-42) 9. Analysis of causes of strife (143-45) a. Ibn Taimiya had denounced work of Ibn al-'Arabl to two influential Cairo saifys (143)3 b. One of them persuades Baibars alGasnaklr to have Ibn Taimiya sent to Cairo (143-44) 10. Hanbalis harassed in Egypt (144-45)

I t can easily be established t h a t I b n ad-Dawadari copied from al-Gazari r a t h e r t h a n from an-Nuwairi, for an-Nuwairi provides an original introduction to t h e subject not t o be found in Kanz ad-durar. 2 Al-Qadl Sams ad-DIn M u h a m m a d ibn A h m a d ibn ' U t m a n ibn I b r a h i m ibn 'Adlan ibn M a h m u d ibn Lahiq ibn D a ' u d al-Kinani al-Misrl as-San'I (See I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 333). Also instrumental was t h e Malik! chief qddi Zain ad-Din 'AH ibn Mahluf ibn Nahid ibn Muslim an-Nuwairi (Ibn H a g a r al'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 127-28). 3 Specifically, two iaihs of Sufistic leanings: a§-Saih Nasr ibn Sulaiman ibn ' U m a r Abu 1-Fath al-Manbigi (see L A O U S T , H . Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politiques de Taki-d-Din Ahmad b. Taimiya, p . 25, note

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

31

Closer comparison of the texts confirms what comparison of the tables suggests, namely, that both historians have relied on al-Gazari for at least all the events from the convocation of the first two councils through the sending of the decree to Damascus. The question immediately arises as to why an-Nuwairi should have copied from this Syrian chronicler events which transpired in Cairo, especially when two of the principal figures in the interrogation, two of Ibn Taimiya's main antagonists, in fact, actually resided in the same building with him. We might assume that his informant's version of the council's deliberations differed little in substance from al-Gazari's and that an-Nuwairi, therefore, saw no reason to discard the ready-made, written source. All, however, is not so simple. For if we can assume that al-Gazari, the source of Ibn ad-Dawadari's narrative, was also the source of Ibn ad-Dawadari's analysis of the causes underlying the episode, we must assume that an-Nuwairi deliberately omitted al-Gazari's analysis to substitute his own, based on information given him by parties to the dispute. The two analyses are not mutually exclusive, the main difference being that an-Nuwairi for some reason saw fit to omit all mention of the role played by the powerful Baibars al-Gasnakir and the two Cairo saihs or that al-Gazari for some even more mysterious reason chose to invent that role. It may be that an-Nuwairi was simply trying to magnify the part played by the two qddis with whom he was associated, by claiming that through them Ibn Taimiya was brought to trial. One other obvious question also lacks an answer. If, as seems likely, an-Nuwairi copied the account of Ibn Taimiya's confrontation with the Ahmadiya faqirs from al-Gazari, why did Ibn ad-Dawadari omit it, especially when it illustrates still another source of opposition directed against Ibn Taimiya? As to insights into historical methodology to be drawn from this comparison, they must be scanty as far as Ibn ad-Dawadari is concerned, for either he plagiarized al-Gazari's account in toto or he copied most of it and then added his own speculations as to causes. An-Nuwairi, on the other hand, we can actually observe arranging and organizing his sources so as to present a coherent account of an episode which he saw as a unit, transcending the fragmented structure which the annalistic form imposes on history. With exactly the same material as that at Ibn ad-Dawadari's disposal - his own resources and al-Gazari's chronicle - an-Nuwairi alternates and juxtaposes the two, seeking causes and effects both in Cairo and Damascus, proceeding according to chronology. Surely such an innovation in Islamic historiography deserves more attention than it has hitherto received. An-Nuwairi closes 705/1305-06 with obituaries and mention of the retirement of an aged amir. Here, of all places, an-Nuwairi differs markedly from Baibars al-Mansuri in relating the circumstances of that retirement. Baibars al-Mansuri claims that the amir applied voluntarily to be relieved of his fiefs and duties1, whereas an-Nuwairi narrates in detail how the old man tried to block such action. Such a discrepancy must be due to the personal, prejudiced interest of one of the two historians 2 . The brief obituaries of a few notables appear in none of the other sources examined so far. In the analysis for these years we have seen the close relationship of an-Nuwairi's chronicle with those of his contemporaries - closest for Egyptian affairs with Zubdat al-fikra, closest for Syrian affairs with the annals of Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z., that is, with the source or

1,) and as-Saih 'Abd al-Karim ibn al-Husain ibn 'Abdallah al-Amuli at-Tabarl (see I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I , 397). I b n ad-Dawadari also assigns a role to the Maliki chief qddi, I b n Mahliif, who is mentioned in the preceding note. 1 Zubda, I X , fol. 246 ro. 2 Perhaps of Baibars al-Mansuri, who, t h o u g h subordinate to him in t h e expedition of this year against the Armenians, h a d to act as commander because of t h e amir's senility. Zubda, I X , fol. 245 vo.

22

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

sources used by them, one of which was al-Gazari. It might not be unfair, in fact, to characterize the section of Nihdyat al-arab which we have studied as a combination of materials borrowed from Zubdat al-fikra and the Syrian sources with relatively little original information. Such a characterization of course needs qualification, for an-Nuwairi does modify and amplify statements made by Baibars al-Mansuri and omits information on such areas as the Spanish and Golden Horde states. This same willingness to add and subtract from other authors we have seen illustrated most vividly in an-Nuwairi's treatment of the Ibn Taimiya affair, in which he not only balances written sources against oral but also makes an innovation of sorts by violating the annalistic pattern. In sum, we can see at times in an-Nuwairi a glimmer of independence in his manipulation of source material, more independence, at any rate, than that evident in his contemporaries. In this connection we might bring up the verdicts rendered by various scholars for and against an-Nuwairi as a historian, one of whom - E. ASHTOR - faults him for his misuse of the topical as opposed to chronological treatment and concludes that "An-Nuwairi often repeats himself, is inaccurate, transmits his sources inexactly, and is decidedly less informative than Ibn al-Furat" 1 . Of these charges, the only one that can be verified from our analysis is repetition; separate treatment of the Mamluks and Mongols did result in some duplication, probably inevitable in an encyclopedia. Otherwise, ASHTOR must have based his judgments on years other than these here analyzed. Another scholar - GUSTAV W E I L - lodges an even more serious complaint, accusing an-Nuwairi of being unreliable for events which occurred within his lifetime and especially those which reflected upon the glory of the sultan 2 . But against such adverse judgments stands the favorable one of E. BLOCHET: "The chronicle of an-Nuwairi . . . . is an excellent one, a pleasure to read; its author did not try to dazzle his readers with elegance, gaudy or in bad taste: it is one of the models of the Muslim historical genre for precision and clarity. It is well known that for the first Mamluk sultans, it served as the basis for the later chronicles of al-Maqrizi and Abu 1-Mahasin"3. Although BLOCHET was referring mainly to language and style, he was obviously implying some judgment as to an-Nuwairi as an historian as well. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that an-Nuwairi does not enjoy the complete confidence of modern scholars but that a great deal of work remains to be done - not the least of which is a full edition of the vast encyclopedia in which his history is embedded - before his contribution to Muslim historiography can be judged.

5. Mufaddal ibn abi l-Fadd'il If an-Nuwairi cannot be trusted as a historian, what can be said of Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, whose an-Nahg as-sadid wad-durr al-farid fi md ba'd tdrihlbn al-Amid represents - according to BLOCHET, who edited it - nothing but a careless abridgement of Nihdyat al-arab^ In all fairness to Mufaddal it should be pointed out that BLOCHET'S pronouncements are not always valid, often being colored, as we have just seen, by stylistic considerations: an-Nuwairi wrote clearly and precisely; he was, therefore, a good historian. Mufaddal wrote awkwardly and crudely; consequently he was a poor historian. Furthermore, according to BLOCHET, Mufaddal could not possibly have excelled as a historian because he was a Copt, and no Copt has ever mastered 1

Studies, p. 15. Geschichte des Abbasiden Chalifats in Egypten, I, 269, note 1. 3 BLOCHET, E., (ed. and trans.), Histoire des sultans mamlouks by Mufaddal ibn abu 1-Fada'il ("Patrologia orientalis," Vols. XII, XIV. XX, 1919-28), p. 10, note 2. All page citations'refer to the compiled one-volume edition of this work, these page numbers appearing in brackets both in this single volume and in the original installments. * Ibid., pp. 9-10. 2

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

33

Arabic!1 If such indeed were the case one cannot help wondering why BLOCHET should have wasted so much energy on editing an unrewarding history, especially when the model for it which he so greatly admired was also unedited. Be that as it may, an-Nahg as-sadid is interesting for present purposes since its author, as a Copt, affords - potentially at least - yet another approach to events already narrated by Muslims of varied qualifications and backgrounds. Unfortunately, it is Mufaddal's fate to be labelled as the Copt, for other than the fact of his religion few facts are known. Ignored by historians and biographers alike, too insignificant a personage, apparently, to figure even in his own narrative, he is the first author so far studied not even remotely involved - to our knowledge - in the events which he described. In fact, if we can take a marginal note to an-Nahg as-sadid seriously, he wrote the history for his own use, not for general consumption, in order to fix in his mind those events which he had witnessed or heard of and which had occurred after the end of the Copt Ibn al-'Amid's history 2 . Completed in 759/1357-58, an-Nahg as-sadid begins with the accession of Baibars I, al-Malik az-Zahir, in 658/1259-60 and ends with the death of al-Malik an-Nasir in 741/1341, a part of which, up to 717/1317-18 has been edited and translated into French by BLOCHET 3 . Table 14 694/1294-95 Sultans 1. Royal Mamluk uprising (419-21) 2. Death of patriarch Theodosius (422) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (422-23)

4. Kitbuga's appointees (423-24) 5. Arrival of Oirats (424-25) 6. Famine and high prices (427-28)

It should be noted in the beginning that Mufaddal did not consistently arrange his narrative strictly as an annal, that is, with yearly chronological divisions and headings; but he did follow in the main a rough chronological sequence, justifying our inclusion of the last two items in the table for this year. To the arrival of the Oirats he assigns no date whatever, and for the incidence of high prices he merely states, correctly, that the inflation occurred and lasted during both 694/1294-95 and 695/1295-96. Obviously, then, events which took place around the end of 694 and the beginning of 695 he allowed to run together in his narrative. Although from one point of view such a practice might indicate carelessness and result in some confusion, from another standpoint it reflects a deliberate deviation from a rigid form, further evidence of which we shall see elsewhere. As authority for the Mamluk uprising Mufaddal cites Baibars al-Mansuri, but it is certain that neither of that author's works served as the sole source for this incident, for Mufaddal presents information not recorded by Baibars al-Mansuri, namely, a numerical estimate of the Mamluks involved in the insurrection4. And since this bit of information is also lacking in Nihdyat al-arab, the alleged master source for an-Nahg as-sadid, it is obvious that Mufaddal used still another source. Obvious too that Mufaddal relied on his own judgment in organizing his account, by far the most coherent studied so far. Coherence he achieves simply by culling the significant facts of the episodes, combining them with what led to and resulted from the event, and stating all in terse, concrete detail. Such seems to us a routine procedure and yet 1

2 Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., p. 3. 3 The complete text of this work, covering the years 658-741/1259-1340-41, exists in manuscript: Bibliotheque Nationale Arabic MS, 4525, hereafter referred to as Nahg MS. The portion edited by BLOCHET, from 4 the beginning through 716/1316-17, is hereafter referred to as Sultans. Sultans, pp. 417-29.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

34

contrast to the methods of his contemporaries almost constitutes an innovation. Still, on the very same page Mufaddal demonstrates that if he did have an impulse for coherence and organization it was an intermittent one, for almost perversely he interrupts the natural flow of narrative with an extraneous item of purely Coptic interest (lifted from a Coptic history , thereby separating Kitbuga's accession from the incident leading to it, i. e., the Mamluk revolt. Like an-Nuwairi, Mufaddal refrains from attacking Kitbuga on the occasion of his coronation or blaming the woes of that year upon his reign. Oddly enough, Mufaddal deviates rom he pattern set by his contemporaries, ignoring the banquet and state procession as well as the anecdote prophesying the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga to the Egyptian throne. Instead, as a further illustration of his independence, if not originality, he focuses on an aspect given only routine treatment in the two sources with which we know he was acquainted, namely the promotion of Kitbuga's favorites, both his own mamluks and his husdasiya, i. e, his brothers in slavery. The fact of this preferment he probably borrowed from Baibars alMansuri, but the insistence at this juncture that two of these favorites gained control over Kitbuga and corrupted his reign is original1. Mufaddal's discussion of the Oirats' arrival in Muslim territory we shall ignore since he himself does not date it, and it probably fell in the next year. His report on the low Nile and resultant high prices is a condensation of that in Zubdat al-fikra with the addition of a statistic on the level of the Nile2. Enough has been said already to refute BLOCHET'S claim that an-Nahg as-sadid is but a summary of Nihdyat al-arab. On the contrary, the principal authority for almost all the events of this year is not an-Nuwairi but Baibars al-Mansuri, to whom, however, Mufaddal adds observations found in no other sources. Even more important from our point of view, Mufaddal shows striking originality as a historian in his ability to organize his material meaningfully.

in

Table 15 699/1299-1300 Sultans 1. List of rulers (Pp. 467-68) 2. Oirat insurrection (468-69) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (469-71) 4. Occupation of Damascus (471-506) a. Text of amnesty decree (477-81) b. Text of decree appointing Qibgaq (484-

5. Remobilization of Mamluk troops (506-30) a. Casualties (506-07) 6. Egyptians return to Syria (524-29) 7. Retaliatory attack against Gabal al-Kasrawan (529-31) 8. Obituary (53)

9i) f

Before plunging once again into a long, entangled course of events, complicated here by Mufaddal's recourse to several sources, it might be helpful to recapitulate what is known of the sources for the events of this year. From the five histories so far studied we have isolated, without identifying, two principal sources - one, a Mamluk participant in the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar, the other, a Syrian observer, in all likelihood al-Gazari. The former provided the substance of Baibars al-Mansuri's two chronicles; the latter, that of Ibn ad-Dawadari's, Author Z.'s and an-Nuwairi's. As we shall see, Mufaddal again displays considerable skill by exploiting both of the primary sources plus one of the secondary. To the events of this year he assigns a definite beginning and end in the formal annalistic tradition and even introduces them with a perfunctory mention of a few important officers of state. As his source for the Oirat plot, 1 2

Ibid., p . 424. Ibid., p . 427. This statistic differs from I b n ad-Dawadari's, Kanz MS, V I I I , 313.

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

35

Mufaddal cites Baibars al-Mansuri, without, however, following closely either of that author's accounts which are now available to us1. In fact, it looks as if Mufaddal presents detail mentioned heretofore only by Author Z. and Ibn ad-Dawadari 2 . It is obvious, though, from additional details3 found neither in Baibars al-Mansuri nor in Author Z. and Ibn ad-Dawadari that Mufaddal must have used still another source, probably the same as that summarized by Author Z. and Ibn ad-Dawadari. All these additional details supplement rather than contradict Baibars al-Mansuri, and even the unidentified statement attributed to him probably represents truth; it claims only that he was instructed by letter to arrest the Oirats remaining in Egypt, whereas Baibars al-Mansuri himself states only that such an order was issued without indicating to whom it was directed4. Whatever this minor discrepancy may indicate, the fact remains that Mufaddal presents the fullest account of the plot so far encountered, though he does neglect to mention that the purpose of the plot was to restore Kitbuga to the throne. The Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar Mufaddal prefaces with another statement which he attributes to Baibars al-Mansuri but which cannot be found in his extant works: " T h e n the sultan set out for Hims. As stated above I was acting as viceroy in Egypt. A reliable person whom I trust told me that the victorious army . . .'" 6 Curiously, the sentence immediately preceding and most of the sentence following this quotation do not come from Baibars al-Mansuri (unless a variant source did contain such a passage) but contain nothing controversial and merely relate that al-Malik an-Nasir had distributed funds to his troops in Damascus and that seventytwo consecutive hours without fodder or water had exhausted the horses6. Furthermore, the terse account of the fighting is similar enough in phraseology to that of Author Z.'s to establish a close relationship between Mufaddal, Author Z., and Ibn ad-Dawadari. The complicated nature of that relationship becomes evident with Mufaddal's description of the Mongol occupation of Damascus, as does the falsity of BLOCHET'S judgment that an-Nahg as-sadid is a summary of Nihdyat al-arab. Even though he recognized that Mufaddal is careless in citing authorities7, BLOCHET was hasty in identifying the authority to whom Mufaddal refers only as 'al-mu'arrih'' - the historian - as an-Nuwairi. Often, it is true, this designation does refer to an-Nuwairi; often it does not. In fact, for the Mongol occupation of Damascus, al-mu'arrih must be either the Syrian source common to Ibn ad-Dawadari, Author Z., and an-Nuwairi, or unlikely as it may seem, Ibn ad-Dawadari himself. That Mufaddal used a source other than anNuwairi can be proved instantly by a comparison of any two parallel passages. Mufaddal's account is almost invariably longer and more detailed. It is also immediately apparent from a superficial comparison that he used either Ibn ad-Dawadari, Author Z., their common source, or a combination of these. Choosing one of these alternatives is not so easy. As will perhaps be recalled, the main reason for arguing that Ibn ad-Dawadari did not copy from Author Z. but that both used a common source was the appearance of a very few bits of information in Kanz ad-durar not found in the Zettersteen manuscript. The very same data appear also in an-Nahg as-sadid in the same sequence8, eliminating, therefore, Author Z. as the source. The contention that Mufaddal must have used Kanz ad-durar rather than or in addition to the common source rests on a single passage concerning an event which Author Z. reproduces in great detail but which Ibn ad-Dawadari condenses with the following justification: "Tumma inna t-Tatara tala'u ila Gabali s-Salihiyati wa-fa'alu fihi mina 1-af ali 1-qabihati ma yatulu 1

Sultans, p. 428. Namely t h a t t h e assassination of Salar and Baibars al-Gasnakir was intended; Mufaddal, Sultans, p. 0 8 ; Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 58; I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 15. 3 Such as the t o r t u r e of one Qutuz, implicated in the plot: Mufaddal, Sultans, p. 469. 4 8 6 7 Zubda, I X , fol. 206 vo. Mufaddal, Sultans, p . 469. Ibid., p . 490. Sultans, p . 19. 8 Mufaddal, Sultans, p p . 497, 499, 502. See supra, p . 23, note 1. 2

36

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

sarhuhu mimma taqsa'irru li-hauli sama'ihi 1-abdanu . . . adrabtu 'an dikri gami'i dalika . Mufaddal changes the phraseology somewhat, not enough, though, to conceal his indebtedness to Ibn ad-Dawadari, especially since he retains even the first-person form of the verb: ba.lamma sami'u bihi annahu t-Tatara harabu ba'da an ahrabu Gabala s-Salihiyati wa-sabau auladahum wa-banatihim wa-nisa'ahum wa-garat umiirun taqsa'irru li-hauliha 1-abdanu adrabtu 'anha li-hauliha fi 1-asma'i"2. And yet there are indications that Mufaddal must have used the common source too, namely in the presentation of some data found in Author Z. but not in Ibn ad-Dawadari 3 , and m one minute detail found neither in Ibn ad-Dawadari nor in Author Z.4 It is probable too that the authority cited as "al-mu'arrih" refers to that same common source - al-Gazari. Four times during his account of the occupation of Damascus, Mufaddal introduces a passage headed by "Qala 1-mu'arrih"5, not one of which is quoted directly from an-Nuwairi and two of which describe episodes not mentioned by him 6 . On the other hand, all four appear both in Ibn adDawadari and in Author Z., with enough similarity in phraseology to indicate that Mufaddal either summarized or quoted directly from the same source used by them 7 . For the occupation of Damascus, therefore, Mufaddal is indebted either directly or indirectly to the same Syrian chronicle as that used by Ibn ad-Dawadari, Author Z.,and an-Nuwairi. It seems highly probable that he had read and quoted from Kanz ad-durar in addition to the common source. Whatever the case may be, al-mu'arrih definitely does not refer here to an-Nuwairi, who does not figure at all as a source for the episode. For his report on the return of the Egyptian forces to Egypt, their remobilization, and return to Syria, Mufaddal relies on Baibars al-Mansuri, again citing him by name 8 , again attributing to him quotations and data which although they cannot be located in either of his two extant works, do not violate the facts or spirit of the existing texts. Little of substance is added save a few interesting details; much is omitted. Once more Mufaddal's penchant for rearranging his material is evident, here when he shifts the list of Mamluk casualties from the description of the battle to the return of the troops to Cairo. For the remainder of the events of the year - the reoccupation of Damascus by Mamluk forces, retaliation against Cabal al-Kasrawan, and the death of an amir - Mufaddal reverts either to Ibn ad-Dawadari or his source, the former supposition being supported by close similarity in phrasing. So much is clear: for 699/1299-1300 Mufaddal uses two, possibly three, main sources - Ibn ad-Dawadari or a primary Syrian source for all events which transpired in Syria, Baibars al1

Kanz., I X , 28. Sultans, p . 492. Mr. U. H A A R M A N N has informed me b y letter t h a t he is convinced t h a t Mufaddal could not have used Kanz. H A A R M A N N ' S dissertation was not available to me a t press time. 3 Both Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 75, and an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 116, refer t o two letters sent from Gazan after his departure from Damascus, one of which Mufaddal makes reference to, Sultans, p p . 494-95. 4 I t is a m a t t e r of a single phrase referring to refugees fleeing from t h e burning Zahirlya madras a. I b n adDawadarl, Kanz, I X , 3 1 : " W a - ' a d u y a r m u n a q u m a s a h u m min sathi h a m m a m i Asadi d-Dini wa-hammami l-'Aqiqi wa-la yanziliina mina 1-babi haufan mina l-yazaklyati." This same passage appears in an-Nahg assadid, Sultans, p . 493, with the addition of t h e following phrase after " h a m m a m i l-'Aqiqi": "wa-yanzihina 5 min h u n a k a bi-sullamin hasabin." Sultans, p p . 481, 489, 490, 503. 6 Ibid., p p . 490, 503. I n fact, SAUVAGET, La Chronique de Damas d'al-Jazari, p p . V - V I , does identify almu'arrih as al-Cazarl. 7 Cf. Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 23, 27, 35; A u t h o r Z., Beitrdge, p p . 64, 68, 78. One passage in Mufaddal, Sultans, p . 489, is closer in phraseology t o t h a t found in Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 6 8 ; t h e other three are closer to I b n ad-Dawadari. I conclude, therefore, t h a t Mufaddal copied all four from t h e c o m m o n source, even though the possibility remains t h a t he m a y have lifted t h e passage from a n y one or all t h r e e of t h e sources 8 in question. Sultans, p . 506. 2

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

37

Mansuri for those which did not. To the former he adds nothing; to the latter he appended such minor details as were within his ken. An-Nuwairi does not figure at all as an authority for this year. Table 16 705/i305-o6 Sultans 1. List of rulers (Pp. 615-16) 2. Raid on Sis (616-18) 3. Ibn Taimiya confronts the Ahmadlya (618-19)

4. Arrival of Salar's family (619-20) 5. Incarceration of Ibn Taimiya (620) 6. Messenger from Yemen (620) 7. Discovery of huge emerald (620-22)

Again we are confronted with the problem of sources; here, however, we can establish with some certainty for two episodes at least that Mufaddal must have used not Kanz ad-durar but the source upon which that work is based. His reports on the raid on Sis and the discovery of the emerald parallel closely those of Ibn ad-Dawadari, but in both instances Mufaddal adds information not contained in the other source, indicating that though both must have copied the same material, Ibn ad-Dawadari chose to omit a detail or two. We know, in fact, that Ibn ad-Dawadari transmitted the emerald story from another author, for he ends it with his observations introduced by "qultu." 1 And it is unlikely, at least for the other incident in question - the raid on Sis - that Mufaddal added the extra information from his own knowledge, for it consists of a direct quotation attributed to an amir resident in Aleppo2. Like Ibn adDawadari he gives only a truncated version of the raid, ending with the defeat of the Aleppan army. The remaining events of the year shed little or no light on the central problem. For the Ibn Taimiya episode he could have relied either on an-Nuwairi or that author's own source, for like an-Nuwairi - and unlike Ibn ad-Dawadari - he describes Ibn Taimiya's confrontation with the Ahmadlya dervishes. To the trials and ultimate arrest of Ibn Taimiya Mufaddal gives summary treatment. Baibars al-Mansuri's Zubdat al-fikra probably served as the source for the arrival of Salar's relatives, to which Mufaddal adds a specific date. Similarity in phraseology indicates that for the messengers from Yemen, Mufaddal uses an-Nuwairi's slightly modified version of Baibars al-Mansuri's, one of the few instances within our purview in which recourse to that author can be definitely established. Otherwise, as we have seen, Mufaddal leans heavily upon Baibars al-Mansuri, a Syrian chronicler - perhaps through the medium of another historian - and probably the unidentified Egyptian writer who was the author of the emerald story. On a superficial level he seems more careful than his contemporaries in acknowledging his sources, for his work is studded with references to other historians; in practice, however, he is careless since he apparently uses al-mu'arrih to refer to more than one historian and frequently attributes words of his own to Baibars al-Mansuri. Nevertheless, the substance of his work deviates little from the standard authorities of his day, even though his principle of borrowing from these works - assuming that he had one - evades detection. That a historical work by a Christian author should differ so little from those by Muslims, that, in fact, the only noticeable difference attributable to religion should be a smattering of local ecclesiastical history, is surprising but not nearly so much so as the fact that Mufaddal was so oblivious of religious distinctions that he copied Muslim formulas into his own work3.

1

Kanz, I X , 130.

2

Sultans, p p . 617-18.

3

See B L O C H E T , Sultans,

p . 18.

3$

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

No doubt his failure to mention Gazan's conversion to Islam reflects as much a general disinterest in non-military Mongol affairs as a religious bias, and, besides, as we have noted, most of the Muslim writers paid little attention to this event. True, he devotes fewer pages^to Ibn Taimiya than did an-Nuwairi and Ibn ad-Dawadari but more than Baibars al-Mansuri and Author Z.! In addition to banishing much news of the Mongols from his pages, Mufaddal ignores most other developments in foreign states, except when a stray bit of information - such as the arrival of Yamani envoys - seems to slip in. Also missing are reports of most minor administrative changes (though this is sometimes compensated for in the lists of officers of state), of currency fluctuations, of most obituaries. More important, such a relatively significant event as the retaliatory attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan is omitted. This is not to suggest that Mufaddal keeps his attention riveted on only the most momentous affairs of state; the space given to the discovery of the giant emerald should disabuse anyone of that notion. And he was not above an occasional digression, especially on places, such as China for example 1 . This tendency to break away at times from the rigid annalistic form, re-enforced by a sporadic flair for organizing material coherently, makes Mufaddal a historian worthy of study, at least for the early reign of al-Malik an-Nasir. 6. Muhammad 'Abd Allah as-Safadi Among the shorter histories of the period is found Nuzhat al-mdlik wal-mamluk fi muhtasar sirat man waliya Misr min al-muluk2 by a minor official in the vizierate named al-Hasan ibn abi Muhammad 'Abd Allah al-Hasimi as-Safadi. Except for remarks about himself in his own history, nothing is known of as-Safadi, who is not to be confused with a contemporary - Salah ad-Din Halil ibn Aibak as-Safadi (d. 763/1362), author of the famous Waft bil-wafaydt.We learn that in 694/1294-95 he was sent by the vizier Ibn al-Halill on a mission to cultivate the crown lands in the Sarqiya province3, and, later, that he was the author of a work entitled at-Tadkira al-kdmiliya fi s-siydsa al-mulukiya, for which he was awarded a garment of honor 4 . FRITZ KRENKOW states in a short article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam that as-Safadi "appears from casual remarks in his work to have been an intimate courtier of Nasir" 5 . On the basis of the available evidence it is probably more accurate to say that he was a contemporary government official who composed a short history of Egypt covering part of the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir6. Table ij 694/1294-95 Nuzhat al-mdlik 1. Accession of Kitbuga (Fol. 69 vo.) 2. Arrest of BurgI Mamluks (69 vo.)

3. Famine and high prices (70 ro.~70 vo.)

As the table indicates, as-Safadi reduces the events of the year to the barest essentials. Kitbuga's accession he announces with a single sentence; the uprising of Royal Mamluks he dismisses with a line or so stating the punishment meted out to the malefactors, whom he identi1

Sultans, p p . 690-99. 3 4 British Museum Or. MS, Add. 23326. Ibid., fol. 70 ro. Ibid., fols. 78 ro-78 vo. 5 "As-Safadi, M u h a m m a d ibn 'Abd Allah," EI, IV, 54. 6 Ibid., K R E N K O W states t h a t " t h e last events recorded in his history deal with 711-1311/12 or perhaps as late as 714." Actually, the events of 716/1316-17 are recorded; t h e n there is an a b r u p t j u m p t o 732/1331-32. Perhaps this was added by the continuer to whom K R E N K O W attributes events to 795/1392-93, on m a t t e r s concerning the family of t h e owner of t h e manuscript. 2

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

39

fies as Burgis; and the coverage of the famine consists mainly of his investigation of an incident of cannibalism which took place during his mission to Faqus 1 . Other than this gruesome eyewitness report substantiating the severity of the famine, as-Safadl's annal contains little of interest Table 18 699/1299-1300 Nuzhat al-mdlik 1. Oirat uprising (Fol. 72 vo.) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (73 ro.) 3. Al-Malik an-Nasir marches from Egypt (73 ro.)

4. Mongols flee (73 ro.) 5. Defectors return to obedience (73 ro.) 6. Mamluks reoccupy Syria (73 vo.)

Here as-Safadl's annal is too condensed to be of much value, so much so that it would be difficult to follow were we not acquainted with events from longer, more detailed sources. And yet he did possess information which other historians missed: for example, the exact number of Oirats hanged following the abortive uprising2. His version of the battle is noteworthy for his attempt to accentuate the positive aspects of what other historians agree was a debacle: "Then he [al-Malik an-Nasir] set out, seeking to fight for the cause of God (He is exalted!), and he and a part of his army did battle against Gazan and the Tatars in Wadi al-Hazindar. He returned safely on Wednesday, 29 Rabi' I, 699 [Thursday, 24 December, 1299] in Egypt. A fourth of his cavalry reached Egypt. He distributed vast sums to his armies and departed immediately to fight for revenge. When he reached as-Salihlya, Gazan fled from Damascus on 27 Gumada II, 699 [21 March, 1300], leaving Bulay, Qibgaq, and Baktamur in Damascus. The sultan camped at as-Salihlya and dispatched the armies with Salar. When Bulay heard of this, he left Damascus, defeated, on the pretext that he wanted to plunder Baalbek" 3 . Besides the fact that as-Safadi deliberately avoids mentioning that the Mongols defeated the Mamluks, he leaves the distinctly false impression that al-Malik an-Nasir's march against Syria frightened Gazan and Bulay, the Mongol general who had been conducting raids into Palestine, into flight. The facts are that al-Malik an-Nasir did not even leave Egypt until 9 Ragab [31 March], twelve days after the date as-Safadi mentions for Gazan's departure 4 . It is obvious, then, that asSafadi has juggled the data, perhaps through carelessness but probably from the desire to present al-Malik an-Nasir in the best possible light. For 705/1305-06 as-Safadi finds nothing to record except the discovery of the enormous emerald, which so far only Ibn ad-Dawadari and Mufaddal ibn abi al-Fada'il have seen fit to mention. This passage is interesting only insofar as it solves the mystery of at least one of Mufaddal's auxiliary sources, for it is evident that he used the details found in as-Safadl's account which are lacking in Ibn ad-Dawadari's 5 . But even the small amount of original material which as-Safadi does present is so insignificant - or unreliable - that his work cannot be considered of great importance for the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir.

1

The town in t h e Sarqiya province t o which the vizier h a d sent him. 3 Nuzhat al-mdlik, fol. 72 vo. Ibid., fols. 72 VO.-73 ro. 4 For the d e p a r t u r e of al-Malik an-Nasir see Baibars al-Mansiiri, Zubda, I X , fol. 218 vo.; for t h e departure of Gazan, see an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 116; for t h e departure of Bulay, see Q u t b ad-Din al-Yunmi, Dail mir'dt az-zamdn, Yale University L i b r a r y MS, Landberg 139, P t . IV, fol. 221 ro., hereafter referred t o as MS Y. 6 As-Safadi, Nuzhat al-mdlik, fol. 76 r o . ; Mufaddal, Sultans, p p . 620-22; I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 132-33. 2

4 Little

40

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

7. Al-'Umari Like an-Nuwairi, Sihab ad-Din abii l-'Abbas Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Fadl Allah al-'Umari (d. 749/1348-49) was an encyclopedist rather than a chronicler, but he demands attention as a historian since his vast encyclopedia entitled Masdlik al-absdr fi mamdlik al-amsdr1 contains a historical section consisting of annals from the hegira through 743/*342-432- I n theory his annals should contain a mine of information for the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir since al-'Umari, his father, and a brother occupied high posts in the Mamluk chancellery: his father served as confidential secretary in the Mamluk government in Egypt, and al-'Umari filled the same post in Syria, and both he and his brother were delegated to read letters to al-Malik an-Nasir. And yet al-'Umari, a stubborn, outspoken man who suffered imprisonment for his rashness in opposing the sultan's will3, shows in his encyclopedia no more than a scribe's interest in affairs of state. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that he showed no more than a copyist's interest, for as will be shown later, he copied the annals for 693-744/1293-1343-44 from Kitdb duwal al-isldm of ad-Dahabl. For this reason there is no point in subjecting his chronicle to analysis. 8. Al-Muqri For the sake of convenience we shall identify the next author as Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn 'All al-Muqrl al-Fayyuml and his work as Natr al-gumdn fi tardgim al-a'ydn*. We are sure from internal evidence in the text that the author was born not later than 720/1320-21, approximately midway in the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir and was still living in 766/1364-655. Apparently a universal history, the extant portion concentrates on the history of Egypt and Syria, ending with 745/1344-45; since the third part ends with 689/1290 and part four resumes with 701/ 1301-02, only one year falls into the framework of this study 6 . But scanning the annals for other years of the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir reveals a great deal about al-Muqri's sources, among whom the following are cited: Table ig Natr, Pt. IV 1. al-Mu'ayyad (Fols. 100 ro., 112 ro., 114 ro., 115 ro., 117 vo., 121 ro., 121 vo.) 2. al-Mu'arrih ( i n vo., 115 ro., 124 vo., 129 vo., 191 vo., 220 vo., 224 ro., 244 ro., 244 vo., 255 vo.) 3. al-Birzali (123 vo., 137 ro., 150 ro., 172 vo., 192 vo., 224 vo., 237 ro., 248 vo., 259 vo.)

4. al-Gazari (149 vo., 160 ro., 237 ro.) 5. al-Qadl Gamal ad-Din (125 vo.) 6. an-Nuwairi (151 ro., 172 vo.)

1

Dar a l - K u t u b MS, 559 ma'drif 'amma (Photographic copy of Aya Sofia MS, 3415-3439). For a discussion of those parts of Masdlik al-Absdr which h a v e been published a n d translated see GAUDEF R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , L'Afrique moins VEgypte, Vol. I: Masdlik al absdr fi mamdlik el amsar par Ibn Fadl Allah al-'Omari ("Bibliotheque des geographies a r a b e s , " Vol. I I ; Paris 1927), p p . i-vi. This is t o be supplemented by K L A U S L E C H ' S edition and translation of the sections on t h e Mongols, Das mongolische Weltreich, al-'Uman's Darstellung der mongolische Reiche in seinem Werk Masdlik al-absdr fi mamdlik al-amsdr ("Asiatische Forschungen", vol. X X I I ; Wiesbaden 1968). ' 2

3 For biographical details see S A L I B I , K. S., " F a d l Allah," EI2, I I , 732-33, a n d I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I, 3 3 J - 3 3 " * Cf. G U E S T , A. R., "Description of an Arabic Manuscript Bought in E g y p t 1898-1900 A D " TRAS X X X I I I , (January, 1901), 91-92. * G U E S T , JRAS, XXXIII, ( J a n u a r y 1901) QS " 6 ; Chester B e a t t y Library Arabic MS, 4113. ' y>

CONTEMPORARY EGYPTIAN HISTORIANS

41

In addition it has been observed by A. R. GUEST, who found and purchased the manuscript, that its author also refers to Ibn 'Abd az-Zahir, Abu 1-Fida, and Ibn as-Sa'I1. Several of these historians are, of course, well known. One, an-Nuwairi, has already been studied in detail. The works of three - al-Birzali, al-Gazari, and Abu 1-Fida - will be analyzed in the section on contemporary Syrian historians. The others, except for Ibn as-Sa'I, a Bagdad historian who died in 674/1275-762, I am unable to identify, even though in one quotation, al-Mu'ayyad is referred to as "as-Sultan al-Malik al-Mu'ayyad Tmad ad-Din Sahib Hama," i. e., Abu 1-Fida3. But collation of this passage and, in fact, of all those attributed to al-Mu'ayyad with Abu 1-Fida's text shows that none - not one - of the passages derives from the extant version of al-Muhtasar fi tdrih al-basar, not even as a paraphrase, so that unless al-Muqri used a version markedly different from that we know, he erred at least seven times when attributing information to Abu 1-Fida. The identity of "al-mu'arrih" is likewise difficult to determine, partly because most of the references to him occur in annals which are not extant in other chronicles. Unfortunately the annal for 705/1305-06 sheds little light on these questions. Table 20 7 0 5/i305-o6 Natr, Pt. IV 1. Rulers (Fol. 75 ro.) 2. Raid against Sis (75 ro.) 3. Messenger to the Magrib (75 ro.~75 vo.) 4. Messenger from Yemen (75 vo.) 5. Messenger from Georgia (75 vo.) 6. Arrival of Salar's relatives (75 vo.) 7. Raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (75 vo.76 ro.)

8. Appointment (76 ro.) 9. Ibn Taimiya versus the Ahmadiya (76 ro.~76 vo.) 10. Incarceration of Ibn Taimiya (76 vo.) 11. Retirement of an amir (76 vo.) 12. Obituaries (yy ro.-78 ro.)

No sources are cited for this annal; nevertheless, collation indicates that al-Muqri probably borrowed most of the information from Nihdyat al-arab, for as comparison of the tables shows, an-Nuwairi is the only other author to cover all the events recorded in Natr al-gumdn. But what is more important, comparison of phrasing leaves no doubt that borrowing did occur. For example, both Baibars al-Mansuri and an-Nuwairi report on the receipt of the annual tribute from Yemen, but careful collation shows that al-Muqri must have used the latter's version: al-Muqri: "Fa-sadarat ilaihi 1-amtilatu s-sultaniyatu bil-inkari wat-tahdidi." 4 an-Nuwairi: "Fa-sadarat ilaihi 1-amtilatu s-sultaniyatu bil-inkari wat-tahdidi wal-iglazi lahu fi 1-qauli."5 Baibars al-Mansuri: "Fa-sadarat ilaihi 1-kutubu s-sarifatu mushanatun bil-inkari wat-tahdidi wal-iglazi wal-wa'Idi." 6 And yet, in the following item, which concerns the arrival of messengers from Georgia and Constantinople, al-Muqri presents information found neither in an-Nuwairi nor Baibars al-Mansuri - nor in any other source - even though the phrasing is similar in all three sources. Unless, then, all three borrowed from a fourth, as yet unidentified, source, we can assume 1 2 3 6

JRAS, X X X I I I (January, 1901), 93~94See C A H E N , C , La Syrie du Nord p. 72. 4 Natr, Section IV, fol. 117 vo. Ibid., fol. 75 vo. Zubda, I X , fol. 244 vo.

5

Nihdya,

X X X , 27.

42

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

that al-Muqri was not incapable of adding data from his own knowledge and experience, even for those years in which he was too young to be a reputable eyewitness. Nevertheless, though his work does provide some data not existing elsewhere as well as corroborative material for other sources, he is by no means a major historian of the period.

B. C o n t e m p o r a r y S y r i a n H i s t o r i a n s i. Abu l-Fidd Throughout his life, though far removed for the most part from the Mamluk capital in Cairo, the Syrian historian Abu 1-Fida was able to keep abreast of the main current of political events not only in Syria but in Egypt and some of the provinces as well. Familiarity with affairs of war and state was, after all, part of his heritage as one of the royal house of Ayyub and heir to the principality of Hama, even though for a brief period the family in general and Abu 1-Fida in particular were denied their ancestral privilege to rule, being replaced by Mamluk governors1. Nevertheless, even before al-Malik an-Nasir restored the family to high rank by appointing Abu 1-Fida as governor (710/1310-11), then king (712/1312-13) and finally sultan (720/ 1320-21) of Hama, Abu 1-Fida had been involved in the fortunes of the Mamluk state as early as 684/1285-86 when, as a boy of twelve, he took part with his father and his cousin, then prince of Hama, in campaigns against the remaining Crusader strongholds 2 . By the time that al-Malik an-Nasir ascended the throne in 693/1293-94 and thereafter, Abu 1-Fida was marching out regularly with the Syrian armies in forays against the Armenians and the Mongols3. In addition to participating in military affairs, Abu 1-Fida was taking an active interest in intellectual pursuits such as those described in the obituary notice he wrote for the historian Ibn Wasil who died in 697/1297-98: "I visited him many times in Hama, submitting to him problems I had solved from Euclid's book, profiting from him [i. e. his knowledge]. Likewise I studied under him his commentary on Ibn Hagib's verse treatise on prosody . . . and I checked the names of those whose biography appears in Kitdb al-Agdni"*. By scholarly training, high rank, and personal experience Abu 1-Fida was eminently qualified at an early age to record the events of his time, but as a resident of Hama he was somewhat isolated from the main course of events in Damascus and Cairo. This handicap he was able to overcome, especially after being appointed to the governorship of Hama, by frequenting the company of al-Malik an-Nasir in Egypt. Beginning in 712/1312-13 Abu al-Fida started making trips to Egypt at two or three year intervals, where he lavished gifts on the sultan 5 . Such visits must have earned him not just al-Malik an-Nasir's favour but his friendship as well, for on at least two occasions Abu 1-Fida accompanied him on hunting trips and once on the pilgrimage to Mecca. So opportunities for acquaintanceship at first hand with the highest affairs of state were by no means lacking, and the author's own name, therefore, figures prominently during those years of his universal history al-Muhtasar fi tdrih al-basar - in which he himself lived. He does not, however, intrude himself on history, as did Ibn ad-Dawadari, but states the facts, more in the manner of Baibars al-Mansuri, who like Abu 1-Fida, also played a noteworthy role in Mamluk history.

1 3 5

2 H . A. R. t " A b u al-Fida," EI2, I, 118. Ibid. Abu 1-Fida, al-Muhtasar fi tdrih al-baiar, Cairo 1907, F t . IV, p p . 41, 48. Ibid., p p . 79, 82, 85, 90, 9 1 , 93, 96-97-

GIBB,

* Ibid, p QQ

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

43

Table 21 694/1294-95 Mujttasar, Pt. IV 1. Accession of Kitbuga (P. 31) 2. Ilhanid strife (31-32) 3. Accession of Gazan (32) 4. Death of ruler of Yemen (32-33)

5. Arrest of an amir (33) 6. Low Nile (33) 7. Kitbuga frees Bedouin prisoners (33)

It is tempting at first to attribute the glaring omission of the Mamluk uprising which occurred at the beginning of the year as well as the short, almost negligible, notice given to the low Nile and the resultant famine to the author's provincial outlook. The same might be said for the emphasis given to Ilhanid affairs, since the Mongols did loom larger to Syrians than to Egyptians. Then, too, the administrative change was a Syrian one, and the tribal leaders released from prison were Syrian. Without trying to deny the predictable fact that al-Muhtasar is oriented toward Syrian affairs it should be noted that another factor may have helped determine the author's principle of selection. More than strictly Syrian affairs, Abu 1-Fida deals with royal affairs: every item given more than cursory notice for this year concerns in some way or another succession to a throne, a matter in which he had, of course, a personal interest. Even so, this preoccupation with royal succession does not explain why Abu 1-Fida passes over the uprising of Royal Mamluks, which was instrumental in the accession of Kitbuga. We are left, therefore, with the implication that Abu 1-Fida, like Ibn ad-Dawadari, may have failed to realize the significance of the revolt. The relationship of Abu 1-Fida to contemporary Egyptian historians is difficult to define since there are no long, obviously plagiarized passages such as those which so far have enabled us to discover the one historian's indebtedness to another. Nevertheless, it would be surprising if the text of al-Muhtasar did not parallel other contemporary versions of events which occurred in Egypt, as well as in remote places where both Syrians and Egyptians would have to rely on secondhand reports. Parallels do exist, most notably between the accounts in al-Muhtasar and Zubdat al-fikra of the struggle to win the Ilhanid throne. Here practically the same information is presented in the same order, with some scattered similarities in wording. Since Baibars alMansuri gives a few details not found in Abu 1-Fida1, we are left the alternatives either that Abu 1-Fida copied from Baibars al-Mansuri or that both used the same source. If the former be true, then a copy of this portion of Zubdat al-fikra would have to have been available in Syria in 718/1318-19, the year in which Abu 1-Fida wrote the annal for 694/1294-52. The other items, with one exception, are either so short or generalized that it is impossible to reach any certain conclusion about their derivation. Abu 1-Fida's account of the accession of Kitbuga could have been based on Baibars al-Mansuri's; his obituary for the ruler of Yemen and the ensuing struggle for succession was probably taken from the source used by an-Nuwairi rather than from anNuwairi himself since Abu 1-Fida's annal was written at least three years earlier than his3. At any rate, the entire annal contains only one item with unique information, this being the one sentence announcing the release of the Syrian Bedouins from prison.

1 2

I. e., the names of certain conspirators and a specific place name, Zubda, IX, fol. 190 ro. 3 Muhtasar, Pt. IV, p. 33. An-Nuwairi, Nihdya, XXIX, 83.

44

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Table 22 699/1299-1300

Muhtasar, Pt. IV 1. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (Pp. 42-3) 2. Occupation of Damascus (43) 3. Mamluks march on Syria (43-4) a. New appointments (44)

4. Golden Horde strife (44) 5. Usurper in Hama (44-5) 6. Armenian resurgence (45)

We can see once again the dual principle of selection operative in the annal for this year, for again Abu 1-Fida has chosen events which reflect his interest in things either royal or Syrian; thus he has omitted all mention of the Oirat insurrection and has added news from the Golden Horde Mongols as well as reports on events in and around Hama. He is the first major historian studied so far to delete all five decrees issued by Gazan during his sojourn outside the walls of Damascus, but like at-Tuhfa al-mulukiya, al-Muhtasar, as the title implies, is intended to be a short history and would as a matter of course not include documents. Whether or not Abu 1-Fida was actually present at the battle of Wadi al-Hazindar is uncertain, but it is not likely, since he usually makes it clear when he did participate in a battle or engagement. Nevertheless, he did have the opportunity to obtain first-hand information on the state of the Mamluk forces when he was sent on a mission to al-Malik an-Nasir, who was encamped with his army at Asqalon1. Here he undoubtedly formed his own original opinion as to the cause of the defeat of the Mamluks: "Salar and al-Gasnakir were the masters of the kingdom; the amirs, therefore, were seized with avarice (tama') and did not supply the full number of their troops. The army was greatly deficient and poorly organized, and it was this along with similar unsound circumstances that caused its defeat"2. Also new are, one, the date that Abu 1-Fida assigns to the battle - 27 RabI' I (22. December, 1299) - and, two, the terse account of the battle itself: "The Muslim right fled, then the left, but the center stood firm and was surrounded by the Mongols. A great battle took place. The sultan lagged behind in the direction of Hims until night overtook him. The Muslim armies fled, rushing to the road, pursued by defeat as far as Egypt" 3 . The pages which other authors filled to describe the Mongol occupation of Damascus Abu 1-Fida reduces to a few lines in which he stresses the resistance of the Mamluks holding the citadel and the consequent destruction of property around it. The same abbreviated treatment he gives to the remobilization of the Mamluk armies in Egypt, stating merely that much money was spent to re-equip them. Then, when the Egyptians heard of Gazan's departure from Damascus, they once again marched toward Syria under the leadership of Baibars al-Gasnakir and Salar. At this point Abu 1-Fida presents a new detail, not to be found in the other histories, i. e., his claim that the Mamluk defectors who had been ruling Damascus under Gazan had been corresponding secretly with the Egyptians and waited only until they heard that the Mamluks had marched from Egypt before abandoning Damascus 4 . Other historians mention that they did, in fact, desert to the Mamluks but mention no secret correspondence5. Otherwise Abu 1-Fida's account of the Mongols' withdrawal from Syria is so short as almost to be misleading. The fisting of new governors in Syria is dominated, not unnaturally, by the appointment of a new viceroy of Hama since it was this position which the author himself regarded as his legacy. Abu 1-Fida is the only author so far besides Baibars al-Mansuri to mention the strife among members of the Golden Horde royal family. Whereas Baibars al-Mansuri gives a detailed de1

2 4 Muhtasar, Pt. IV, p. 42. Ibid., p. 43. » Ibid. Ibid. 5 Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 218 vo., and Tuhfa, fol. 75 vo.; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 38; Author Z., Beitrdge, p. 80; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 118; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p. 505.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

45

scription of the skirmishes and manoeuvres, Abu 1-Fida gives a one-sentence, capsule summary. On the other hand, he is the first to relate that during the Mongol occupation of Damascus a resident of Hama seized control of that city and the citadel and appropriated the wives and money of the citizens. To this episode Abu 1-Fida devotes considerable space, again reflecting his keen interest in the fate of the city which he was destined to rule. He is also the first to narrate that the Armenians took advantage of the Mamluks' discomfiture to regain territory formerly lost to them, and this development affords him the opportunity to digress on the complicated machinations of rival members of the Armenian royal family to secure the throne. Table 23 705/i305-o6 Muhtasar, Pt. IV 1. Raid on Sis (Pp. 51-2) 2. Retirement of an amir (52) 3. Release of an amir from prison (52)

4. Murder of Qutlusah (52) 5. Attack on Gibal az-Zaninin (52) 6. Incarceration of Ibn Taimiya (52)

Since 705/1305-06 was strikingly short on affairs involving various royal families, Abu 1-Fida applies himself mainly to Syrian affairs, not very momentous either, if one excepts the trials of Ibn Taimiya, so that the annal for this year is brief. Four of the items treated receive no more than a sentence or two, without adding any new information; all four of them appear in one or more of the other historians. It is perhaps a telling indication of Abu 1-Fida's lack of interest in ecclesiastical matters that he gives the entire Ibn Taimiya episode no more space than that assigned to the retirement of a minor amir and the release from prison of another. He is left to narrate the two military campaigns of the year, both of which involved Syrian troops. His report on the abortive attack on Sis ends like those of Ibn ad-Dawadari and an-Nuwairi with the defeat of the Aleppan forces led by Qustumur, and the only new information presented is a comment on his weakness of character to explain the defeat of the Mamluk troops. Thus Abu 1-Fida too misses the wider context of the raid, which was caused by the failure of the Armenians to pay their tribute and resulted in further troop movements and negotiations before the issue was settled. Nor is it clear that Abu 1-Fida understood the full significance of the raid against the inhabitants of the mountains between Damascus and Tripoli - hitherto referred to as Gabal al-Kasrawan (with variant spellings) - called Gibal az-Zaninin by this author. Baibars al-Mansuri declares that the purpose of the raid was retaliation for harassment and atrocities committed by the inhabitants of those mountains against the defeated Mamluk army fleeing from the Mongols at the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar in 699/1299-13001; an-Nuwairi gives retaliation as one of the reasons, stressing that since 699/1299-1300 the mountaineers' tyranny and disobedience had increased2. But Abu 1-Fida imputes religious significance to the raid by stating that the mountains were a nest of insurgents and religious defectors, that the raid resulted in the killing or capture of all Nusairis, Zanlns and other heretics who had been seizing good Muslims and selling them to unbelievers3. A desire to wipe out a stronghold of heretics certainly may have been one of the motives behind this campaign, but it is clear from other authors that it was not the only one. Such original, independent interpretations of events and the presentation of some original data constitute the main value of al-Muhtasar as a history of the period under discussion. And it was, no doubt, the traditionally high status of his family in a provincial town that enabled 1 8

Zubda, I X , fol. 247 v o . ; Tuhfa, fol. 86 ro. Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 52.

2

Nihdya,

X X X , 28.

46

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Abu 1-Fida to form these original interpretations and to gather information which escaped either the notice or the interest of the Egyptian historians. Originality is also a characteristic of Abu 1-Fida's style. Although he must have used written sources, he did not, unlike most ol the other historians we have studied, insert plagiarized passages into his own text but reorganized and rewrote his sources to suit his own purposes. His history provides therefore not just a valuable supplement to the longer, more detailed chronicles of the period but a refreshing change as well. 2. Al-Birzali Of the Syrian historians who lived and wrote during the era of al-Malik an-Nasir, Abu 1-Fida is the only one associated with the political institution; the rest - al-Birzali, al-Gazari, al-Yuninl, ad-Dahabi, al-Kutubi - were religious scholars, whose professional interests emerged in their writings. In fact, though each wrote at length on purely political events, each evinced his concern with religious affairs not only by increasing the amount of space devoted to them but also by adopting a different literary genre from that used by the other historians whom we have studied: annals combined with biographies. Up to now we have studied, certainly, chronicles in which biography, in the form of obituary notices, play a part. The space assigned to these notices, however, is insignificant in relation to that given to events and almost always covers figures of some prominence1, whereas now begins the practice of devoting fully as much attention to obituary-biographies of minor religious functionaries as to the main course of happenings. And in the case of al-Birzali, as we shall see, these biographies are considered to be so important that they are woven into the main body of the chronicle rather than being relegated, as is the usual practice, to the end of the annal for each year. More important, nevertheless, is the fact that the writings of these very historians, parochial though they may be, were used freely and extensively by colleagues who were less confined by training, interest, and domicile. Of these historians, four of whom were almost the same age, it is most convenient to begin with 'Alam ad-Din al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Birzali (d. 739/1338-39), especially since he has been cited in several Egyptian histories as a source for events in Syria2. A teacher of hadit for most of his life in Damascus colleges, he was acquainted either in the capacity of student, teacher, or associate, with scholars throughout the Fertile Crescent, Arabia, and Egypt and kept up a correspondence with many of them, often using their letters as sources for his history. Though he knew such an illustrious personage as Ibn Taimiya and taught ad-Dahabi, al-Birzali himself was in contrast a minor figure in the scholarly religious institution. As none of his works have been published, even today his name does not figure prominently as a primary source for Mamluk history. Nevertheless, as ROSENTHAL points out, in his own day he enjoyed "the confidence of all scholarly factions, even those that were mutually hostile" 3 ; furthermore, as eventually will be demonstrated, his work underlies much of what contemporary and later Egyptian historians wrote about Syria during the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir. The only work of al-Birzall's which concerns us here is his history in the only form in which it is known to be preserved: a manuscript in two volumes entitled al-Muqtafd li-tdrih as-Saih Sihdb ad-Din Abi Sdma, a continuation, in other words, of Abu Samdi'sKitdb ar-Raudatain, be1

Al-Muqri, in Natr al-gumdn, who in t h e Syrian tradition devotes m u c h space t o obituaries of religious scholars, is the exception. 2 See Author Z., Beitrdge, p p . 35, 38, 76; I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 32, Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p . 496. 3 This quotation and most of the facts in this p a r a g r a p h concerning al-Birzali's life h a v e been t a k e n from 2 R O S E N T H A L , F., "al-Birzali," EI , I, 1238-39.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

47

ginning with 665/1266-67, the year in which Abu Sama died and al-Birzali was born, and ending with 738/1337-38. So far, only one copy of the manuscript has appeared1, covering 665-720/ 1266-1320-21, and its condition is such that many pages are illegible in photographic reproduction, so that until it can be edited and published, students will have to go to Istanbul to use it. Of all the works studied or to be studied, it is the most strictly chronological in format, being divided not just into years but into months as well; furthermore, obituaries of obscure scholars and functionaries are interwoven day by day, without discrimination, with momentous affairs of state. It is possible that this version may have been a rough draft of a more polished, better organized work which has not survived, but this is just a guess based on the possibility of the parallel case of al-Cazari2. At any rate, no attempt will be made to indicate the frequency of obituaries except in the tabulation of the first year in question. Table 24 694/1294-95 Muqtafd, I 1. Obituaries (Fols. 218 VO.-19 ro.) 2. Accession of Kitbuga (219 ro.) 3. Lack of rain (219 ro.) 4. Appointments (219 ro.) 5. Obituaries (219 ro.-22 ro.) 6. Appointments (220 ro.) 7. Obituaries (220 ro.) 8. Appointments (220 ro .) 9. Kitbuga's procession through Cairo (220 vo.) 10. Obituaries (220 VO.-21 ro.) 11. An arrival from Cairo (221 ro.) 12. Obituaries (221 vo.) 13. Ceremonies for rain in Damascus (222 ro.) 14. Obituaries (222 ro.) 15. Appointments (222 ro.-22 vo.) 16. Visit of ruler of Hama (222 vo.) 17. Obituaries (222 vo.) 18. Appointments (223 ro.) 19. al-Birzali's trip (223 ro.) 20. Obituaries (223 ro.-23 vo.) 21. Recitation of the dars (223 vo.) 22. Appointment (223 vo.) 1

23. Obituaries (223 vo.) 24. A marriage (223 vo.) 25. Obituaries (223 VO.-25 vo.) 26. Appointment (225 vo.) 27. Schedule of prayers in Damascus mosque (225 vo.)

28. Appointments (225 vo.) 29. Obituaries (225 VO.-26 ro.) 30. Construction of bath completed (226 ro.) 31. Appointments (226 vo.) 32. Obituaries (226 vo.) 33. Recitation of the dars (226 vo.) 34. Obituaries (227 ro.) 35. Dars (227 vo.) 36- A visitor (227 vo.) 37. Obituaries (227 VO.-29 ro.) 38. Sumptuary laws against Christians in Damascus (229 vo.) 39- Obituaries (229 vo.) 40. High prices in Egypt (229 vo.) 41. Conversion of Gazan to Islam (229 vo.30 ro.)

Topkapisaray, Ahmed I I I MS, 2951. T h e manuscript Kopriilii number 1047 attributed to al-Birzali by B R O C K E L M A N N , "al-Birzali," EI, I, 727, actually refers to a fragment of al-Gazari's history. Cf. ALM U N A G G I D , S., "al-Mu'arrihun ad-Dimasqiyun w a - a t a r u h u m a l - m a h t u t a min al-qarn at-talit al-higri ila nihayat al-qarn al-'asir," Magallat Ma'had al-Mahtutdt al-Arabiya, I I , No. 1 (May, 1956), 104. See this article also for a reference to another copy of al-Muqtafd, preserved according to M U N A G G I D a t Wizarat alMa'arif Library in Cairo. Ibid., p . 102. So far I have not been able to see this work (itttdrih), b u t an E g y p t i a n correspondent tells me t h a t it begins with 706/1306-07 and ends with 7 5 i / i 3 5 ° - 5 I > which does not help in attributing it t o al-Birzali. 2 See SAUVAGET, Chronique, p . iii. C A H E N , Islamic Studies, I, No. 3 (Sept. 1962), 18, refers to al-Muqtafd as " a d i a r y " .

48

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Here is ample indication of al-Birzali's orientation toward things Syrian and religious, especially when it is realized that the obituaries, which take more space than do events, refer for the most part to minor Syrian religious functionaries - qddis, scholars in hadit and fiqh, official witnesses, imams, hatibs, etc. - and the appointments often refer to mosque or legal officials. This same dual point of view explains the inclusion of such items as the recitation of the dars in the Damascus mosque, the prayers for rain, the rescheduling of the order of prayers, the invoking of sumptuary laws. And whether mention of visitors to Damascus should be attributed to zealous attention to detail or to civic pride, the fact remains that al-Birzali must have had an eye for detail, significant or not. It should not be surprising, therefore, that although al-Birzall's primary interest is obviously not political, he does manage to include most of the significant political events of the year. Except one of the most significant - the uprising of the Royal Mamluks, which, it will be recalled, was also omitted by Abu 1-Fida and Author Z. The first political occurrence to attract his attention, the accession of Kitbuga, al-Birzali records as a fact, discussing neither the causes nor consequences of it, focusing instead on the almost routine results produced in Damascus, i. e., the swearing of an oath to the new sultan, the new coinage, and the hutba in his name, without inveighing against either the man or his acts. The same objectivity marks al-Birzali's obituary for the ruler of Yemen 1 ; he limits himself mainly to the facts of succession and yet cannot resist adding one bit of personal data which comes to his attention since it concerned one of his own favorite subjects - hadit. Two reports on events abroad, though just as brief and even perfunctory as those just reviewed, are, nevertheless, significant since they provide the first corroboration of the hypothesis that al-Birzali's history served as a principal source for Syrian affairs during this period. The first report, consisting of only two or three lines concerning the rise in prices which began toward the end of the year in Egypt, is based on a letter which al-Birzali had read: "Wa-hasala fi awahiri hadihi s-sanati wa-fi s-sanati 1-atiyati bi-Misra gala'un wa-mautun 'azlmun bi-haitu wasala fi ba'di 1-kutubi anna fi sahri DI 1-higgati uhsiya man mata bil-Qahirati hassatan mimman utbita smuhu fi diwani 1-mawariti siwa man lam yasil ilaihim 'ilmuhu mina 1-guraba'i wal-fuqara'i fa-balagu tis'ata 'asara alfan wa-hamsa mi'atin" 2 . These lines, which constitute the whole of al-Birzali's report for this year on the incidence of high prices, appear with only a few changes in Author Z.'s chronicle as a part of his fuller account of the calamity: "Wa-katura 1-mautu wal-fana'u hatta ahsau man mata wa-nazala smuhu bi-diwani l-mawarlti fi sahri DI 1-higgati hassatan fa-balagu sab'ata 'asara alfan wa-hamsa mi'atin hada siwa man lam yasilu 'alaihi wa-lam yutbati smuhu fi d-diwani mina 1-guraba'i wal-fuqara'i wa-dalika bil-Qahirati hassatan duna Misra"3. Since al-Birzali cites his source specifically as a letter and since Author Z. cites al-Birzali elsewhere by name4, we can be fairly sure, discounting the discrepancy in the two figures as a common copyist's error, that Author Z. borrowed the passage from al-Muqtafd or from still another source indebted to it. This constitutes further evidence that Author Z., resident in Egypt, used a Syrian source for events which took place in Egypt. The second report, on the conversion of Gazan to Islam, gives additional proof that Author Z. relied on al-Birzali. For this episode Author Z. not only uses phrases similar to al-Birzali's but cites as his source "Saih 'Alam adDin," whom Zettersteen identifies as al-Birzali. But if Author Z. did use al-Birzali's history as a source for this episode, he must have used a much longer version than that which now exists, for al-Muqtafd devotes only a few terse sentences to the incident. Be that as it may, it can be stated at this point, even on the basis of such slim evidence, that al-Birzali was a source, either

i Muqtafd, I, fol. 223 vo. 4 Ibid., p p . 25, 38, 76.

* I b i d ^fol

2 2 Q VQ>

3 A u t h o r z

Beitrdge>

36

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

49

direct or indirect, for Author Z. and therefore also for Ibn ad-Dawadari, an-Nuwairi, and Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il. Table 25 699/1299-1300 Muqtafd, II 1. Recitation of the dars (Fol. 2 ro.) 2. Sultan's march to Syria (2 ro.) 3. Appointment (2 vo.) 4. Attack on an amir's family (2 vo.) 5. Return of pilgrims (3 ro.) 6. Dars (4 ro.) 7. Arrival of a saih at Safad (4 ro.) 8. Sultan's arrival at Damascus (5 ro.) 9. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (5 ro.) 10. List of casualties (5 vo.) n . Appointment (5 vo.) 12. Mongol occupation of Damascus (6 vo.7 ro.; 8 vo.)

13. Mamluks re-enter Egypt (8 vo.) 14. Mongol occupation(io v o . - n vo.) 15. Appointment ( n vo.) 16. Mongol occupation and evacuation (12 ro.-i2 vo.; 15 vo.-i6 ro.; 16 vo.; 17 ro.i 7 vo.; 18 ro.; 20 ro.) 17. Advance of Mamluk army to Syria (22 V0.-23 ro.) 18. Punishment of collaborators (27 ro.) 19. Retaliatory raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan (29 ro.-29 vo.)

Even with the deletion of scores of obituaries from the tabulation, it can easily be seen once again that al-Birzali has followed a rigid chronological sequence, jumbling events of the greatest import with the most trifling. What is more, some occurrences are either omitted or treated summarily. Al-Birzali, like his fellow Syrian historian Abu 1-Fida, neglects to mention the Oirat insurrection and fails to present any one of Gazan's decrees reproduced by Egyptian historians. Information on strife among the Mongols of the Golden Horde is also lacking as are data on the events in Hama and Armenia recorded by Abu 1-Fida. His account of the great battle at Wadi al-Hazindar lacks even the scant information provided by other historians, concentrating instead on the effect of news of the Mamluks' defeat on Damascus. Al-Birzali's list of casualties focuses as might be expected on Syrian amirs, especially those noted for piety, as well as religious personages unlucky enough to be involved in the battle; thus the list supplements those fists drawn up by other historians. It is, of course, as an- eyewitness of the Mongol occupation of Damascus that we should expect al-Birzali to excel, especially since we have already seen his name mentioned in this capacity in other sources. As will be recalled, however, this citation always occurs for the same episode - a meeting of Ibn Taimiya with the Mongol viceroy - in the histories of Ibn ad-Dawadari' 1 Author Z.,2 and Mufaddal,3 and therefore aroused the suspicion that these three authors had used al-Birzali indirectly, by lifting the passage from another source. Unless al-Birzali wrote another history which no longer exists, that suspicion can be verified, for al-Muqtafd does not, in fact, contain the report in question. In the analysis which follows, even when word-for-word correspondence with other histories occurs, caution should be exercised in identifying al-Muqtafd as the direct source used by the Egyptian historians. For purposes of comparison it will be helpful to tabulate in more detail accounts of the Mongol occupation from al-Birzali and Author Z., keeping in mind that the latter's is very similar to Ibn ad-Dawadari's.

1

Kanz, I X , 32.

2

Beitrdge, p . 76.

8

Sultans, p . 496.

50

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Table 26 al-Birzali, Muqtafa, II Author Z., Beitrdge 1. Notables flee (Fol. 6 vo.) 1. Tumult in Damascus (P. 59) 2. Prison burned (6 vo.) 2. Notables flee (59) 3. Delegation to Gazan (6 vo.) 3. Prison burned (59) 4. Decree of Argawas (7 ro.) 4. Delegation to Gazan (60) 5. Prices (7 ro.) 5. Decree of Argawas, commander of the 6. Arrival of Mongols (7 ro.) citadel (60) 7. Reading of amnesty firman (7 ro.) 6. Prices (61) 8. Negotiations with Argawas (7 vo.) 8. Arrival of Mongols (61) 9. Appointment of Qibgaq (7 vo.) 9. Return of delegation (61-62) 10. Attack on as-Salihiya (7 vo.) 10. Copy of amnesty firman (62-64) 11. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (8 ro.) 11. Looting outside Damascus (64) 12. Levies (8 ro.) 12. Negotiations with Argawas (64-65) 13. Destruction (8 r o . - n vo.) 13. Copy of decree appointing Qibgaq (66-68) 14. Mongols evacuate (11 VO.-12 ro.) 14. Levies (68) 15. Continued destruction (11 VO.-12 ro.) 15. Attack on as-Salihlya (68-69) 16. Total looted (12 ro.) 16. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (69-70) 17. Proclamations (12 ro.-i2 vo.) 17. Mongol destruction (70-71) 18. Books sold cheaply (12 vo.) 18. Levies (71) 19. Qibgaq assumes sultanate (16 ro.-i6 vo.) 19. Poetry (72-73) 20. Wine profits (17 ro.-i7 vo.) 20. Siege of citadel (73) 21. Ibn Taimiya meets Bulay (19 ro.) 21. Continued destruction (73-74) 22. Departure of collaborators (20 vo.) 22. Mongols evacuate (75) 23. Wine shops closed (21 ro.) 23. Continued destruction (75-76) 24. Ibn Taimiya meets Qutlusah (76-77) 25. Total looted (yy) 26. Proclamation (77) 27. Qibgaq assumes sultanate (77-78) 28. Wine profits (78) 29. Citadel negotiations (78) 30. Ibn Taimiya meets Bulay (78-79) 31. Departure of Mongol collaborators (79) 32. Wine shops closed (79) Spot comparison indicates that in spite of the greater number of items covered by Author Z., most notably the texts of various decrees, both authors follow almost the same sequence and discuss roughly the same events; nevertheless, the presence of more items in Author Z.'s history would indicate that another source was involved. This supposition is born out by closer examination of the two versions. In almost every instance in which both authors report on the same incident, correspondences in phrasing do occur, indicating that Author Z. must have utilized al-Birzali directly or indirectly; and the fact that, with only a few exceptions, in almost every case Author Z. records additional, more detailed information indicates that he was acquainted with al-Birzali indirectly, at second hand. One example will suffice to support this claim: Al-Birzali: "Wa-dakara 11 s-saihu Wagihu d-Dini bnu 1-Munagga annahu humila ila hizanati Gazana talatatu alafi alfi wa-sittu mi'ati alfi dirhamin siwa ma lahiqa mina t-taraslmi wal-

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

51

baratili wal-istihragi li-gairihl mina 1-umara'i wal-wuzara'i wa-anna saiha 1-masa'ihi lladl nazala bil-'Adiliyati hasala lahu ma qimatuhu sittu mi'ati alfi dirhamin wa-lil-Asili bni n-Nusairi t-Tusi mi'atu alfi dirhamin wa li-Safiyi s-Singari tamanuna alfa dirhamin" 1 . Author Z.: "Wa-dakara Wagihu d-DIni bnu Munagga wa-bnu Qutainata annahu halaka likulli wahidin minhuma mi'atun wa-hamsina [sic] alfa dirhamin wa dakara Wagihu bnu Munagga anna lladl humila ila hizanati Gazana talatatu alafi alfi dinarin wa-sittu mi'ati alfi dinarin siwa ma lahiqa mina t-tarasimi wal-baratili wal-istihragi li-gairihi mina 1-umara'i wal-wuzara'i wa-gairi dalika bi-haitu anna s-Safiya s-Singariya stahraga H-nafsihi ma yahussu aktara min tamanina alfa dirhamin wa-hasala li-saihi s-suyuhi ma qimatuhu sittu mi'ati alfi dirhamin walil-Asili ma qimatuhu mi'atu alfi dirhamin wa-lil-Amiri Isma'Ila mi'atai [sic] alfi dirhamin wahl-waziri arba'a mi'ati alfi dirhamin wa-kadalika baqi 1-umara'i wa-hada 1-mablagu lladl dakarnahu harigan 'amma bartaluhu mina 1-musadarina 1-matlubin"2. Although the two versions speak for themselves it should be noted that al-Birzali asserts that one of the witnesses spoke to him personally, whereas Author Z. merely quotes the two informants without claiming a personal communication. This, it seems to me, makes it very likely that Author Z. lifted the passage from another Syrian source which had, in turn, utilized alMuqtafd or, possibly, which al-Birzali himself used as a source. At any rate, except for two or three instances in which al-Birzali does give information not to be found in Author Z.'s manuscript, Author Z. gives to all episodes the fuller treatment illustrated by the passages quoted. Each author's accounts of the arrival of the Mamluk armies in Damascus are, however, practically the same, except that Author Z. fails to identify the three different sections of the Egyptian army by battle position, an interesting detail which al-Birzali does record3. There is no mention in Author Z. of the punishment meted out to collaborators, and his account of the retaliatory attack against Gabal al-Kasrawan was probably taken from a source other than al-Birzali, who, like Abu 1-Fida, cites the mountaineers' "foul beliefs" as a reason for the attack 4 . This raises the problem of al-Birzali's relationship to historians other than Author Z., whom we have been using simply as a convenient basis for comparison, since his account for the year is extremely full and closely resembles Ibn ad-Dawadari's. Most, then, of what has been said about Author Z. applies to Ibn ad-Dawadari, but not quite all, for there are a few instances in which Kanz ad-durar parallels al-Muqtafd more closely than does Author Z.'s history. Such, for example, is the case when Ibn ad-Dawadari speaks of the Mamluks' retreat to Egypt after the battle of Wadi al-Hazindar and records the increased price of helmets5. Precisely the same data are found in al-Muqtafd*, which provides still another instance of how Egyptian historians at times relied on Syrian colleagues for information on conditions in Egypt. An-Nuwairi's account of the Mongol occupation, or the first part of it at least, is very similar to both Ibn ad-Dawadari's and Author Z.'s so that some indebtedness to al-Muqtafd should obviously be expected. Unfortunately, however, no new evidence can be adduced here to establish the identity of an-Nuwairi's Syrian source, for although the account in Nihdyat al-arab resembles that of al-Muqtafd, an-Nuwairi introduces much information which is lacking in the latter source; it is probable that an-Nuwairi too used al-Birzali's history indirectly, through another work. Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, it was argued, must have used the source common to Author Z. and Ibn ad-Dawadari, sometimes referred to as i(al-mu'arrih," and identified as both an-Nuwairi and al-Gazari7. Al-Birzali does not qualify as the common source since al-

1 4

Muqtafd, P t . I I , fol. 12 ro. Ibid., fol. 29 ro.

7

Supra, p p . 35~3 6 -

2

5

Beitrdge, p . 77. Kanz, I X , 37.

3 6

Muqtafd,

Muqtafd, P t . I I , fols. 22 v c - 2 3 ro. I I , fol. 8 vo.

52

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

mu'arrih provides many details not found in al-Muqtafd. Finally, there is no question of Abii 1-Fida having relied on al-Birzali for the events of this year. Table 27 705/i305-o6 Muqtafd, II 1. Appointment (Fol. 93 vo.) 2. Raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan (93 vo.; 94ro.) 3. Mongol raid on Aleppan detachment (94 ro.) 4. Fitna in Baalbek (94 ro.) 5. Ibn Taimiya denounces the Ahmadlya (96 ro.-96 vo.) 6. Investment of new amirs with fiefs in Gabal al-Kasrawan (96 vo.) 7. Prayers for rain in Damascus (97 ro.) 8. Two councils for interrogation of Ibn Taimiya, 8 and 12 Ragab (24 and 28 January, 1306) (97 vo.)

9- Strife between Ibn Taimiya and other 'ulamd' (97 vo.) 10. Third council, 7 Sa'ban (22 February, 1306) (99 ro -) 11. Cairo council, 23 Ramadan (8 April, 1306) (99 ro.) 12. Harassment of Hanbalis and causes (99 v o -) 13. Sale of candlesticks in Medina (100 ro.) 14. Appointments (100 ro.; 101 ro.)

Al-Birzali's coverage of the events of this year establishes, among other, more important things, his limitations as a historian. Clearly his interest was not in systematically collecting and recording momentous events but in interspersing data collected at random among obituaries of religious figures of his time, most of whom were minor functionaries. It is true that, classified and analyzed, these data might yield interesting conclusions, but as they stand this very lack of organization and discrimination reveals an inability or disinclination to discern or assign importance to events. Thus he reduces the raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan to a sentence or two in which he, like Abu 1-Fida, stresses religious motivation - to stamp out heresy1. And of the long complicated sequence of events involved in the attack against Sis he mentions only one episode and that one briefly, unaware apparently as to why the raid was launched or of its consequences2. To argue that al-Birzali as a religious scholar naturally would not show deep interest in political and economic matters explains only in part his perfunctory reports on them, for haphazardly he may discourse at length on a purely secular event, such as, for example, the struggle for power at the court of the Ilhans in 719/1319-20. This struggle he describes in detail3, probably because an acquaintance of his happened to know and tell him the full story. Nevertheless, it is true that his main concern was religious and ecclesiastical affairs, as his long account of the Ibn Taimiya episode attests. At this point it will be helpful to turn back to page 30 supra, where an-Nuwairi's and Ibn ad-Dawadari's versions are compared and to keep in mind that both authors relied heavily on al-Gazari. A glance at the version in al-Muqtafd suffices to establish the fact that either al-Birzali or al-Gazari must have copied from the other. Tempting as it may be to conclude immediately that al-Gazari must have borrowed from and added to the account in alMuqtafd, textual evidence alone is not sufficient. On the whole, what we know from Nihdyat al-arab to be al-Gazari's account is often more fully developed than al-Birzali's4, and yet in 1

2 3 Muqtafd, II, fol. 93 vo. Ibid., fol. 94 ro. Ibid. 4 Al-Birzali, Muqtafd, II, fol. 90 vo., reports only that a decree was sent from Cairo to Damascus and briefly states its contents. Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 139-42, produces it in full, obviously from al-Gazari.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

53

some instances just the opposite is true, so that borrowing and adaptation could conceivably have occurred in either direction or, for that matter, could have been mutual. Since further textual analysis at this point would prove little more than just that, we shall turn to a consideration of al-Gazari himself. 3. Al-Gazari It would be strange indeed if al-Birzali, who kept himself so well informed on the lives of religious scholars, were not acquainted with the life and works of Sams ad-Din Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Magd ad-Din abi Ishaq Ibrahim ibn abi Bakr ibn Ibrahim ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Gazari (d. 739/i338-39)> inasmuch as the two were contemporaries, residents of Damascus, and shared a professional interest in religious scholarship, construed to comprise history. As a matter of fact, proof that he knew al-Gazari and his work is forthcoming in the biographical notice which al-Birzali appended to al-Gazari's history: "The author of this book as-Saih . . . al-Gazari, also known as ad-Dimasql died Sunday, the twelfth of Rabi' I, 739 [28 September, 1338] . . . outside Damascus. He was an exceptional person, very virtuous, diligent in the dikr, prayer, recitation of the Koran, and good deeds. He was one of the chief legal witnesses and bore witness before the judges for nearly sixty years. If he was the only one to testify to a fact, the judges permitted him to do so, content with his reports because of their confidence in him. His competence and integrity were such that he was asked to testify on the value of real estate, but he refused and desisted. He accepted no official employment or office, but studied hadit with . . . [various scholars in Damascus, Alexandria and Cairo] and transmitted on their authority. He had students who studied with him, and he wrote books on hadit. Fond of the art of history, he composed this book, which required of him a great deal of toil and which relates interesting things found in no other history. He performed the pilgrimage. Extremely pious" and charitable, he was possessed of great virtue and counsel as well as compassion for God's creatures. He tried to fulfill the needs of those who asked his help and readily undertook to serve his family, intending their benefit and repose, even when he was old. He was devoted to his children and his family. His father died and left him young brothers, whom he raised and treated well, taking full charge of them with kindness, humility, and soft words. Then he himself had children whom he treated in the same way. He had great faith in dervishes and saints . . . Whether sitting, standing, or walking, he never tired of mentioning the name of God. He was well versed in medicine, drugs, and remedies and visited the sick, giving beneficial prescriptions . . . and praying for them . . . When someone of his acquaintance died, he attended the funeral, or, if unable to attend, he walked to the grave to pray and read from the Koran; thus he was able to write an unbroken necrology. He had many virtues and a beautiful life. . . . This was written by al-Qasim ibn Muhammad al-Birzali. There was between the two great friendship, abundant love, and firm companionship. Al-Birzali was well informed about him and his good circumstances" 1 . Informative as this biographical sketch may be about al-Gazari's life and al-Birzali's technique as a biographer, it tells little of what we need to know about the nature of their debt to each other for source material; for that we must consider the works themselves. Al-Gazari's chief work, Hawddit az-zamdn wa-anbd'uhu wa-wafaydt al-akdbir wal-a'ydn min abnd'ihi, though it begins with events well before the author's birth, concentrates on those which occurred during his lifetime2, and in the final versions consists of a yearly narration of events, each of 1

Tdrih al-Gazari, Dar al-Kutub MS, 995 tdrih, 3 vols. (Photographic copy of Kopruliizade MS, 1047), III, 64; Sauvaget, Chronique, pp. i-ii. 2 I have used two manuscripts: Tdrih al-Gazari, which covers the years 726-36/1325-35-36; and Gawdhir

54

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

which is followed by obituary notices for that year, each section occupying almost equal space. Since the available manuscripts end with a fragment of the narrative for 699/1299-1300, our analysis wiU be limited to 694/1294-95 and a part of 699/1299-1300. Even this much will suffice to solve some problems. Table 28 694/1294-95 Gawdhir 1. List of rulers (P. 275) 2. Royal Mamluk uprising (276) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (276-79) a. News of/accession reaches Damascus (277) b. Rain in Damascus (277) 4. Messenger sent to Egypt (278) 5. Kitbuga's procession (278-9) 6. Appointment (279) 7. Ceremonies for rain in Damascus (279) 8. Appointments (279-80)

9. Scheduling of prayers (280) 10. Damascenes journey to Egypt (280-81) 11. Appointments (281-82) 12. Recitation of the dars (282) 13. Arrests and confiscations (282-83) 14. Accession and conversion of Gazan (28388) 15. Ruler of Hims returns from Egypt (288) 16. Famine and high prices in Egypt (288-89) 17. Pilgrims depart for Mecca (289) 18. Obituaries (290-307)

The name of al-Gazari has occurred in several contexts so far: he has been cited as a source by an-Nuwairi 1 , identified by SAUVAGET as Mufaddal's mu'arrih2 and deduced to be a source of Ibn ad-Dawadari 3 . For these and other reasons we have posited that he is probably the common source used by Ibn ad-Dawadari, Author Z., an-Nuwairi, and Mufaddal for the Mongol occupation of Damascus in 699/1299-1300 and have surmised that he worked closely with al-Birzali. Furthermore, it would be gratifying to prove that he served as the key source to Egyptian historians for contemporaneous events in Syria, but let us begin with a simpler task and turn to the incident which reveals most about the literary relationship between al-Birzali and al-Gazari - the conversion of Gazan to Islam. Al-Birzali, it will be recalled, is cited by Author Z. as the source for information which is lacking in al-Muqtafd*, leading us to speculate that al-Birzali had written a fuller historical work than that now extant. Such need not be the case, for now it becomes clear that Author Z. copied his account from al-Gazari, who in turn relied on what may well have been the oral narration of al-Birzali. In his history al-Gazari often uses the phrase "Wa-haka II" so-and-so, with the obvious meaning that a person orally transmitted to him a report which he recorded in his history, the most frequent of such informants being one Amir Saif ad-DIn ibn al-Mihaffadar5, who gave al-Gazari many eyewitness accounts. In at least one instance al-Birzali is cited in this manner - "Wa-haka II 1-Birzali"6 elsewhere with the phrase "Wa-ahbarani 1-Birzali"7 and, when quoting some fines of poetry "Wa-ansadanI hadihi 1-qasidata 1-Birzali"8. Thus it is clear that al-Gazari was accustomed to using al-Birzali as an oral source for his history. Now in the case of the conversion of Gazan to Islam, al-Gazari introduces his account and several times interrupts it with the phrase, "Wahaka . . ." or "Wa-qala 1-Birzali"9, which might be construed to mean that al-Birzali had as-suluk fi l-hulafd' wal-muluk, D a r a l - K u t u b MS 7575 H (Hand copy of Bibliotheque Nationale Arabic 1 2 3 MS, 6379). Supra, p p . 29-30. Supra, p . 36, note 6. Supra, p . 36. 4 Supra, p . 48. 5 Saif ad-DIn Yusuf ibn N a b a ' succeeded his father, who died in 692/1292-93, as amir ganddr, Amir of the 8 Armor Bearers; see SAUVAGET, Chronique, p . 30. Al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p . 311. 7 9 Ibid., p . 312. s Ibid., p . 296. Ibid., p p . 283-87.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

55

written this or that in his history. Since, however, such passages do not occur in al-Muqtafd and since it is established that al-Gazari used al-Birzali elsewhere as an oral source, we can assume that al-Birzali narrated to al-Gazari a long, detailed account of the conversion of Gazan which he had heard from eyewitnesses, and that although al-Birzali himself saw fit to condense the account drastically for his own history, al-Gazari preferred to reproduce it verbatim. Nothing could be clearer: al-Gazari, a scholar writing under the spell of Islamic scholarly tradition produced as a matter of course his chain of authorities - his isndd - "Wa-kana islamuhu 'ala ma haka s-saihu l-'allamatu 1-hafizu 'Alamu d-DIni bnu 1-Birzali fassaha llahu fi muddatihi qala haka s-saihu 1-augahu saihuna Sadru d-DIni . . ."x, whereas Author Z., a soldier upon whom scholarly conventions sat lightly, merely copied the matn, citing the isndd by accident once in the course of the text 2 . With this clue in mind, that al-Gazari used al-Birzali at times as an oral source, we can explore further the relationship between these two historians and their relationship, in turn, to other historians. In more than one sense, al-Muqtafd seems almost a series of notes, a very rough draft for Hawddit az-zamdn. First of all, whereas al-Muqtafd consists of a day-by-day, unsystematized compilation of facts, Hawddit az-zamdn, though arranged chronologically, is organized to the extent at least of separating narrative from obituary notices and of omitting some of the less significant appointments recorded by al-Birzali. There is evident, in other words, a higher level of selection and organization in al-Gazari's work than in al-Birzali's. Second, al-Gazari includes important political events overlooked or omitted by al-Birzali. Third, al-Gazari almost invariably gives a fuller, more comprehensive account of events than does al-Birzali in al-Muqtafd. To support these generalizations, we need only to glance at the first few entries for the year in each chronicle. Al-Birzali begins with the obituary of a hadit scholar who happened to die during the first week of the new year 3 ; al-Gazari, with the conventional opening for an annal - a listing of rulers - and follows this with an account of one of the most important events of the year - the Mamluk uprising in Cairo - an episode which al-Birzali fails altogether to mention. As for development of a topic mentioned by both historians, the accession of Kitbuga is a case in point: satisfied as usual with a bare statement of fact, al-Birzali mentions only a few details which had come to his attention, namely that on such-and-such a date 4 , Kitbuga was enthroned, that news of this reached Damascus on a certain date, whereupon fealty was sworn to him, and the coinage and the hutba were changed, that he was about fifty years old and had been taken prisoner in a battle against the Mongols. This almost constitutes an outline for al-Gazari, who expands these facts by giving the names of the messenger who brought the news to Damascus and the hatib who pronounced the hutba, by explaining the one-day delay in the swearing of fealty, by reproducing the long anecdote foretelling the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga, etc. All this suggests but does not prove either that al-Gazari used al-Muqtafd as the basis for his work or that al-Birzali wrote a resume of Hawddit az-zamdn. At least two scholars have, in fact, suggested without documentation that al-Birzali used and quoted al-Gazari's work extensively5, but the only even indirect evidence to my knowledge which would support that conclusion is al-Birzali's statement that Hawddit az-zamdn contains much not found in other histories6. The 1

2 3 Ibid., p . 283. Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 35. Muqtafd, I, fol. 218 vo. 4 As a m a t t e r of fact, three dates are mentioned as the date of Kitbuga's accession: al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 276, and al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I, fol. 219 ro., give Wednesday, 11 al-Muharram; Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 188 r o . ; Tuhfa, fol. 65 v o . ; Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 3 3 ; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p . 4 2 1 ; and Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 31, agree on Wednesday, 9 al-Muharram; and I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz MS, V I I I , 312, gives Thursday, 13 al-Muharram. The eleventh of al-Muharram fell on a Wednesday this year. 5 2 B A Z M E E A N S A R I , A. S., "Al-Djazari," EI , I I , 522, and A L - M U N A 6 G I D , Magalla, I I I , No. 1, 104. 6

Supra, p . 53.

5 Little

56

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

theory of a resume seems unlikely, for to have written one, al-Birzali would have had to perform the very awkward task of intermingling notices of events with those of deaths, whereas alGazari would simply have to collect obituaries in a separate section at the end of each year. In addition to citing al-Birzali by name, al-Gazari has in another instance obviously used him for information which al-Birzali had read in a letter 1 . What is more important and can, moreover, be proved is that al-Gazari, as has already been suggested, served as a principal source for Syrian and, in some cases, Egyptian affairs. We have already seen, for example, that Author Z. used al-Gazari's version of Gazan's conversion to Islam. In addition Author Z. and an-Nuwairi borrowed without acknowledgment al-Gazari's anecdote on the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga to the sultanate of Egypt. And with al-Gazari's account of high prices and famine in 694/1294-95 we can see clearly, one, that he borrowed some facts from al-Birzali and, two, that Author Z. reproduced al-Gazari's version, which proves with finality that Egyptian historians did indeed borrow from a Syrian for events occurring in Egypt and explains how Author Z. could have given such a garbled account of a series of events which he himself had witnessed2. More remarkable still, al-Gazari presents details of Egyptian events which are lacking in contemporary Egyptian histories: in relating the punishment of the Mamluk rebels, he is the only historian to mention a specific number for those distributed among amirs and generals3 and in describing Kitbuga's procession through the city, the only one to give the exact route 4 . It would be an error therefore to regard al-Gazari simply as a provincial historian. Table 29 699/1299-1300

Gawdhir 1. List of rulers (P. 515) 2. Egyptian army marches, heavy rain (51516)

3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (516-18) 4. Retreat of Mamluk army (518) 5. Tumult in Damascus (518-19)

Before plunging once again into the complicated questions involved in the events of this year, it might be wise to signal the one simple point which emerges from the tabulation, namely, that al-Gazari, in spite of his broad knowledge of events outside Syria, failed somehow to report on the Oirat insurrection which broke out when the Egyptians were marching to Syria. Because of the breadth of his knowledge and the variety of his informants there can be little doubt that he knew of the attempted coup but for some reason saw fit not to mention it. Otherwise, for the problems raised earlier, there are no simple, clear-cut answers. As we have seen, al-Gazari is the long-lost historian for whom we have been seeking; he is not, alas, it would seem the only one. So far the existence of two main sources for the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar and the Mongol occupation of Damascus have been posited: Baibars al-Mansuri and the Syrian source used by Ibn ad-Dawadari, Author Z., an-Nuwairi, and Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il. This Syrian author, we have suggested, probably based his account on that of al-Birzali, since passages similar to, but more elaborate than those in al-Muqtafd appear in these works. The identity of the Syrian we have determined to be al-Gazari. Without a doubt Author Z. and Mufaddal did copy long passages from al-Gazari and probably, therefore, based most of their chronicle for Syrian events during this year on the same author, but this cannot be proved at this point since the passages in question from Hawddit az-zamdn are not extant. Ibn ad-Dawadari and an-Nuwairi relied on al-Gazari too but did not copy quite so copiously or closely as 1 3

Al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p . 288; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I, fol. 229 vo. 4 Gawdhir, p. 276. Ibid., p p . 278-79.

2

Supra, p . 20.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

57

the other two authors 1 . All four writers, including Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z., whose accounts we have considered so similar that we attributed textual differences to differences in their selection from a single common source, introduce material not found in al-Gazari; consequently all must have used still other sources. Sufficient similarities in phrasing exist to indicate that al-Gazari could have borrowed from al-Birzali but not enough to prove that for this year Hawddit az-zamdn was actually based on al-Muqtafd. Closer, more detailed analysis and comparison of all those sources for other years might produce conclusions more reliable and definite than these. Until such a study is made or further evidence is introduced, we must be content with still tentative though highly probable hypotheses: i) Al-Gazari relied heavily on al-Birzali as a source for Hawddit az-zamdn. 2) Hawddit az-zamdn was a principal Syrian source for contemporary Egyptian chronicles. 3) Much of the missing portion of Hawddit az-zamdn is preserved in Egyptian chronicles. 4) Other works, so far unidentified, were used by Egyptian historians. 4. Al-Yunini Analysis of the work of still another contemporary religious scholar and historian, Qutb ad-Din Musa ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Qutb ad-DIn al-Yunini al-Ba'labakkl al-Hanbali (d. 726/1325-26)2, clarifies these and other claims, for in Dail mir'dt az-zamdn we find nothing less than the text, only slightly abridged, of some of the lost annals of Hawddit azzamdn. Intended as a summary and continuation of Mir'dt az-zamdn fi tdrih al-a'ydn by Sibt ibn al-Gauzi (d. 654/1256), the Dail interests us for the material which begins with the year of Ibn al-GauzI's death and runs through 711/1311-12 in the parts still extant 3 . There is no reason to tabulate al-Yuninl's annal for 694/1294-95 inasmuch as it is almost exactly the same as al-Gazari's for this year. Al-Yunini did delete notices of a few appointments and some obituaries; otherwise, he copied al-Gazari's text closely, changing a few phrases here, omitting a word or two there, in the manner of a bored copyist. How do we know that the opposite is not the case, that al-Gazari did not copy from al-Yunini, especially when such an authority as CAHEN judges that the borrowings between these two were reciprocal?4 Fortunately, during the course of this year al-Yunini cites al-Gazari by name, specifically, when relating the by now familiar anecdote prophesying the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga to the Egyptian throne 5 , so that can be no doubt that he had read and used al-Gazari's history. Once this has been established, it is certain that the borrowing occurred in this direction only, for the texts are so similar as to preclude any originality whatsoever on al-Yuninl's part. Indeed, when al-Gazari says qultu, haka li, or speaks of wdlidi6, al-Yunlnl says qultu 1

An-Nuwairi, it will be recalled, took a different t a c k from I b n ad-Dawadari's and Author Z.'s for t h e second half of t h e occupation of Damascus, supra, p . 27, and m a y therefore have used a source other t h a n al-Gazari; I b n ad-Dawadari m a y well have used al-Gazari even when such indebtedness would be hard to assign because of his p e n c h a n t for writing in r h y m e d prose. 2 For the few known biographical details see I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, IV, 382; I b n Katir, al-Biddya wan-nihdya, X I V , 126. 3 Four volumes of this work through t h e year 686/1287-88 have been published: Dail mir'dt az-zamdn (Hyderabad: M a t b a ' a t D a ' i r a t al-Ma'arif al-'Utmaniya, 1954-61). I have used two manuscripts for the remaining y e a r s : MS Y, P t . IV. covering the years 689/1290-91 through p a r t of 701/1301-02, and Arab League Institute of Arabic Manuscripts MS, 257 tdrih, copy 2 (Photographic copy of Topkapisaray MS, Ahmed I I I , 2907), Pt. I l l , covering 690-701/1291-1301-02, and P t . IV, 702-711/1302-1311-12, hereafter referred to as MS A. 4 La Syrie du nord, p . 79. See also his review, " J . Sauvaget, La Chronique de Damas d'al-Jazari," Oriens, IV, I (1951), 153, in which he reveals t h a t al-Gazari names Baibars al-Mansuri and al-Yunini as sources for 5 6 the years 654-57/1256-58. Dail, MS Y, P t . IV, fol. 118 ro. Gawdhir, p p . 278, 289, 167.

ANNALISTIC S O U R C E S

58

and haka li, and speaks of wdlidi too1. In fact, so extensive and thorough going is the borrowing that it is a mystery why al-Yunini should see fit to acknowledge his indebtedness so sporadically, thus leaving the impression that he used only a few select passages from Hawadtt az-zaman. Table 30 699/1299-1300

Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV 1. List of rulers (Fols. 206 VO.-07 ro.) 2. Egyptian army marches, heavy rain (207 ro.-07 vo.) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (207 vo.) 4. Retreat of Mamluk army (207 vo.-o8 vo.) 5. Tumult in Damascus (208 ro.) 6. Notables flee (208 ro.) 7. Prison burned (208 ro.) 8. Delegation to Gazan (208 ro.-o8 vo.) 9. Decree of Argawas (208 vo.) 10. Prices (208 vo.) 11. Retreat of Mamluks (208 ro., margin) 12. Arrival of Mongols (209 ro., margin) 13. Return of delegation (209 ro., margin) 14. Copy of amnesty firman (209 vo.-io vo.) 15. Looting outside Damascus (210 vo.) 16. Negotiations with Argawas (2 IOVO.-I 2 ro.) 17. Appointment of Qibgaq (212 ro.) 18. Raid on as-Salihiya (212 VO.-13 ro.) 19. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (213 ro.13 vo.) 20. Mongol destruction (213 VO.-14 ro.) 21. Levies (214 V0.-15 ro.) 22. Poems (215 ro.-i5 vo.) 23. Siege of citadel (215 vo.-i6 ro.) 24. Destruction (216 r c - 1 7 ro.) 25. Mongol evacuation (217 ro.) 26. Continued destruction (217 ro.-i9 ro.) 27. Ibn Taimiya meets Qutlusah (219 ro.19 vo.)

28. Totals looted (219 vo.-20 ro.) 29. Proclamation (220 ro.) 3°- Sale of books (220 ro.) 31. Prices (220 ro.-20 vo.) 32. Qibgaq assumes sultanate (220 vo.-2i ro.) 33. Wine profits (221 ro.) 34- Citadel negotiations (221 vo.) 35« Ibn Taimiya meets Bulay (221 VO.-22 ro.) 36. Continued raiding (222 ro.) 37. Evacuation of Mongols (222 ro.-22 vo.) 38. Departure of defectors (222 vo.) 39. Mobilization of Mamluks in Egypt (223 ro.-23 vo.) 40. Advance of Mamluk army to Syria (223 VO.-24 ro.)

41. Appointments (224 ro.-vo.) 42. Egyptian army returns to Syria (224 vo.) 43. Appointments (224 vo.) 44. Retaliation against collaborators (224 vo.) 45. Raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (224 vo.25 ro.) 46. Civil defense measures (225 ro.) 47. Appointments (225 vo.) 48. Dars (225 vo.) 49. Muslims killed in Diyar Bakr (225 vo.) 50. Inventory of destruction in as-Salihiya (225 VO.-26 ro.) 51. Poetry (226 VO.-27 ro.) 52. Obituaries (227 ro.~47 v o -)

Since al-Yuninl's annal for 694/1294-95 is practically a reproduction of al-Gazari's and since the same pattern can be established for 699/1299-1300 by the opening fragment extant in Hawddit az-zamdn, there is no reason to doubt that al-Yunlnl copied the rest of this year's annal just as carefully. We shall at any rate accept this as a probability for the purpose of testing previous hypotheses. First, however, it should be noted that this annal, regardless of who the author may be, is by far the fullest of any studied so far. True, the author has missed, or deleted,

1

Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fols. 75 vo., 118 ro., 122 ro.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

59

one or two items given by al-Birzali1 but has compensated for such minor omissions with long, detailed accounts of events treated summarily in other historians and of occurrences not mentioned at all elsewhere. This holds true especially for al-Muqtafd and also for Kanz ad-durar and the Zettersteen manuscript: the Dail invariably describes events with greater detail than do these three works and even introduces a new topic or two, such as the measures which were taken to establish a civil defense corps in Damascus after the Mamluk reoccupation of the city2. And yet, despite the greater length of al-Yuninl's version, both Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. do include one important document only summarized in the Dail - Gazan's decree appointing Qibgaq viceroy of Syria. This might be construed to mean that Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. did not use al-Yunlnl but his source - al-Gazari - and that al-Gazari must have given a copy of the decree. On the other hand, it might simply mean that the two authors took it from still another source - Zubdat al-fikra, for example, - which does contain this text. At any rate, Mir'dt az-zamdn enables us to verify our conjectures concerning the relationship between Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z., namely, that close as their versions often may be, they copied independently from the same source much more often than they copied from each other. More specifically, collation of the three texts shows clearly that Author Z. copied carefully and at length either from al-Yunlnl or from his source and that Ibn ad-Dawadari copied less carefully and at less length, sometimes summarizing the original and sometimes, in a rhetorical vein, reducing it to rhymed prose3. That they did not copy from each other is proved by the fact that each gives information not cited by the other 4 ; and since all this information is found in the Dail, it is probable that they copied either from al-Yunlnl or from his source - al-Gazari. One might go a step further to claim that since they often deviate from his text in the same way, they used al-Gazari, not al-Yunlnl himself, but since these deviations might also be used to prove that one copied some times from the other, they will not be adduced. What is important is that al-Gazari's text ultimately is the origin of Ibn ad-Dawadari's and Author Z.'s work, no matter whether that text was copied from Hawddit az-zamdn or the Dail. Al-Yuninl's annal for this year also sheds light on the relationship between Ibn ad-Dawadari and Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il. Much earlier it was asserted that their texts are so similar that one author must have copied from the other, most probably Mufaddal from Ibn ad-Dawadari 5 . Collation with al-Yuninl's text supports this conclusion with such indirect evidence as a single short phrase which appears in al-Yunini and Ibn ad-Dawadari but not in Mufaddal, indicating that the borrowing must have occurred in the direction indicated and not vice versa6. Still there are indications, noted earlier, that Mufaddal used not just Ibn ad-Dawadari but alGazari too7. Collation of the Dail with Nihdyat al-arab yields the surprising conclusion that although anNuwairi did use this or, more probably, the original version, he must have used still another

1

Such as an attack on an amir's family and the arrival of a saih at Safad, supra, p. 49. Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV. fol. 225 ro. 3 For an example of the latter compare Ibn ad-Dawadari's account of the remobilization of the Mamluk 4 troops in Egypt, Kanz, IX, 37, with al-Yunini's, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, 223 ro. Supra, p. 22. 5 Supra, pp. 35-36. 6 It is a matter of the total levies imposed on Damascus by the Mongols: al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 215 ro.: "Wa-kana 1-matlubu sai'an katiran la tahmiluhu 1-baladu wa-la yuqaribuhu 1-qiyamu bihi fa-'asara 1-amru 'ala n-nasi." Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 29: "Wa-kana 1-matlubu Sai'an katiran la tuhammiluhu al-baladu wa-la tuqaribuhu fa-'asara 1-amru *ala n-nasi." Mufaddal, Sultans, p. 493; "Wa-kana 1-matlubu sai'un kabirun [sic] la tahmiluhu 1-baladu fa-'asara 1-amru 7 'ala n-nasi giddan". See supra, p. 36 2

60

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Syrian source for certain information not contained in the Dail or, for that matter, in any o er history - a report on measures to defend the Damascus citadel1. Therefore either an-wuwain took this information from a source other than al-Yuninl and al-Gazari, or al-Gazari mcmaea it in Hawddit az-zamdn, and al-Yunlnl for some reason omitted it. But the annal lor 705/13051306 reveals more about an-Nuwairi's indebtedness to Hawddit az-zamdn, for therein He cites al-Gazari as a source. Table 31 705/I305-0 6 Dail, MS A, Pt. IV 1. Rulers (Fols. 44 ro.-44 v o 0 2. Appointment (44 vo.) 3. Retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (44 vo.) 4. Raid against Sis (44 v c - 4 5 ro.) 5. Arrival of mahmil in Damascus (45 ro.) 6. Fitna in Baalbek (45 ro.) 7. Gabal al-Kasrawan, cont. (45 ro.-45 vo.) 8. Confiscation (45 vo.) 9. Appointment (45 vo.) 10. Investment of new amirs with fiefs in Gabal al-Kasrawan (45 vo.) 11. Appointment (45 vo.) 12. Rain-making ceremonies (46 ro.) 13. Mahmil procession (46 ro.) 14. Two councils for interrogation of Ibn Taimiya (46 ro.) 15. Strife between Ibn Taimiya and other 'ulamd' (46 ro.~46 vo.) 16. Third council (46 vo.) 17. Ibn Taimiya summoned to Cairo (47 ro.-

18. Cairo council (47 vo.) 19. Ibn Gama'a's statement (47 VO.-48 ro.) 20. Arrival of Ibn Sasra with rescripts (48 ro.48 vo.) 21. Partial text of decree (48 V0.-49 ro.) 22. Appointments (49 ro.) 23. Hanbalites questioned (49 ro.) 24. Arrival of Mongol messengers from Cairo (49 vo.) 25. Investment of new amirs with fiefs in Gabal al-Kasrawan (49 vo.) 2 26. Sale of candlesticks in Medina (49 vo.) 27. Appointment (49 vo.) 28. Mongol messengers (49 vo.) 29. Causes of arrest of Ibn Taimiya (49 vo.50 ro.) 30. Persecution of Hanbalites (50 ro.) 31. Level of Nile (50 vo.) 32. Pilgrimage (51 ro.) 33. Obituaries (51 ro.-i2i vo.)

47 vo.) If again we can assume that this represents the text written by al-Gazari - and support for this hypothesis is forthcoming - we can see once again the close connection between al-Birzali and al-Gazari, for here too al-Gazari presents practically all the material given by al-Birzali, usually in a more fully developed manner with more details. And yet al-Gazari again acknowledges his indebtedness to al-Birzali by citing a letter addressed to the latter from Medina which announces the sale of some golden candlesticks and by reproducing al-Birzali's own summary of its contents 3 . Thus at last it becomes highly probable that al-Gazari used not only al-Birzali's oral narrations but his written history as well as source material for Hawddit az-zamdn. Unless, then, al-Birzali wrote a longer history of which al-Muqtafd is an abridgment, al-Gazari must have used al-Muqtafd as an outline to which he added much original information of his own. It will be recalled that an-Nuwairi's annal for 705/1305-06, in particular his treatment of the Ibn Taimiya episode, demonstrates that author's juxtapositioning of sources in order to present 1 3

2 Nihdya, XXX, 115-16. This entry is identical to number 10 in this table. Al-Yunini, Dail, MS A, Pt. IV, fol. 49 vo.; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, II, fol. 100 ro.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

61

a full and balanced narration of a historical event. Since one of these sources was al-Gazari and since collation shows that al-Yunini must have copied al-Gazari, it is now possible to examine how an-Nuwairi used that particular source within the larger framework, with the conclusion that an-Nuwairi, who strove to provide first-hand information from both Egyptian and Syrian sources1, copied al-Gazari's account of the councils held in Egypt even though al-Gazari himself had to rely on an informant from Egypt 2 . We are left with the curious picture of a historian breaking out of the shell of traditional Muslim historiography when he purposely violates the strictures of chronology, lapsing into strictest conformity when he quotes an authority far removed from an event to which he himself was close or for which he had different informants. Collation of the Dail with Nihdyat al-arab yields further evidence that an-Nuwairi did not rely exclusively on al-Gazari for events in Syria because there is no record in the Dail of Ibn Taimiya's confrontation with the Ahmadlya faqirs. Unless Hawddit az-zamdn did contain this episode and al-Yunlnl for some reason omitted it, we are left the alternative that an-Nuwairi must have used al-Birzali's al-Muqtafd - the only other source which does mention it. That al-Yunlnl probably did make some omissions is indicated when he produces only an abridged version of the letter containing the official verdict against Ibn Taimiya3. We know that Ibn ad-Dawadari gives the full text, which we assume that he took from Hawddit az-zamdn, since his entire account of the Ibn Taimiya episode - including the analysis of causes - is too similar to al-Gazari's version to leave any doubt that Ibn ad-Dawadari copied from it. Important though the task may be of tracing sources and analyzing borrowings, it should not blind us to the opportunity of assessing al-Gazari as a historian, now that al-Yunlnl has provided us with so many pages of the text of Hawddit az-zamdn not available elsewhere. Oddly enough from the point of view of their professions, al-Gazari emerges from his writing as very much the same sort of historian as Ibn ad-Dawadari, in that both take a very personal approach to the writing of history. From Hawddit az-zamdn, as was the case with Kanz ad-durar, we can catch glimpses of a person and a personality who in addition to routinely registering political and ecclesiastical occurrences presents items which happened to catch his interest. He - and al-Yunini, who probably copied from him - are the only historians so far who saw fit to interrupt the narration of great affairs of state with the conversation of a talking bull4, or a merchant's description of Constantinople5, or a list of the wonders of Egypt 6 , or the causes of earthquakes 7 . These sidelights, in addition to disclosing a curious mind, indicate also the great breadth of al-Gazari's interest. He does slip occasionally, as, for example, when he fails to mention the Oirat uprising; otherwise, as has been shown by collation with al-Muqtafd, al-Gazari more often than not presents more, better documented detail on more subjects than do his contemporaries with the exception, perhaps, of Baibars al-Mansuri. Strange that one of these authors should not have been edited at all and that the other has been given only a summary translation when there is no doubt that these two, along with Ibn ad-Dawadari constitute the most comprehensive contemporary sources for the mid-Bahri period. And sad that so much of their work should be lost when they, along with Ibn ad-Dawadari, are the most original sources for the time. 5. Ad-Dahabi We know from Muslim biographical sources that the fourth and most famous member of this quintet of Syrian scholars, Sams ad-DIn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn 'Utman ad-Dahabi 1 4 5 6 7

2 3 Nihdya, X X X , 33-34. Al-YuninI, Dail, MS A, Pt. IV, fol. 47 vo. Ibid., fols. 48 vo. - 49 vo. Al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 310; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 130 vo. Al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 167; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 75 vo. Al-Yunini cites al-Gazari here; Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 275 ro. Al-Yunini, Dail, MS A, Pt. IV. fol. 12 ro.; Ibn ad-Dawadari produces the same passage, Kanz, IX, 104.

62

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

(d. 748/1347-48) was associated in one way or another with the other members Ad-Pahabi used to meet regularly with a small group of scholars including al-Birzali and Ibn T ^ i n l ^ o r study and discussion, presumably of hadit1; and it is reported that he knew and benefited trom the work of both al-Gazari2 and al-Yunini3. Furthermore, somewhat to our confusion, a modern scholar has claimed not only that Hawddit az-zamdn "is patterned more or less on the lines of al-Dhahabi's Ta'rikh al-isldm" but that Tdrih al-isldm "is apparently a continuation of alDjazarl's work" 4 . Neither claim is documented. Be that as it may, ad-Dahabi like al-Birzali, al-Gazari, and al-Yunini was a religious scholar, a historian, and a biographer, who undertook to write a universal history of Islam with the addition of obituaries of notable political, religious, and literary figures arranged according to classes in the manner of the tabaqdt works. Nevertheless, it is, of course, his annals for the years in which he himself lived that interest us, even though they are few since he ended Tdrih al-isldm with 700/1300-01 . Table 32 694/1294-95 Tdrih al-isldm, XXXIII 1. Accession of Kitbuga (Fol. 116 vo.) 2. Appointments (116 V0.-17 ro.) 3. Rain ceremonies (116 vo.) 4. Scheduling of prayers (117 ro.) 5. Appointment (117 ro.)

6. Construction of a bath, Damascus (117 ro.) 7. Appointment (117 ro.) 8. Pilgrimage (117 ro.) 9. High prices in Egypt (117 ro.) 10. Conversion of Gazan (117 ro.-i7 vo.)

Besides the omission of such major items as the uprising of the Royal Mamluks and internal Mongol strife, the most salient characteristic of ad-Dahabi's annal for this year is its brevity. He makes little of the accession of Kitbuga to the sultanate, mentioning neither causes nor effects, merely stating the facts of the accession and a brief biographical sketch. The latter is noteworthy for omitting the standard anecdote predicting the crowning of a Mongol as sultan and including a few details about Kitbuga's earlier career found so far in no other history of the time6. The appointments are practically the same as those recorded by al-Gazari, stated perhaps more concisely, and cover the gamut from viziers to mosque officials. To the rainmaking ceremonies, the scheduling of Hanbalite prayers, and the construction of several buildings in Damascus, ad-Dahabi assigns only a sentence; and even an account of the drought in Egypt and the consequent rise in prices is postponed to the annal for the following year. Occupying most space but much less than in Hawddit az-zamdn and the Zettersteen manuscript is the conversion of Gazan to Islam. Conceivably, but not necessarily, a summary of al-Gazari's version, the only variant information which ad-Dahabi introduces concerns the expression on Gazan's face on this auspicious occasion, admittedly not of overwhelming significance but indicative at any rate of the degree of divergence between two contemporary Syrian historians. But to pinpoint divergences for 699/1299-1300 is altogether another matter if only because adDahabi wrote such a long, detailed annal for this year 7 . 1

2 2 S. (ed.), Siyar a'ldm an-nubald' of ad-Dahabi, I, 19. A N S A R I , EI , I, 523. 4 2 I b n al-'Imad, Sadarat ad-dahab fi ahbdr man dahab, VI, 74. A N S A R I , EI , I, 552. 5 Tdrih al-isldm wa-tabaqdt maidhir al-a'ldm, 34 vols., Dar a l - K u t u b MS, 42 tdrih (including photographic copies of Bibliotheque Nationale and Aya Sofia manuscripts), vol. xxxiii. Unfortunately, I h a v e not consulted ad-Dahabi's continuation of this work, covering t h e years 701-40/1301-39-40. 6 Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 116 vo. 7 For a translation and discussion of this annal see SOMOGYI, J., " A d h - D h a h a b i ' s Record of t h e Destruction of Damascus b y t h e Mongols in 699-700/1299-1301," Ignace Goldziher Memorial, ed. b y Samuel L O W I N GER and Joseph SOMOGYI, I, Budapest 1948, 353-86. 3

AL-MUNAGGID,

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

63

Table 33 699/1299 -1300 Tdrih al-isldm, XXXIII 1. Egyptian army marches (Fol. 123 vo.) 2. Dars (123 vo.) 3. Egyptians enter Damascus (123 vo.24 ro.) 4. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (124 1:0.-24 vo.) 5. Reaction in Damascus (124 vo.) 6. Variant accounts of battle (124 vo.) 7. Reaction in Damascus (124 v c - 2 5 ro.) 8. Prison burned (125 ro.) 9. Delegation to Gazan (125 ro.) 10. Decree of Argawas (125 ro.) 11. Flight of notables (125 ro.) 12. Prices (125 ro.-i25 vo.) 13. Arrival of Mongols (125 vo.) 14. Text of amnesty decree (125 VO.-26 ro.) 15. Negotiations with Argawas (126 vo.27 ro.) 16. Qibgaq appointed viceroy (127 ro.) 17. Damascus leaders reproached (127 vo.) 18. Attack on as-Salihlya (127 V0.-28 ro.) 19. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (128 ro.) 20. Mongol destruction (128 ro.)

21. Levies (128 ro.-28 vo.) 22. Siege of citadel (128 vo.) 23. Destruction (128 V0.-29 r o 0 24. Mamluk troops enter Cairo (129 ro.) 25. Destruction (129 ro.-29 vo -) 26. Gazan departs (129 vo.) 27. Destruction (129 vo.) 28. Qibgaq assumes sultanate (130 ro.) 29. Ibn Taimiya meets Qutlusah (130 ro.30 vo.) 30. Appointment (130 vo.) 31. Wine profits (130 vo.) 32. Citadel negotiations (131 ro.) 33. Ibn Taimiya meets Bulay (131 ro.) 34. Qibgaq and Mongol collaborators leave (131 ro.-3i vo.) 35. Wine houses closed (131 vo.) 36. Mamluk armies return (131 vo.) 37. Appointments (131 vo.) 38. Confiscation and arrest (131 vo.) 39. Retaliatory attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan (131 VO.-32 ro.) 40. Civil defense measures (132 ro.)

Ad-Dahabi's account of the Mongol occupation is organized much the same as that found in the Dail, even to the extent of omitting two major items: the text of the decree appointing Qibgaq viceroy and the poems lamenting Mongol tyranny - the same, by the way, as those omitted by an-Nuwairi. On the other hand, as can be seen by comparing the tables, ad-Dahabi does include material not found in other histories, most notably in the capsule, eyewitness accounts of the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar. New data can also be found by close textual study of those items covered by his colleagues, so that it is obvious that we are dealing, to an extent at least, with an original, independent source. He is, for example, the only historian to estimate the number of Mongol and Mamluk troops involved in the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar and, in fact, to attribute the defeat of the Mamluks to Mongol numerical superiority1. Furthermore, he is the only one to estimate the amount spent by the sultan on remobilizing the Mamluk armies2. And yet, on the whole, ad-Dahabi presents very little original information, and since that bit is not found in contemporary Egyptian historians, in all probability Tdrih al-isldm did not serve as a source for them. But textual similarities are too frequent and too close to leave any doubt that Tdrih al-isldm is closely related to al-Muqtafd and Hawddit az-zamdn; and comparison of one short phrase concerning the decision to send a deputation to Gazan suffices to show the interrelationship of the contemporary Syrian sources and the dependence of some Egyptian sources on one or more of them: 1

Tdrih al-isldm,

X X X I I I , fol. 124 ro.

2

Ibid., fol. 129 ro.

64

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Al-Birzali: "Igtama'a gama'atun mina 1-a'yani mina l-'ulama'i wal-akabiri bi-Mashadi 'All bi-Gami'i Dimasqa wa-ttafaqu 'ala t-tawagguhi li-fiqa'i mafiki t-Tatari wa-talabi 1-amam minhu." 1 Al-Gazari: "Wa-gtama'u fi hada 1-yaumi bi-Mashadi 'AH wa-stawaru fi amri 1-hurugi ila 1-Mahki Mahmudin Gazana wa-ahdihim minhu amanan li-ahli 1-baladi."2 Al-Yunini: "Wa-gtama'a fi hada 1-yaumi bi-Mashadi 'AH wa-stawaru fi amri 1-hurugi ila 1-Maliki Mahmudin Gazana wa-ahdihim amanan li-ahli 1-baladi."3 Ad-Dahabi: "Tumma gtama'a 1-kibaru bi-Mashadi 'AH wa-stawaru fi 1-hurugi ila 1-maliki wa-talabi 1-amani."4 _ Author Z.: "Wa-gtama'u fi hada 1-yaumi fi Masgidi 'AH wa-tasawaru 'ala 1-hurugi ila Gazana wa-ahdihim minhu aman [sic] li-ahli 1-baladi."5 Ibn ad-Dawadari: "Wa-gtama'a n-nasu fi dalika 1-yaumi fi Mashadi 'AH wa-tasawaru fi amri 1-hurugi ila Gazana." 6 Mufaddal: "Tumma gtama'u dalika 1-yauma fi Mashadi 'AH wa-tasawaru fi amri 1-hurugi ila Gazana." 7 an-Nuwairi: "Fa-gtama'a akabiru Dimasqa fi yaumi 1-ahadi t-tani mina s-sahri bi-Mashadi 'AH bil-Gami'i 1-Umawi wa-ttafaqu 'ala an yatawaggahu ila 1-Maliki Gazana wa-yas'aluna 1-amana li-ahli 1-baladi."8 But to do more than merely demonstrate this interrelationship, that is, to determine which Syrian author borrowed from the other, is a more difficult matter, since, though the phrasing is often similar enough to indicate borrowing, there are enough discrepancies to obscure the task of finding the original author. For example, preceding the passage just quoted, there is in al-Gazari and ad-Dahabi a passage describing the mad crush at one of the gates of the city in which ten people were killed, including a man called an-Nagm al-Bagdadi. Since both mention the number ten and name the same victim, one author must have copied from the other, but both add original data, preventing identification of the plagiarist. Furthermore, there are some instances in which ad-Dahabi's text seems closer to al-Birzali's than any other author's 9 so that it must suffice for now to point out that Tdrih al-isldm is closely related to other contemporary Syrian texts. Although ad-Dahabi does present a certain amount of new data, these are not quite so striking as the interpretations of events with which he occasionally interrupts the narration. Few indeed and thus noteworthy are the Musfim historians of this era who would color a report with their own judgment of a man's character, especiaUy when that judgment is an adverse one, but twice in the annal we find ad-Dahabi delivering estimates of character, one favorable, the other distinctly unfavorable to the person under discussion. Herein, in such a small way, would seem to lie ad-Dahabi's originality as a historian. Another work, entitled Kitdb Duwal al-isldm10 is a short history of the Muslim era beginning with the time of Muhammad and extending beyond the terminal date of Tdrih al-isldm, through 744/1343-44. For the years prior to 700/1300-1301, little more than a summary of Tdrih alisldm is to be expected.

1

2 Muqtafd, II, fol. 6 vo. Gawdhir, p. 519. » Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 208 vo. 4 5 fl Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 125 ro. Beitrdge, p. 60. Kanz, IX, 19. 7 8 Sultans, p. 473. Nihdya, X X I X , 113. 9 Compare, for example, the amounts levied on the different markets of Damascus: ad-Dahabi, Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fols. 128 ro. - 28 vo.; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, II, fol. 8 ro.; al-Yumm, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 214 ro. 10 Kitdb Duwal al-isldm, Hyderabad 1945-46.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

65

Table 34 694/1294-95 Duwal, II 1. Accession of Kitbuga (149-50) 2. Low Nile (150)

3. Conversion of Gazan to Islam (150) 4. Obituaries (150)

Quick comparison with the Tdrih al-isldm chart for this year shows that except for the obituaries ad-Dahabi has retained only events of some magnitude, and even these are given a highly abbreviated treatment. Of more interest is the fact that in the process of summarizing his material, he gives at least two misleading data, both of which concern the succession of Kitbuga. In Tdrih al-isldm he was noticeably reticent about the circumstances surrounding Kitbuga's usurpation of the throne; in fact, he simply ignored them. In Duwal al-isldm he goes a step further when he states that "the Sultan Nasir ad-DIn went to al-Karak and relinquished the throne." 1 In the first place al-Malik an-Nasir did not go to al-Karak at this time; instead, he was made a prisoner in the citadel by Kitbuga and was sent much later to al-Karak by the sultan Lagin2. More importantly, al-Malik an-Nasir did not relinquish the throne; he was deposed. Another curious error occurs in the annal for 699/1299-1300. Table 35 699/1299-1300

Duwal, II 1. Qibgaq and Baktamur arrive at Gazan's court (154) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (154) 3. Occupation of Damascus and plunder of as-Salihlya (154) 4. Siege of the citadel (154-5)

5. Levies (155) 6. Departure of Mongols (155) 7. Remobilization in Egypt (155) 8. Defectors return to obedience (155) 9. Mamluk armies enter Syria (155) 10. Obituaries (155-6)

Ad-Dahabi's pecufiar weakness for recording figures and dates in this work appears in the first item for this year. No other historian has claimed that the Mamluk defectors arrived in Mongol territory in 699/1299-1300; on the contrary, all place the event in the annal for an earlier year3, and ad-Dahabi himself states indirectly that they had reached Gazan in 698/1298-99: "Wa-fi DI 1-higgati katurati 1-ahbaru bi-harakati t-Tatari wa-'azmihim 'ala qasdi 1-biladi wa-anna 1-muharrika lahum Qibgaqu wa-Baktamuru s-Silahdaru."4 Other than this discrepancy there are no statements which cannot be confirmed from Tdrih al-isldm. Table 36 705/1305-6 Duwal, II 1. Raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (161)

1

2. Obituaries (161)

Duwal, Pt. II, p. 149. Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 195 ro., and Tuhfa, fol. 68 vo.; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, XXIX, 95. 8 Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 205 vo.: an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, XXIX, 107; Ibn ad-Dawadari, 4 Kanz MS, VIII, 325-28; al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 477. Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 123 vo. 2

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

66

This annal disappoints the hope that Duwal al-isldm might contain detailed information for the years omitted in Tdrih al-isldm. This work is so condensed that it adds little to our knowledge of the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir. We cannot leave it, however, without substantiating the earlier claim that al-'Umarl's annals for 6 9 3 -744/i293-i343-44 represent a verbatim copy of the annals of Duwal al-isldm. The only point, actually, that needs verification is that al'Umari copied from ad-Dahabi rather than vice versa. For earlier annals of the seventh century al-'Umarl's sources are readily identifiable since they are often cited by name: Ibn Wasil1, Ibn Hallikan2, Ibn 'Abd az-Zahir3, Saraf ad-DIn Ibn Muzhir4, and Abu t-Tana' al-Isfaham 5 ; and up until 693/1293-94 al-'Umari groups his annals into ten-year series; in 693/1293-94, however, he breaks this practice to present each annal separately, indicating that here he is probably following a different source from those previously mentioned. This, of course, is the year in which the close correspondence between the two works can first be noticed. The conclusive proof that al-'Umari must have borrowed from ad-Dahabi comes from the annal for 715/1315-16, which ad-Dahabi interrupts with "the end [ahiru 1-kitabi]" and a long phrase of thanks and praise to God, to the Prophet, and to his companions for allowing him to complete his work6. But immediately thereafter he resumes this annal as a continuation (tadyil) to the same work and proceeds according to the same annalistic plan until the end of 744/1343-44. If ad-Dahabi had been copying from al-'Umari, then the phrase "ahiru 1-kitabi" undoubtedly would have appeared in Masdlik al-absdr, for there would have been no reason for ad-Dahabi to insert it; as a matter of fact, the phrase does not appear, with the implication that al-'Umari merely deleted it since it would show no break in his work, though he was careless enough to retain the formula praising God, which in this context is meaningless. 6. Ibn al-Wardi As its name implies, the Tatimmat al-muhtasar fi ahbdr al-basar1 of the Syrian qddi and litterateur Zain ad-DIn 'Umar ibn al-Wardi (d. 749/1348-49)8 was intended to be a continuation of Abu 1-Fida's history. Since the bulk of the work is devoted to a summary of al-Muhtasar and since Ibn al-Wardi antedated Abu 1-Fida by only eighteen years, his original contribution, especially for the years covered by both chronicles, is small. Table 3y 694/1294-95 Tatimma, II 1. Accession of Kitbuga (239) 2. Ilhanid strife (239-40) 3. Accession of Gazan (240) 4. Conversion of Gazan (240)

5. Death of Ruler of Yemen (240-41) 6. Arrest of an amir (241) 7. Low Nile (241) 8. Kitbuga frees Bedouin prisoners (241)

Cursory comparison with the table for Abu 1-Fida's annal for the year discloses that, besides obituaries, Ibn al-Wardi introduces only one new item: the conversion of Gazan, which he dutifully prefaces with qultu to mark his deviation from Abu 1-Fida's text. But his brief report on the conversion is in no way original and would seem to constitute a summary of ad-Dahabi's own summary of this event in Tdrih al-isldm or the like. This item, plus the obit1 3 6 8

2 Masdlik, X V I , 543, 545, 578. Ibid., p . 552. 4 5 Ibid., p p . 613, 616, 618, 620, 623, 654. Ibid., p . 611. Ibid., p p . 652, 658. 7 Duwal, P t . I I , p . 168. Tdrih Ibn al-Wardi, 2 vols., Cairo 1868-69. For biographical details see I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 195-96-

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

67

uary notices on several religious scholars, shows that Ibn al-Wardi's interest in religious matters was not altogether satisfied by the material he found in the work of a military-political leader such as Abu 1-Fida. Nevertheless, his own interest was not strong enough to occasion frequent additions to Abu 1-Fida's text, none in fact for 699/1299-13001, and only one - a short obituary for 705/1305-062. 7. Al-Kutubi Somewhat younger than the other Syrian chroniclers, Muhammad ibn Sakir ibn Ahmad alKutubi (d. 764/1362-63) like them was just as interested in biography as history proper and, in fact, is remembered chiefly as author of Fawdt al-wafaydt, a continuation of Ibn Hallikan's famous biographical dictionary, Wafaydt al-a'ydn. Less well known and as yet unpublished, 'Uyun at-tawdrih is a general Islamic history which begins with the time of Muhammad and ends in 760/1358-59, relating both the events of each year and the lives of noteworthy men who died in it - rulers, scholars, writers, etc. Little is known of the life of al-Kutubi other than that he studied in Aleppo and Damascus, and that after living in extreme poverty he made a fortune by trading in books3. Of the many scattered fragments of his history still extant, I have used only the section covering 688-710/1289-1310-11, enough, however, to link 'Uyun attawdrih with other histories of the time, even though the annals for several years are missing, including that of 699/1299-13004. Table 38 694/1294-95 'Uyun, XII 1. Rulers (Fol. 60 ro.) 2. Uprising of Royal Mamluks (60 ro.) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (60 ro.-6o vo.) 4. News arrives in Damascus (60 vo.) 5. Rain-making ceremonies (60 vo.) 6. Appointments (60 vo.) 7. Damascenes travel to Egypt (60 vo.)

8. Appointments (60 vo.-6i ro.) 9. Accession and conversion of Gazan (61 ro.) 10. Arrival of ruler of Hims (61 ro.) 11. Famine in Egypt (61 ro.) 12. Departure of Syrian pilgrims (61 ro.) 13. Obituaries (61 ro.-65 ro.)

First it should be noted that obituaries occupy more space than events. Second, that the claim has been made that al-Kutubi "for the most part follows Ibn Katir, especially for events, and often quoted a page or more from him." 6 This at least for 694/1294-95 and 705/1305-06 (the annal for 699/1299-1300 is missing in the fragment available to me) is not true; for these years and undoubtedly for others as well, 'Uyun at-tawdrih is a summary of al-Gazari's Hawddit azzamdn with little or no information added by al-Kutubi. Comparison of a single short passage on the uprising of the Royal Mamluks will illustrate both points: al-Kutubi: "FI l-'asiri mina 1-Muharrami qama gama'atun min mamallki 1-Asrafi wa-taru fi 1-laili bi-Misra wal-Qahirati wa-'amilu 'amalan qabihan wa-fatahu Suqa s-Silahi wa-kasaru Sa'adatan." 6 1

2 Ibn Wardi, Tdrih, II, 247-49. Ibid., 253-54. For biographical details see Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani, Durar, III, 451-52. * 'Uyun at-tawdrih, Dar al-Kutub MS, 949 tarlk> v o L X I L 5 ' A B D AL-BADI', L., Fihris al-mahtutdt al-musawwara: at-tdrih, Part II, 189. 6 'Uyun, XII, fol. 60 ro. 3

68

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

al-Gazari: "Fa-fiha fi l-'asiri mina 1-Muharrami qama gama'atun min mamaliki 1-Maliki 1-Asrafi wa-taru fi 1-laili bi-Misra wal-Qahirati wa-'amilu 'amalan qabihan wa-fatahu Suqa s-Silahi bil-Qahirati ba'da harqi Babi Sa'adatin bil-Qahirati." 1 Ibn Katir: "Fa-lamma kana yaumu 'ashura'a nahada gama'atun min mamaliki 1-Asrafi waharaqii hurmata s-sultani wa-aradu 1-huruga 'alaihi wa-ga'u ila Suqi s-Silahi fa-ahadu ma fihi."2 Nothing can be clearer: if al-Kutubi copied from one of these two authors, that author must have been al-Gazari. What, however, of the possibility that al-Gazari copied from al-Kutubi? Such seems highly unlikely since al-Gazari, who died about twenty-five years earlier than alKutubi, would have had to rely on a more boy's account for events which he himself witnessed as a man and since we know from a reference in Fawdt al-wafaydt that al-Kutubi knew and used al-Gazari for his biographical dictionary 3 . If, then, we can assume that 'Uyun at-tawdrih, for this year at least, is a summary of Hawddit az-zamdn, what can be learned of al-Kutubi's historical methodology by comparing the two texts ? By simply glancing at the tabulation of events for each author, one can see that al-Kutubi omitted mention of several events of minor significance such, for example, as Kitbuga's procession through Cairo, the rescheduling of prayers in a Damascus mosque, and the recitation of the dars. And yet he does see fit to include such trivial items as the passing of the ruler of Hims through Damascus and the departure of the Syrian pilgrimage for Egypt. If, then, al-Kutubi's principle of selection was other than arbitrary, it is difficult to discern it. As for the development of those events which he did choose for discussion, al-Kutubi invariably reduces the amount of detail given by al-Gazari. Thus he omits entirely the long anecdote prophesying the accession of a Mongol sultan named Kitbuga and the long and important account of Gazan's conversion to Islam as well as most of the details on high prices and famine in Egypt. From the annal for this year we can deduce little more about al-Kutubi as a historian than his desire to be brief. Table 3g 705/i305-o6 'Uyun, XII 1. Rulers (Fols. 109 vo.-io ro.) 2. Appointment ( n o ro.) 3. Raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan ( n o ro.) 4. Raid on Sis ( n o ro.-io vo.) 5. Confiscation ( n o v o . - n ro.) 6. Appointments ( i n ro.) 7. Creation of new fiefs in Gabal al-Kasrawan ( n o ro.) 8. Two Damascus councils ( i n r o . - n vo.) 9. Prayer for rain in Damascus ( i n vo.-

11. Third council (112 vo.) 12. Ibn Taimiya summoned to Cairo (112 V0.-13 vo.) 13. Cairo council (113 V0.-14 ro.) 14. Appointments (114 ro.-i4 vo.) 15. Copy of decree concerning Ibn Taimiya (114 VO.-15 ro.) 16. Hanbalites interrogated in Damascus (115 ro.-i5 vo.) 17. Obituaries (115 v o . - n 6 ro.)

12 ro.)

10. Strife between Ibn Taimiya and 'ulamd' (112 ro.-i2 vo.) Assuming that al-Gazari's annal for 705/1305-06 is extant in al-Yuninl's Dail, we can conclude that 'Uyun at-tawdrih is heavily indebted to al-Gazari for this year too. The account of the retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan is similar in phraseology to and fuller than al-Birzali's and was, therefore, undoubtedly copied and summarized from al-Gazari. Likewise, alKutubi's version of the abortive invasion of Sis is almost the same as - though less detailed 1

Gawdhir, p. 276.

2 Bidaya, XIII, 338.

« Cf.

SAUVAGET,

Chronique, p. vi.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

69

than - Mufaddal's and Ibn ad-Dawadari's, all of which can be attributed to the same source. To these two episodes al-Kutubi adds no information not already recorded elsewhere. In the main the same is true of his entries for other events of the year with the exception of some information about appointments of religious officials in Damascus, embedded in the discussion of the Ibn Taimiya episode, which is itself a reproduction of the text attributed by an-Nuwairi to al-Gazari. It may well be that al-Kutubi took this information from al-Gazari but that Ibn ad-Dawadari and an-Nuwairi saw fit to omit it as being chiefly of local - Damascus - interest. The 'Uyun at-tawdrih version of the Ibn Taimiya incident is peculiar in that al-Kutubi omits not only the encounter with the Ahmadlya faqirs but also the two councils convoked in Damascus to interrogate Ibn Taimiya as well. Even had the desire for brevity been the motive and it apparently was not since al-Kutubi produces the rest of the narrative at length - surely he could have chosen a more meaningful course than simply chopping off an integral part of the episode! Equally disappointing, al-Kutubi, unlike al-Yunini, an-Nuwairi, and Ibn ad-Dawadari, fails to assign any cause, political or otherwise, to the enmity shown toward Ibn Taimiya. We are left with the conclusion that as a chronicler - at least for the years in question, years in which he was a young man - al-Kutubi added little of importance to the work of the contemporary which he copied. 8. Ibn Katir Ibn Katir, who was born in 701/1301-02 and died in 775/1373-74, which makes him therefore a member of al-Kutubi's generation, was, like practically all the other Syrian historians so far studied, a religious scholar and teacher. A disciple of Ibn Taimiya's, he wrote a universal history entitled al-Biddya wan-nihdya fi t-tdrih, which, according to his own testimony, he based on al-Birzali's history: "This [the annal for 738/I337~38] is the last of what our Saih al-Hafiz 'Alam ad-DIn al-Birzali recorded in his book in which he continued the history of Sihab ad-DIn Abu Sama. I have continued his history to our time, completing my selections from it on Wednesday, 20 Gumada II, 751 [25 August, 1350]"1. But the impression should not be left that Ibn Katir merely compiled passages from al-Birzali and presented them as a chronicle, for as we shall see he did not restrict himself to a single source2. Table 40 694/1294-95 Biddy a, XIII 1. Rulers (337) 2. Royal Mamluk uprising (337-3$) 3. Accession and procession of Kitbuga (338-39) 4. Appointment (339) 5. Rain ceremonies (339) 6. Appointment (339) 7. Dars (330) 8. Appointment (339) 1

9- Scheduling of prayers (339) 10. Appointments (339) 11. Construction of bath completed (339"4o) I2 - ?ttgrimagQ (340) I 3 - Sumptuary laws invoked in Damascus (34°) *4- Famine and high prices (340) x 5- Accession and conversion of Gazan (340) l6 - Obituaries (340-43)

Biddy a, X I V , 183. For biographical information as well as a discussion of I b n Katir's sources see L A O U S T , H., " I b n Katir historien," Arabica, I I (January, 1955), 4 2 - 8 8 ; for I b n K a t i r ' s relationship to I b n Taimiya, see in addition to t h e article j u s t cited, L A O U S T , " L a Biographie d ' I b n T a y m l y y a d'apres I b n K a t h l r , " Bulletin deludes n 6 2 orientates, I X (1942-43)> 5 - 2

70

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

It can be seen by quick comparison of this table with that for al-Muqtafd that Ibn Katir must have used another source, at least for the uprising of the Royal Mamluks, which al-Birzali failed altogether to mention. That the source in question was probably Hawddit az-zamdn grows clear when Ibn Katir soon thereafter, when relating the anecdote concerning the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga to the throne of Egypt, cites al-Gazari by name 1 . Nevertheless, Ibn Katir did not take the easy course of following al-Gazari (whose history, after all, reads like an expanded version of al-Birzali's) exclusively, for he did borrow items from al-Muqtafd not included in Hawddit az-zamdn. For example, the report of the completion of a public bath in Damascus2 and the implementation of laws against dimmisz. Why, out of the great mass of detail compiled for this year by al-Birzali, Ibn Katir should have selected such items is altogether another matter. It is, in fact, difficult to define Ibn Katir's principle of selection and the relative importance he assigns to events, since such momentous occurrences as the famine in Egypt and the conversion of the Ilhan to Islam are given only a line or two of space. Like other historians writing in Syria, Ibn Katir records many items of chiefly local interest and like them - religious scholars all - displays a professional's interest in shop talk - news of appointments to posts in the religious institution and the like. What is interesting, however, is that Ibn Katir, while basing his history on al-Birzali's, fills in with information culled from al-Gazari and at times even adds comments which most probably are his own since they are to be found in no other contemporary source. Ibn Katir is, for example, the only historian to record a kind, much less complimentary, word about Kitbuga, whose accession some historians used as an occasion to inveigh against him4. Table 41 699/1299-1300 Biddya, XIV 1. Rulers (6) 2. Al-Malik an-Nasir's arrival in Damascus (6) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (6) 4. Casualties (6-7) 5. Tumult in Damascus (7) 6. Notables flee (7) 7. Prison burned (7) 8. Delegation to Gazan (7) 9. Arrival of Mongols (7) 10. Reading of amnesty decree (7) 11. Negotiations with Argawas (7-8) 12. Appointment of Qibgaq (8) 13. Attack on as-Salihiya (8) 14. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (8) 15. Levies (8) 16. Siege of citadel (8) 17. Mongol evacuation (9) 18. Proclamations (10) 1 3 4

19. Prices (10) 20. Wine profits (10) 21. Citadel negotiations (10) 22. Ibn Taimiya meets Bulay (10) 23. Departure of remaining Mongols (10-11) 24. Departure of defectors (11) 25. Egyptian army marches (11) 26. Wineries destroyed (11) 27. Dars 28. Armies enter Damascus (11-12) 29. Appointments (12) 30. Egyptian army returns to Egypt (12) 31. Punishment of collaborators (12) 32. Dars (12) 33. Retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (12) 34. Civil defense measures (12) 35. Appointment (13) 36. Obituaries (13-14)

2 Biddya, X I I I , 339. I b n Katir, Biddya, X I I I , 339~4; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I, fol. 226 ro. I b n Katir, Bidaya, X I I I , 340; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I, fol. 229 vo. Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, I X , fol. 188 vo., and I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz MS, V I I I , 312.

CONTEMPORARY SYRIAN HISTORIANS

71

By and large Ibn Katir follows al-Birzali for this year too, most noticeably in omitting the Oirat insurrection and all the Mongol decrees. Otherwise, he edits al-Birzali's account by summarization and omission, in one instance combining two of al-Birzali's entries in a misleading fashion1. But in addition he presents a great deal of information which, though very similar to that in al-Gazari, differs enough to make its provenance obscure. Such, for example, is the information on the burning of a prison gate by a group of escapees; other passages relate to the role of Ibn Taimiya in talks with Gazan and in negotiations with Argawas2. None of these data are found elsewhere, either in al-Yunini, al-Birzali, or ad-Dahabi. Furthermore, Ibn Katir is the only author studied so far to try to exonerate the Mongols, recently converted to Islam, for atrocities committed in the environs of Damascus by singling out Christian elements of the Mongol army, i. e., Georgians and Armenians: "Sara'ati t-Tataru wa-sahibu Sisa fi nahbi s-Salihiyati. . . wa-kana hada min gihati 1-Kurgi wal-Armani mina n-Nasara lladlna hum ma'a t-Tatari . . ." 3 While it is true that Baibars al-Mansuri charges the Armenians with raiding as-Salihiya4, that al-'Umari and ad-Dahabi accuse them, as "Unbelievers," with setting fires5, and that adDahabi extends the accusation to cover the Georgians6, only Ibn Katir identifies the culprits specifically as Christians. Aside from this, Ibn Katir's annal represents a better arranged, more readable version of al-Birzali's, even though not quite so detailed. Table 42 705/i305-o6 Biddya, XIV 1. Rulers (35) 2. Mongols ambush Aleppan army (35) 3. Appointment (35) 4. Retaliatory raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan (35)

5. Appointments (35) 6. Ibn Taimiya confronts Ahmadlya faqirs (36)

7. Appointments (36) 8. Rain-making ceremony (36) 9. First two councils for interrogating Ibn Taimiya (36-37)

10. Motives for enmity toward Ibn Taimiya (37)

11. Strife between Ibn Taimiya and other 'ulamd' (37) 12. Third council (37) 13. Ibn Taimiya summoned to Cairo (37-38) 14. Cairo council (38) 15. Letters and decrees sent to Damascus (38) 16. Persecution of Hanbalites (38) 17. Sale of candlesticks in Medina (38) 18. Obituaries (39-40)

The same general pattern holds true for this year as for the two preceding years, until, at least, the narration of the trials of Ibn Taimiya: Ibn Katir adheres closely to al-Muqtafd, only infrequently deviating from that text. The most obvious and revealing deviation for this year is the extraordinary role he assigns to Ibn Taimiya in the attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan. AlBirzali states merely that in the beginning of Muharram (July/August), the viceroy of Syria 1

H e combines al-Birzali's notices of mid-Rabl' I I , Muqtafd, I I , fol. 7 ro., and 2 G u m a d a I I , Muqtafd, I I , fol. 11 ro., under the heading of mid-Rabl' I I , I b n Katir, Biddya, XIV, 8. 2 Although I b n K a t i r cites no sources for this information in the annal for this year, he later discloses his informant to be an oral informant. See the biography of Abu 'Abd Allah M u h a m m a d al-BalisI, in the obituaries for 718/1318-19: Biddya, X I V , 89. For this point I am indebted to H A S A N Q. M U R A D , Mihan of Ibn Taimiya: A Narrative Account Based on a Comparative Analysis of Sources (unpublished Master's thesis, 3 McGill University I n s t i t u t e of Islamic Studies, 1968), p . 19. Biddya, XIV, 8. 4 5 Zubda, I X , fol. 208 ro. Masdlik, X V I , 670; Duwal al-isldm, II, 154. 6 Duwal al-isldm, P t . I I , p . 154; Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 129 vo. 6 Little

72

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

launched an attack with the remaining contingents of the Damascus army and that "before the viceroy's departure, contingent after contingent of the army had marched out in Du 1-higga [June/July] of the previous year." 1 This, Ibn Katir converts into the claim that Ibn Taimiya and a contingent of the army had marched out before the departure of the viceroy and had passed in review before him: "Wa-qad kana taqaddama baina yadaihi ta'ifatun mina 1-gaisi ma'a bni Taimiyati fi tani 1-Muharrami [25 July, 1305V 2 This, in spite of the fact that alBirzali states explicitly that it was the viceroy who departed on the second of Muharram. There is no doubt, however, that Ibn Taimiya did participate in the expedition, for an-Nuwairi, in the fullest, most comprehensive contemporary account of the expedition, mentions that Ibn Taimiya had left with a Mamluk amir in Du 1-higga of 704 to negotiate a settlement with the mountain insurgents, all to no avail3. But Ibn Katir insists on giving Ibn Taimiya a full share in the victory over the rebels, claiming, in fact, that his presence during the raid earned him the envy of his enemies, which implies by what follows shortly thereafter that this was a factor in his troubles with the government. Reporting on the three councils held to interrogate Ibn Taimiya which resulted in his imprisonment, Ibn Katir again follows al-Birzali but does introduce new data - a great deal in fact - some of which he took from a source ignored by earlier Syrian historians: "I have seen," says Ibn Katir, "some statements of Saih Ibn Taimiya on the particulars of the arguments which took place in these three councils." 4 To this source we can in all probability attribute mention of a candlelight procession following the second council5. But the provenance of other, more important information is problematical since some of it - missing in al-Birzali - is found in an-Nuwairi (who borrowed it from al-Gazari). For example, in relating the summoning of Ibn Taimiya to Egypt, Ibn Katir states that the viceroy advised Ibn Taimiya to disobey the order6. There is no mention of this in al-Muqtafd, but al-Yunini, anNuwairi, and Ibn ad-Dawadari - i. e., al-Gazari - make it clear that the viceroy wanted to intervene for Ibn Taimiya after the arrival of the first letter from Egypt but desisted and ordered him to leave when a second, more urgent, letter arrived 7 . Therefore, it is apparent that Ibn Katir must have had access to a source which the other historians did not use. Another unique passage in al-Biddya wan-nihdya may reflect Ibn Katir's admiration for his teacher in the form of a generous estimate of Ibn Taimiya's influence and popularity in Damascus. That Ibn Taimiya did enjoy a favorable position with the viceroy of Syria has just been indicated, and al-Yunini underlines this when he records the charge made by Ibn Taimiya's enemies that he had "corrupted the minds of many, including the viceroy of Syria and most of the Syrian amirs." 8 Ibn Katir goes further and claims that Ibn Taimiya "was envied by a group of legists because of his precedence with the officials of the state, his uniqueness in commanding the good and prohibiting the bad, the people's obedience to him and love for him, the great number of his followers, his support of truth, his knowledge, and his deeds." 9 Troubling though such statements may be in the absence of Ibn Katir's authority for making them, they must be taken into account and analyzed carefully for accuracy in any attempt to judge the political aspects of Ibn Taimiya's interrogation and incarceration. Indeed, fuller study than that undertaken here of the deviations from the text of al-Birzali's Muqtafd might well illuminate Ibn 1

2 Muqtafd, I I , fol. 97 vo. Biddya, X I V , 35. 3 mhdya, X X X , 28. 4 5 6 Biddya, X I V . 37. Ibid. Ibid., p p . 37-38. 7 Al-Birzali, Muqtafd, II, fols. 98 ro. and 99 ro.; al-Yunlnl, Dail, MS A, P t . IV, fol. 47 v o . ; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X X , 34; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 136-37. 8 Al-Yunlnl, Dail, MS A, P t . IV. fol. 50 ro., and I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 144. 9 Biddya, X I V , 37. " W a - k a n a lis-saihi Taqiyi d-DIni mina 1-fuqaha'i g a m a ' a t u n y a h s u d u n a h u lit a q a d d u m i h l 'inda d-daulati wa-nfiradihl bil-amri bil-ma'rufi wan-nahyi 'ani 1-munkari w a - t a ' a t i n-nasi lahu w a - m a h a b b a t i h i m lahu wa-katrati atba'ihl wa-qiyamihi fi 1-haqqi wa-'ilmihi wa-'amalihl."

LATER HISTORIANS

73

Katir's methods and value as a historian 1 . All that can be said on the basis of the few additions and divergences noted here is that bias may have influenced his judgment. And since these very divergences constitute Ibn Katir's originality, it is partly on them that his reputation as a historian must stand.

C. L a t e r H i s t o r i a n s 1. Ibn al-Furdt With Nasir ad-DIn ibn 'Abd ar-Rahim ibn 'AH ibn al-Furat al-Misri al-Hanafi (d. 807/140405), the problem of originality loses some of its urgency since this is the first historian studied whose life falls almost wholly outside al-Malik an-Nasir's reign. His Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk, though recognized as one of the most important chronicles of the Bahri period2, need not detain us long since so little of it remains for the years in question3 and since the history has been analyzed so thoroughly from the standpoint of sources and methodology by ASHTOR. Nevertheless, close examination of the one year for which an annal is extant does afford additional insight into Ibn al-Furat's historical methods. Table 43 694/1294-95 Tdrih ad-duwal 1. Accession and conversion of Gazan (191) 2. Royal Mamluk uprising (191-92) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (192-93) 4. His procession (193) 5. Appointments (193-94) 6. News sent to Damascus (194) 7. Letter commemorating Kitbuga's accession (194-95) 8. Appointments (195-96)

9. Rain-making ceremony (196) 10. Drought in Syria, famine in Egypt (19697) 11. Appointments (197) 12. Death of ruler of Yemen (197-98) 13. Appointments (198) 14. Confiscation and arrest (198-99) 15. Famine and high prices (199-200) 16. Obituaries (200-202)

In his analysis of the sources for Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk Ashtor concludes that Ibn alFurat relies heavily on an-Nuwairi, without citing him by name, but that this reliance consists in "following him . . . mainly in the choice of sources," many of whom he does cite and among whom are several familiar names: Abu 1-Fida, Baibars al-Mansuri, Qutb ad-DIn al-Yunini, and al-Gazari4. Such is not the case, however, for the annal for 694/1294-95, in which Ibn alFurat follows an-Nuwairi's version of al-Gazari's narrative as well as Hawddit az-zamdn itself. In fact, Ibn al-Furat follows an-Nuwairi for all events recorded in Nihdyat al-arab, including those which took place in Syria and which were recorded at first hand by al-Gazari. The only data borrowed from al-Gazari are those which an-Nuwairi omits. One example will suffice: the anecdote foretelling the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga to the sultanate of Egypt, original

1

Such a study has been undertaken by MURAD in his Mihan, pp. 16-25, to whom I am indebted for considerable modification in my original view of Ibn Katir. MURAD'S study is especially valuable for his correlation of material from the annals with that from biographies of Ibn Taimiya. 2 Qpp A S H T O R 3

Studies

X). I4-.

Three volumes have been edited by Q. ZURAYQ and N. 'Izz AD-DIN, Tdrih Ibn al-Furdt, Beirut 1936-42, of 4 which I refer only to volume eight, covering the years 683-96/1284-96-97. ASHTOR, Studies, pp. 22-23.

74

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

with al-Gazari. An-Nuwairi produces substantially the same story with some deletions and changes in wording, not enough, however, to disguise his indebtedness to al-Gazari and just enough to reveal Ibn al-Furat's indebtedness to him, for it is an-Nuwairi's version which Ibn al-Furat copied. The same pattern holds true for other Syrian items; faced with a choice of using either an-Nuwairi or an-Nuwairi's source - al-Gazari - Ibn al-Furat invariably chooses the former. It would seem, therefore, that Ibn al-Furat's reliance on an-Nuwairi is greater than ASHTOR indicates. And yet to leave the impression that Ibn al-Furat uses his sources mechanically or indiscriminately would be misleading, because at times his chronicle evinces a conscious attempt to give a comprehensive, considered view of an event by combining data from various authors. His treatment of the famine in Egypt is a case in point. It is worthy of notice first of all that he divides his discussion into two sections, one part being attached to the mention of drought in Syria and the other standing as an independent analysis of famine in Egypt. Both parts show borrowing from an-Nuwairi. The first, which attributes the famine to a low Nile and al-Malik al-Asraf's prodigality, comes, with the addition of a figure or two, from an-Nuwairi's annal for 695/1295-961. The second is a composite from at least three sources which begins with a short statement of conditions in Egypt from an-Nuwairi's annal for 694/1294-952, supplemented by al-Gazari's figures for those who died of starvation 3 , and concludes with further facts and figures from an author cited only as "a historian" 4 , but readily identifiable from collation of the passage with Zubdat al-fikra as Baibars al-Mansuri5. Since we can establish that Ibn al-Furat did use three sources that we have already studied, it is easy now to observe his technique in selecting information from each. Almost all the events discussed in Nihdyat alarab are discussed in Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk; the same holds true with regard to Zubdat al-fikra with the exception of Baibars al-Mansuri's detailed account of internecine Mongol strife; missing from Ibn al-Furat's history are most of the incidents in Hawddit az-zamdn of purely Syrian ecclesiastical interest, such as the scheduling of prayers, the departure of the pilgrims, the dars recitations. The most striking deviation from these three sources is Ibn alFurat's summary version of Gazan's conversion to Islam, narrated in detail by al-Gazari but barely mentioned by Ibn al-Furat, who, had he contemplated a truly Islamic history of nations and kings, would surely have given a fuller account of an event so auspicious for Islam. Ibn al-Furat's one major addition to these sources, recorded by no other historian, is a long letter sent to provincial rulers, commemorating Kitbuga's accession to the throne; it is interesting as an official document even though it contains more rhetoric than significant content. Further insight might be gained by comparing the number and type of obituary notices recorded by these four historians. Ibn al-Furat follows what we have seen to be the Syrian tradition of alloting a special space for obituaries at the end of each annal but violates it by inserting an obituary for the ruler of Yemen in the annal itself, presumably because his death constituted an important political event; the same reasoning undoubtedly explains why this is the only personage whose death is recorded by all four historians. Baibars al-Mansuri writes only a few lines, content with the facts of succession6; al-Gazari composes a long notice listing the virtues of the ruler with considerable space devoted to naming the predecessors and progeny of the deceased7. Parts of this an-Nuwairi apparently borrowed and summarized, adding some details on the struggle for succession between two sons8. Ibn al-Furat, true to form when confronted with two sources for an event, chooses without acknowledgement that of an-Nuwairi> whose account he reproduces practically in its entirety 9 and repeats the opening passage in the 1 4 7

Nihdya, X X I X , 84. Ibn al-Furat, Tdrih, VIII, 199. Gawdhir, pp. 290-92.

2

8 Ibid., p. 82. Gawdhir, p. 289. 5 6 Zubda, IX, fol. 189 ro. Ibid., fol. 191 ro. 8 9 Nihdya, X X I X , 83. Tdrih, VIII, 197-98.

LATER HISTORIANS

75

obituary section1. Otherwise, Ibn al-Furat records four other obituaries as opposed to two by an-Nuwairi, three by Baibars al-Mansuri, and some eighteen for al-Gazari. Two of these Ibn al-Furat borrowed from al-Gazari and two from another, unidentified source. Collation of these four sources for both events and obituaries indicates that Ibn al-Furat was interested mainly in recording significant political and economic events, changes within the ruling structure, and official documents. Though reliable for such things concerning Egypt and Syria, he slips for foreign affairs, as comparison of the space given to the conversion of the Ilhan and the death of the ruler of Yemen attests. It is not unlikely that this faulty sense of proportion can be attributed to Ibn al-Furat's penchant for following an-Nuwairi's encyclopedia, in which certain aspects of foreign affairs are kept separate from the section on Mamluk history. It is at any rate as an adaptation of this section of Nihdyat al-arab, with extensive additions from other sources, that Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk can most aptly be described. 2. Ibn Haldun In spite of the great expectations raised by Ibn Haldun (d. 808/1405-06) in his Muqaddima for a new approach in Muslim historiography, his own chronicle, Kitdb al-'Ibar2 fails to fulfill his standards, and we find him plodding in the same path worn by his predecessors. The information on the three years in question is obviously derived from the by-now standard sources, though abbreviated to fit the scope of Kitdb al-'Ibar. For the purposes of analysis we shall have to extract the material given below in tabular form since Ibn Haldun did not follow the annalistic format: Table 44 694/1294-95 'Ibar, V 1. Uprising of Royal Mamluks (407) 2. Freeing of an amir (407) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (407-08)

4- Appointments (408) 5- Arrest of an amir (408)

From the treatment of Kitbuga's accession to the throne, it can be deduced that Ibn Haldun relied heavily on an-Nuwairi for this annal: with only one possible exception, all the material recorded in al-'Ibar for this year can be found in Nihdyat al-arab. In this respect, it is similar to Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk, but Ibn Haldun has not been nearly so faithful to an-Nuwairi's text in his attempt to summarize, rather than reproduce it. It is possible, of course, that Ibn Haldun used an-Nuwairi at second-hand, conceivably through Ibn al-Furat, but such is unlikely since a page or two later he cites an-Nuwairi by name 3 . Table 45 699/1299-1300 'Ibar, V 1. Oirat revolt (413) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (413) 3. Casualties (413)

1

Ibid., p . 202.

4- Gazan raids Hims (413) 5- Delegation to Gazan (413) 6 - Reading of amnesty (413)

, „

,

1

/- •

Q,

«

"Kitab al-'Ibar wa-diwan al-mubtada' wal-habar fi ayyam al-'Arab wal-Barbar, 7 vols.; Cairo 1867-68. Ibid., V, 409.

76

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

7. Negotiations with Argawas (413-14) 8. Appointment of Qibgaq (414) 9. Intercession of Ibn Taimiya (414) 10. Siege of citadel (414) 11. Intercession of Ibn Taimiya with Bulay (414)

I2

- Raids in S^ria ^ ^ 13- Mamluk remobilization (414) *4- Defectors' return to obedience (414-15) 15- Appointments (414) 16. Retaliatory measures (415)

Here it is also likely that Ibn Haldun relies heavily on Nihdyat al-arab as his source, for his version is closer linguistically to it than to the Syrian source which an-Nuwairi himself uses, particularly in the retaliatory measures taken against collaborators with the Mongols and against the inhabitants of Gabal al-Kasrawan 1 . But the clearest indication for this indebtedness is found in the listing of the officials who accompanied Gazan when he left Damascus, which to my knowledge is found in none of the extant contemporary Syrian sources2. And yet Ibn Haldun must have had recourse to these latter, too, - al-Gazari or al-Yunini in particular, - for some details not to be found elsewhere3. It is immaterial, however, whether Ibn Haldun relied more on an-Nuwairi or al-Yunlnl, since most of the material which he selected is to be found in both. Of greater interest is the nature of the data which he saw fit to include in his history. In so summary an account he obviously would not include the long texts of Gazan's decrees; also missing is a detailed account of the battle as well as the Mongol atrocities committed in the city. Instead Ibn Haldun confines himself to highlights, now and then recording a stray detail which few other historians deemed significant enough to preserve in their extended narratives. Clearly Ibn Haldun gave no careful consideration to organizing and explaining the events of this year but perfunctorily summarized one or two earlier chronicles; his version has no claim whatsoever to distinction and is unimportant as a source for this period. He records nothing for 705/ 1305-06. 3. Al-Maqrizi There is no need to dwell on the biography of the most famous of medieval Egyptian historians. Suffice it to say that al-MaqrizI, (d. 845/1441-42), after long service in the religious institution in Egypt and Syria as scribe, qddi, imam, teacher, muhtasib, and administrator of waqfs, withdrew to devote himself to a history of Islamic Egypt which was to consist of geographical, historical, and biographical sections4. The grand scope of that work, its accessibility both in Arabic and translated versions, the praise it has received, have combined to secure alMaqrizi the hackneyed but apt title of dean of Egyptian historians. Focusing here on such a small segment of his work - three years of his history of the Ayyubid and Mamluk rulers of Egypt - Kitdb as-Suluk li-ma'rifat duwal al-muluk5 - and submitting it to such detailed scrutiny will almost of necessity reduce al-Maqrizi's stature. And yet, no matter how much acclaim may be due him for the grandeur of the task he set himself and for the truly remarkable portion of it accomplished, he should also be judged for particulars and compared with his colleagues. 1

See Ibn Haldun, 'Ibar, V, 415; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 119; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fols. 224 VO.-25 ro.; Ad-Dahabi, Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 132 ro. 2 Ibn Haldun, 'Ibar, V. 414; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 116. 3 E. g., the name of the saih aZ-iuyuh with whom Ibn Taimiya intervened. Cf. Ibn Haldun, 'Ibar, V, 414; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 213 vo. 4 For biographical details see BROCKELMANN, C, "Al-MaqrizI," EI, III, 175-76; ZIYADA, M. M., al-Mu'arrihun fi Misr fi l-qarn al-hamis 'asara al-milddi, 2d ed., pp. 6-17. 5 Two volumes published so far (through 755/1354) by M. M. ZIYADA, Cairo 1934-58, parts have been translated by M. QUATREMERE, Histoire des sultans mamlouks de VEgypte, icrite en arabe par Taki-eddinAhmed-Makrizi, 2 vols.; Paris 1837-45.

LATER HISTORIANS

yy

Without such comparison and analysis one is likely to accept uncritically such statements as the following: "Indisputably . . . as-Suluk deserves first rank among the histories of its time . . Z'1 "Apart from the defect of this bias [against the sultan Baibars], Maqrizi's narrative [on Baibars] is the best of aU accounts written by previous historians as well as those who came after him. Pre-Maqrlzian historical writings are almost all very painful reading. The literary value of most of them is not very great . . . and the sequence is often lost. But in Maqrizi we find a skillful and orderly writer." 2 At any rate, against such a background we shall examine al-Maqrizi's annals. Table 46 694/1294-95 Suluk, I 1. Accession and conversion of Gazan (805) 2. Royal Mamluk uprising (805-06) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (806-07) 4. News of accession sent to Syria (807-08) 5. Appointments (808) 6. Rain-making ceremonies (808) 7. Famine (808-09)

8. Appointments (809) 9. News of death of ruler of Yemen (809) 10. Appointments (809) 11. Arrest of an amir (810) 12. Famine and high prices continued (810) 13. Currency (810) 14. Obituaries (810-11)

Comparison of this table with the corresponding one for Ibn al-Furat's annal reveals a striking resemblance between the two annals which closer analysis confirms. The truth of the matter is that al-MaqrizI bases practically the entire annal on Ibn al-Furat's, paraphrasing many passages, deleting the long document commemorating Kitbuga's accession, adding only a few scraps of information on events and several obituaries. To be more precise, al-MaqrizI adds exactly five facts which cannot be found in Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk or for that matter in any other earlier source. One, he places the punishments meted out to the Mamluk rebels at the gate of the citadel and, two, makes the strange claim, found nowhere else, that many rebels were executed by drowning: al-MaqrizI: "Fa-duribat riqabu ba'dihim bi-babi 1-qal'ati wa-quti'at aid! gama'atin wa-arguluhum wa-guriqa katirun minhum wa-fihim man ukhila." 3 Ibn al-Furat: "Wa-duribat riqabu ba'dihim baina yadaihi wa-quti'a aid! ba'dihim wa-arguluhum wa-ukhila ba'duhum." 4 Three, al-Maqrizi's figure for the height of the Nile must have come from a source unavailable to us since it contradicts the figures mentioned in other chronicles5. Four and five, an anecdote interpreted as a bad omen for the sultanate of Kitbuga 6 and a single sentence recording the inflated value of the dirham 7 also indicate the existence of an earlier chronicle not known to us and not used by other Egyptian and Syrian historians. The new obituaries could have been taken from biographical dictionaries. The point to be emphasized, however, is that for this year as-Suluk is nothing more than a paraphrase of Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk, a paraphrase, moreover, which omits the single original contribution made by Ibn al-Furat. Unfortunately the extent of al-Maqrizi's borrowing from Ibn al-Furat for other years cannot be determined within the framework of this study inasmuch as Ibn al-Furat's annals for 699/1299-1300 and 705/ 1

p. I, 5 Al-MaqrizI, Suluk, I, MS, VIII, 313, as sixteen 7 Ibid., p. 810. 2

ZIYADA, Suluk, I, SADEQUE, Baybars

waw. 3 4 p. 23. Suluk, I, 806. Tdrih ad-duwal, VIII, 192. 810, gives the figure as sixteen cubits and seventeen isba'; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz 8 cubits; Ibn al-Furat, Tdrih, VIII, 199, less than sixteen. Suluk, I, 807.

y8

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

1305-06 are not extant. A somewhat cursory check of the annal for 684/1284-85 does reveal the same close correspondence, but coUation of the texts for 696/1296-97 shows that though al-MaqrizI follows Ibn al-Furat for the organization of events and again paraphrases many of them, he fills in with details from another source. Be that as it may, al-Maqrizi's heavy indebtedness to Ibn al-Furat should be acknowledged and understood when assessing the value of asSuluk as a history of the mid-Bahri period. Table 4J 699/1299-1300 Suluk, I 1. Oirat insurrection (882-85) 2. Flood (885) 3. Arrival of army in Damascus (885-86) 4. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (886-88) 5. Retreat of Mamluk forces (888) 6. List of Mamluk casualties (888) 7. Capture of Hims (888-89) 8. Tumult in Damascus (889) 9. Delegation to Gazan (889) 10. Arrival of Mongols (890) 11. Reading of amnesty decree (890) 12. Negotiations with Argawas (890-91) 13. Appointment of Qibgaq (891) 14. Attack on as-Salihlya (891-92) 15. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (892) 16. Siege of citadel (892-93) 17. Prices (893)

18. Poem (894) 19- Total loot (894) 20. Appointments (894) 21. Gazan's departure (895) 22. Destruction (895) 23. Proclamations (895-96) 2 4- R a i d s i n s Y r i a ( 8 9 6 ) 25. Departure of Mongols (896) 26. Remobilization in Egypt (896-900) 27. Return of Mamluk army to Syria (900901) 28. Appointments (901) 29. Punishment of collaborators (902) 30. Raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (902-03) 31. Civil defense (903) 32. Poetry (903-04) 33. Obituaries (904-06)

From this annal emerges a more recognizable al-MaqrizI, who fulfills the expectations raised by his admirers, for in it we find new material, seen, that is, in no other source studied yet, and cogent presentation of facts which before seemed puzzling because they were expressed so concisely. Moreover, al-MaqrizI changes the balance of emphasis from the Mongol occupation of Damascus to the battle, its preliminaries and its aftermath, namely, to the Oirat insurrection, the battle itself, remobilization in Egypt, and the retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan. In other words al-MaqrizI follows Baibars al-Mansuri's, not al-Gazari's approach. What is more, his descriptions are so detailed and precise that they obviously represent eyewitness accounts, with the implication that al-MaqrizI had access to and used a history fuller and more informative in many ways than any of the chronicles which have survived. The very uniqueness of the information in this annal makes it unlikely that al-MaqrizI copied it from Ibn al-Furat whose main sources, we have seen, are an-Nuwairi and al-Gazari. Whatever the case may be, the new material makes as-Suluk an informative complement to Hawddit az-zamdn, for whereas al-Gazari carefully records the effects of the Mongol invasion on Syrian civil life, al-Maqrizi, while not ignoring this, shows more interest in the Egyptian and the military aspects of this campaign. But in contrasting the two, the impression should not be left that al-Maqrizi was ignorant of the information provided by al-Gazari and his copiers, since he does include data such as the levies and civil defense measures1, for example, which betray indebtedness, either 1

Ibid., I, 894, 903.

LATER HISTORIANS

79

direct or indirect, to Hawddit az-zamdn. And yet al-Maqrizi, or his source, had no compunction about making claims which contradict statements of other historians. Gazan, he charges, was drunk when Ibn Taimiya tried to meet him1, while other historians state merely that he had an aching foot and was apprehensive; even worse, al-Maqrizi completely ignores the logical explanation that Gazan's ministers turned Ibn Taimiya away to avoid unpleasant repercussions2. Elsewhere al-Maqrizi elaborates on the charge that the plunder of as-Salihiya was due to the Armenians in the Mongol armies 3 by asserting that the ruler of Armenia wanted to requite the Mamluks' pillage of his country by laying waste Damascus but was diverted to as-Salihiya by Qibgaq, the Mamluk defector to the Mongols4. New too are repeated references to the weakness and treachery of the Burgi amirs, leaving the impression that either al-Maqrizi or his source held a bias against the Burgi regiment5. Finally, with a certain credulity which is not uncharacteristic, al-Maqrizi records that at the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar the Muslim army consisted of 20,000 horsemen against 100,000 Mongols6, even though this latter figure ad-Dahabi had questioned much earlier as being too high7. But most of the new information which appears in as-Suluk is uncontroversial enough, factual enough, to have the ring of truth, and of the sources examined so far as-Suluk is one of the two most important for this year. Table 48 7°5/i305~o6 Suluk, II 1. Appointment (14) 2. Attack on Gabal al-Kasrawan (14-15) 3. Return of al-Gasnakir from al-Higaz (15) 4. Gifts sent to King of Magrib (15) 5. Appointments (15-16) 6. Ibn Taimiya confronts the Ahmadlya (16) 7. Enfeoffment of Gabal al-Kasrawan (16) 8. Raid on Sis (16-17)

9. Freeing of an amir (17) 10. Messengers from Georgia (17) 11. Debasement of currency (17) 12. Ibn Taimiya affair (17-18) 13. Retirement of an amir (18-20) 14. Gift from ruler of Yemen (20-1) 15. Rain-making in Damascus (21) 16. Obituaries (21-2)

One annal based on an earlier chronicle; a second packed with new information; and now a third full of tantalizing echoes of other sources. From the point of view of organization, alMaqrizi's annal for this year seems indebted to al-Birzali or even to al-Kutubi in that all three begin with the appointment of the same official, followed immediately by the retaliatory raid on Gabal al-Kasrawan, from which is detached the awarding of fiefs in that area to newly invested amirs. Still another similarity is found in the Ibn Taimiya episode, for both authors separate the confrontation with the Ahmadlya faqirs from the interrogatory councils. Such organization contrasts with an-Nuwairi's, who combines the enfeoffment with the raid and the confrontation with the councils8 and with al-Yuninl's, who breaks up the excursion against the Gabal into three parts 9 . Even if al-Maqrizi does start out following al-Birzali's scheme, he obviously abandons it when he adds items not mentioned in al-Muqtafd, many of which bear a close resemblance to those found in Zubdat al-fikra and Nihdyat al-arab, i. e., the sending and receiving of envoys and gifts, the freeing of one amir and the retirement of another - all of which are also mentioned by both Baibars al-Mansuri and an-Nuwairi - and the debasement 1 2 3 6 9

Ibid., p. 892. Al-MaqrizI, Suluk, I, 892; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 213 vo.; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 115. 4 5 See supra, p. 71. Suluk, I, 892. Suluk, I, 883, 886, 888. 7 8 Ibid., p. 886. Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 124 ro. Nihdya, XXX, 28-34. Dail, MS A, Pt. IV ; fols. 44 vo., 45 ro.~45 vo., 45 vo.

80

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

of Egyptian currency, noted only by the former1. Furthermore, since certain interpretations of the Ibn Taimiya episode concerning the role of the qddi Ibn 'Adlan 2 found heretofore only in Nihdyat al-arab,3 occur also in as-Suluk, some indebtedness to an-Nuwairi can be assumed. And yet there is no avoiding the conclusion that al-Maqrizi used still another source unknown so far to us and that his treatment of familiar material is original enough most of the time to obscure his source. To each item al-Maqrizi adds information found in no other source. He is, for example, the only one to state that drums were among the gifts sent to the king of the Magrib4, that the Mongols captured a site in Armenia5, that the Ahmadlya. faqirs were forced to remove not just neck rings but shoulder chains and hand bracelets as well6. His ability to organize and summarize complex material can be seen from his handling of the Ibn Taimiya episode, to which he devotes only one (printed) page. From the long intricate account of an-Nuwairi, alMaqrizi has obviously striven to extract the most meaningful features and to arrange them in an intelligible sequence. Meaningful and intelligible as the resultant precis may be, it is not altogether accurate, most noticeably when he compresses the three Damascus councils into one, leaving the impression that Ibn Taimiya's profession of Safi'i beliefs occurred after the third rather than the second council7. In addition, the pitfalls inherent in following only one source are illustrated by the somewhat misleading prominence assigned in the affair to Ibn 'Adlan and Ibn Mahluf; it is misleading, however, only in the sense that the role attributed by al-Birzali and al-Yunlnl to al-Manbigi is ignored8. Nevertheless, the general impression left by alMaqrizi, namely, that the source of Ibn Taimiya's troubles lay in the enmity of certain Cairo religious notables, is sound. Probably the most serious charge that can be laid against al-Maqrizi is that he gives an unbalanced view of the events of the year by devoting so much space to the enforced retirement of an aged amir, more space, in fact, than that assigned either to the Ibn Taimiya episode or to the campaign in Sis. And here of all places he decides to record an official document9, undoubtedly copied from Ibn al-Furat, after having omitted in 699/1299-1300 all five of Gazan's decrees. All that can be said is that al-Maqrizi obviously took great interest in the mechanics of the Mamluk feudal system and that although the emphasis given that interest seems inappropriate within the framework of the annal it results in the recording of valuable information which otherwise would have been lost. It is correct, then, because of such data to praise as-Suluk as one of the most valuable sources for the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir, but to think al-Maqrizi lacking in the foibles of ordinary Muslim historians working within the annalistic tradition would be an error. 4. Al-'Aini Contemporary with al-Maqrizi, his rival, in fact, and successor as muhtasib, Abu Muhammad Mahmud ibn Ahmad ibn Musa Badr ad-DIn al-'Aini (d. 855/1451), had a similar career as religious scholar and teacher, official in the religious institution, and historian; however, in addition al-'Aini was an accomplished courtier10. That al-'Aini's great universal chronicle 'Iqd al-gumdn fi tdrih ahl az-zamdn11 should remain unpublished even though as a rich source for the Bahri period it rivals and often surpasses as-Suluk, surpasses, indeed, all other sources, published or 1

2 Cf. the appropriate tables for 705/1305-06. See supra, p p . 30-31, note 3. 4 5 X X X , 29-33. Suluk, I I , 15. Ibid., p . 16. « Ibid. 7 Ibid., p . 18. 8 For I b n 'Adlan and I b n Mahluf, see supra, p p . 30-31, note 3 ; for al-Manbigl, see supra, p . 31, note 4; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I I , fol. 97 vo.; al-Yunini, Dail, MS A, P t . IV, fols. 50 ro.~5o vo. 9 Suluk, I I , 20. 10 For biographical details see MARCAIS, W., "Al-'Ayni," EI2, I, 7 9 0 - 9 1 ; Z I Y A D A , Mu'arrihun, p p . 20-22. 11 'Iqd al-gumdn, Dar a l - K u t u b MS, 1584 ma'drif 'amma, 69 vols. 8

LATER HISTORIANS

8l

not, in the amount of original material which it contains, is indicative of the unfortunate state of Mamluk studies at the present time. Its historical and historiographical value is enhanced by al-'Aim's frequent practice of naming his sources and, unlike al-Maqrizi, quoting rather than paraphrasing them, which enables us to identify and to verify unsubstantiated statements about the Bahri period which appear in other Burgi histories. Table 49 694/1294-95 'Iqd, LVII 1. Rulers (100-101) 2. Royal Mamluk uprising (101-03) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (103-06) 4. Appointments (106) 5. Expedition to Sis (106) 6. Arrest of an amir (106) 7. Accession of Kitbuga cont. (106-07) 8. Appointments (107)

9. Famine and high prices (107-08) 10. Oirats' arrival in Syria (108) n . Mongol strife, accession and conversion of Gazan (108-09) 12. Investment of an amir (no) 13. Height of Nile (no) *4- Pilgrimage data (no) 15. Obituaries (110-15)

Named and quoted as sources for this year are Ibn Katir 1 , Baibars al-Mansuri2, and Sahib an-Nuzha or Sahib Nuzhat an-ndzir*. These three are constantly quoted throughout the years of an-Nasir's reign as al-'Aim's chief authorities; less frequently, an-Nuwairi is cited4, and much less are Kitdb Sirat an-Nasir5, Tdrih al-Qadi Saraf ad-Din ibn al-Wahid6, Kitdb al-Latd'if, and al-Birzall8. Of these the most important by far is the Nuzha since it is quoted frequently and at length and since 'Iqd al-gumdn reproduces the fullest, identifiable text of this mid-fourteenth century work. It is clear from his access to official and personal information relating to high officers of state, that the author of this work was a personage of some rank. That he was a Royal Mamluk and perhaps a member of the sultan's hdssakiya we can infer from a statement quoted by al-'Aini from the Sahib's account of the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar in 699/12991300: "Wa-qala Sahibu n-Nuzhati wa-kana lladl ma'a s-sultani fi dalika 1-waqti itna [sic] 'aiara mamlukan mina s-sababi wa-kuntu ana t-talita 'asara." 9 Otherwise, we know that he was still alive in 724/1324-25 inasmuch as al-'Aini quotes him in that year's annal10. All this can be verified from the biographical notes by Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani on Musa ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Yusufl (died 759/1357-58), who is identified as one of the commanders of the halqa11 and author of "a large history in about fifteen volumes, entitled Nuzhat an-ndzir fi sirat al-Malik an-Nasir, which begins with the reign of al-Mansur [Qala'un] and ends with 755 [1354]."12 Ibn Hagar aptly indicates the great value of this lost work when he states that in 1

2 'Iqd, L V I I , 101, 103, 106, 107, 109. Ibid., pp. 101, 102, 103, 107. 3 4 Ibid., p p . 102, 105, 107, n o . Ibid., p p . 117, 174, 177. 5 Ibid., L X , 284, 350; conceivably this could refer to Kitdb Tdrih al-Malik an-Ndsir Muhammad ibn Qala'un as-Salih wa-aulddihi b y Sams ad-Din as-Suga/I, of which a fragment covering the years 737-45/1336-44-45 is extant. Cf. A H L W A R D T , Arabische Handschriften ("Verzeichnisse der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin," X X I ) ; Berlin 1897, no. 9833, and G U E S T , A. R., " A List of Writers, Books, and Other Authorities Mentioned b y al-Maqrizi in his Khitat," JRAS, X X X I V (June, 1902), p . 112. I t is more probable, however, t h a t this is another w a y of referring t o Nuzhat an-ndzir, t h e full title of which, as will be seen below, is Nuzhat an-ndzir 6 fi sirat al-Malik an-Nasir. 'Iqd, L V I I I , 243. Not identified. 7 8 9 Ibid., p . 348. N o t identified. Ibid., L V I I , 96. Ibid., L V I I I , 452. 10 Ibid., p . 440. 11 Muqaddim al-halqa. For this title see A Y A L O N , BSOAS, XV, No. 3 (i953)> PP- 449-5Q12 Durar, IV ; 381. I a m grateful to Mr. U L R I C H H A A R M A N N for giving me this reference and enabling me

82

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

it al-Yusufi recorded information on events and persons which he had gleaned from his own experience and that he was careful to verify his data before transmitting them. If the identity of this author was known to Ibn Hagar, one can only wonder why al-'Aini refers to him impersonally as Sahib, especially when al-Yusufi was so obviously an important historian. Be that as it may, we are indebted to al-'Aini for preserving so much of al-Yusufi's material, whether he gave it proper identification or not. For the moment we are interested in those authors cited by al-'Aini whose works are still extant. Comparison of the tables for 'Iqd al-gumdn and Zubdat al-fikra shows that al-'Aini covers all the items discussed by Baibars al-Mansuri; omits the strictly local items found in Ibn Katir and al-Birzali, such as scheduling of prayers, invocation of sumptuary laws, and construction of a bath; covers all items narrated by an-Nuwairi except a few appointments to administrative and ecclesiastical posts. This reckoning accounts for all but three items: brief mentionof the sending of an expedition against Sis, arrival of Oirat defectors in Syria, a report on the expenditures made this year by high-ranking pilgrims to Mecca. The first of these is mentioned in no other chronicle; the second is most frequently included in the annal for the following year when a delegation of these Oirats reached Cairo; the third is related on the authority of Sahib to whom we shall hereafter refer as al-Yusufi. But the most striking item in al-'Aini's annal is the long discourse on the struggle for Ilhanid supremacy, resolved finally in the accession of Gazan, because it represents the first really detailed notice given of this subject since Baibars al-Mansuri's long account. As a matter of fact this is Baibars al-Mansuri's long account, quoted almost verbatim by al-'Aini, who for some reason does not acknowledge his indebtedness. To it al-'Aini attaches a quotation which he does identify as one from Ibn Katir, briefly announcing (Kazan's conversion to Islam, a subject which Baibars al-Mansuri fails altogether to mention. Elsewhere al-'Aini again quotes Baibars al-Mansuri at length - his long rhymed-prose account of the famine in Egypt - without acknowledgment until almost the end of it so that it seems that he borrowed only a line or two from it. But so little could have been gained by deleting Baibars al-Mansuri's name, since it is mentioned at least four times this year, that carelessness must be the explanation. Often when quoting two or more sources for the same event, al-'Aini fails to identify one of them; such is the case for both the uprising of the Mamluks and the famine in Egypt, when he opens with a fairly long, unidentified statement and then gives variant accounts or complementary notes identified by author. Differences or contradictions in these versions he does not comment upon; for example, the date of the uprising given in the anonymous version does not correspond with that given in Ibn Katir's quotation 1 . This practice is firmly rooted, of course, in early Muslim historiography when variant authorities are quoted for the same event without any attempt on the historian's part to judge accuracy. As far as we are concerned, the virtue of this method consists in the quoting of so much material from al-Yusufi, whose accounts almost invariably include analyses, interpretations, and details which cannot be found elsewhere. Just how original a historian al-Yusufi was we shall see from al-'Aini's annal for 699/1299-1300, but before leaving 694 we should point to the almost startling discovery that among al-'Aini's sources was Ibn ad-Dawadari, at least so it would seem from the entry on the arrest of an amir. It has already been pointed out (supra, p. 13) that Ibn ad-Dawadari's presentation of this report is typical of his style in that he turns a routine matter into a curious historical coincidence. Unless, then, we are ignorant of an intervening source, al-'Aini must be indebted to Ibn ad-Dawadari for a presentation which is similar to identify t h e Sahib. Cf. R O S E N T H A L , Historiography, p . 499; also G U E S T , fRAS, X X X I V (June, 1902), 112, 115, for one Miisa ibn M u h a m m a d ibn Yahya, who m a y be t h e same as al-Yusufi. 1 Ibid., L V I I , 101.

LATER HISTORIANS

83

even in phrasing. But if this is so, it is difficult to explain why al-'Aini made such limited use of Kanz ad-durar, which, as we have seen, contains a great deal of original material. Table 50 699/1299-1300 'Iqd, LVIII 1. Rulers (192) 2. Mamluk army marches to Syria (192-93) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (193-95) 4. List of casualties with biographical details (195-98) 5. Flight (198-200) a. Of Damascus notables (198) b. Of Royal and Burgi Mamluks (198-99) c. Mamluks' arrival in Hims and Damascus (199) d. Harassment by inhabitants of Gabal al-Kasrawan (199-200) 6. Gazan raids Hims (198) 7. Equipment abandoned by Mamluks (19899) 8. Astrologer anecdote (201) 9. Occupation of Damascus (201-16) a. Prison burned (201) b. Delegation to Gazan (201-02) c. Arrival of Mongols (202) d. Reading of amnesty firman (202) e. Plunder outside Damascus (202-03) f. Negotiations with Argawas (203) g- Attack on Gabal as-Salihlya (203) h. Ibn Taimiya seeks intervention (203) i. Destruction in Damascus (204) ]• Levies (204) k. Plunder (204)

1. m. n. o. Pqr. s. t. u. v. w.

Poetry (204-5) Destruction (205) Plunder totals (205) Amnesty firman summarized (205-06) Reading of amnesty firman (206) Siege of citadel (206-07) Raids in Syria (207) Ibn Taimiya meets Bulay (207) Departure of Gazan (207) Wine profits (208) Totals looted (208) Copies of firmans (208-16) 1. Amnesty (208-12) 2. Gazan's farewell message to Mongols (212-13) 3. Appointment of Qibgaq (213-14) 4. Appointment of Baktamur (214-16) 10. Remobilization in Egypt (216-22) 11. Egyptian army leaves for Syria (222) 12. Mamluks enter Damascus (222-23) 13. Punishment of collaborators (223) 14. Appointments (224) 15. Civil defense measures (224) 16. Retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (224-25) 17. Golden Horde strife (225-27) 18. Level of Nile (227) 19. Obituaries (227-37)

A glance at the table reveals that al-'Aini's annal exceeds in length all others for this year1, and closer comparison shows the greater scope of the topics treated and the more detailed narration of many items, especially those relating to the military aspects of the battle and the Mongol occupation as opposed to the civil aspects to which al-Gazari and his school gave such close attention. Al-MaqrizI covers many of the same topics, but even so as-Suluk frequently offers only a summary of what 'Iqd al-gumdn records in minutiae. For this there is no more striking proof than the presentation in 'Iqd al-gumdn of four out of five of Gazan's decrees, not one of which appears in as-Suluk, nor for that matter do the protracted accounts of individual exploits which accompany al-'Aini's list of casualties, nor the report of harassment by the residents of Gabal al-Kasrawan. And yet, though longer and more detailed than as-Suluk, 'Iqd 1

In addition, one important item which usually appears in this year - the Oirat uprising - al-'Aini discusses it length in his annal for the previous year; 'Iqd, LVII, 181-85.

84

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

al-Gumdn is closely related to it, based as undoubtedly it is on some of the same sources used by al-Maqrizi. Al-MaqrizI like al-'Aini must have relied on al-Yusufi for most of the events covering the Mamluk army, including the march to Syria, the revolt of the Oirats (which al-'Aini relates in the annal for 698/1298-99),1 developments in Damascus before the battle, the battle itself, and the retreat of the Mamluk troops, for both al-Maqrizi and al-'Aini present similar eyewitness reports of these events with this significant difference: al-MaqrizI strives to summarize the material and present it in a more or less organized fashion, while al-'Aini aims to give as much information as possible. In taste the two are much the same, in that both were struck by unusual detail2, but al-Maqrizi, while he cannot resist introducing it into his history, manages to subordinate it to the main course of the narrative; al-'Aini, on the other hand, and al-Yusufi build such material into long independent anecdotes which impede the main flow of events. For instance, al-Maqrizi likes to record ill omens: we have already noted the one on the occasion of Kitbuga's accession, and there is another for this year in the form of a cloud of locusts presaging defeat for the Mamluk armies3. From al-'Aini we learn that the source for the latter incident was al-Yusufi but what emerges in as-Suluk as a colorful detail looms in 'Iqd al-gumdn as a drama with actors, props, and dialogue. If, however, we impugn al-'Aini's and al-Yusufi's sense of proportion we do so with gratitude, for without it a great deal of what seems trivial in the context of political history but has incalculable value from other, equally valid points of view would be lost. Parenthetically it should be noted that the opportunity for reconstructing the intellectual and social milieu from the wealth of such anecdotes which crop up in al-'Aini, Ibn ad-Dawadari, and al-Gazari remains so far wholly unexplored. Fond as al'Aini may have been of detail and reluctant to abridge his sources, he does miss - or omit some data which al-Maqrizi, for all his summarizing and paraphrasing, puts into as-Suluk. Were it not for such important details as the numerical estimates of the troops 4 and a cryptic reference to the arrival of the ruler of Sis5, one could almost dispense with al-Maqrizi's annal so comprehensive is al-'Aini's. The preliminaries to the battle, the battle itself, the remobilization in Egypt, all these derive from Egyptian sources, Nuzhat an-ndzir in the main plus Zubdat al-fikra. But for the Mongol occupation of Damascus, to which neither the Sahib nor Baibars al-Mansuri was witness, al'Aini had to consult other sources. Here we can watch his mind working. As a matter of course he begins with his favorite Syrian author - Ibn Katir - and quotes him almost verbatim for a paragraph or two until he discovers that Ibn Katir offers too few details and even omits the names of the delegation to Gazan. Therefore he breaks off abruptly 6 to quote the names from Nuzhat al-andm1, which results in repetition of the information already given on the reading of the amnesty firman and the arrival of the Mongols. Thereafter it is difficult if not impossible to identify al-'Aim's source, though once again we can be sure that al-Gazari was consulted, either directly or indirectly through another source, for once again the same familiar data appear, as one example will suffice to show: Al-'Aini: "Tumma haraga s-saihu Taqiyu d-DIni bnu Taimiyati ila muhayyami s-sultani lladl yusammunahu 1-urdu wa-kana bi-Talli Rahita." 8 1

Ibid., p p . 182-85. Both, for instance, record t h a t Baibars al-Gasnakir missed the b a t t l e of W a d i al-Hazindar because of a sudden a t t a c k of fever and diarrhea; cf. al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I I , 193; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 886. 3 4 Suluk, I, 886. Ibid. 5jbid 6 « j ^ L V I I I , 202'. 7 This probably refers to the work of t h a t title b y I b n D u q m a q (d. c. 795/1392-93). T h e only annals still e x t a n t for the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir are those for 710-12/1310-12-13, unseen as y e t b y me. See A S H T O R , 8 Studies, p p . 27-30. 'Iqd, L V I I I , 203. 2

LATER HISTORIANS

85

Al-Yunini: "Tumma innahu haraga yauma 1-hamisi hamis 'isrlna mina s-sahri ila muhayyami s-sultani lladl yusammunahu 1-urdu wa-kana bi-Talli Rahita." 1 Since the phrase "wa-yusammunahu 1-urdu" occurs in no other history we must assume that if al-'Aini used one of the historians studied, he used al-Gazari, al-Yunini, al-Kutubi, or Ibn al-Furat; if not, he must have used Ibn Duqmaq, whose annal is not extant, or another, unknown author. As for the other events of the year, al-Yusufi is probably responsible for most of those concerning the Mamluks' reoccupation of Syria and the expedition against Gabal al-Kasrawan, and collation establishes that Baibars al-Mansuri's Zubdat al-fikra provided the text for al-'Aini's report on strife within the Golden Horde. That he of all other historians since Baibars al-Mansuri should recognize the importance of developments in Mongol territories is a token of the scope of his interest and depth of his perception, to say nothing of his indefatigability. Table 57 705/i305-o6 'Iqd, LVIII 1. Rulers (348) 2. Messengers from Yemen (348) 3. Arrival of Salar's relatives (348) 4. Georgian and Byzantine envoys (348-49) 5. Messenger returned to Magrib (349) 6. Arrival of Mongol messenger (349) 7. Appointments (349) 8. Investment of amirs (349)

9. Retirement of an amir (349) 10. Freeing of an amir (349) 11. Raid against Sis (349-51) 12. Raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan (351) 13. Death of Qutlusah (351-63) 14. Ibn Taimiya episode (363-64) 15. Developments in Spain (364) 16. Obituaries (364-68)

For this year as for the preceding years al-'Aynl seems to follow Baibars al-Mansuri in choosing topics for discussion: this is most evident in his inclusion of the death of Qutlusah, which is lacking in most other chronicles, and even more so in the discussion of developments in Spain, which occurs nowhere else. What is more, most of the news concerning the arrival and sending of messengers and envoys as well as the two administrative items are lifted, without acknowledgement, from Zubdat al-fikra, though al-'Aini, for reasons best known to himself, rearranges the sequence in which Baibars al-Mansuri presents them. It is hard to explain, too, why in two separate places al-'Aini attributes a long quotation from an-Nuwairi's Nihdyat al-arab to Ibn Katir 2 . Be that as it may, he is the first historian to combine the two complementary versions of the Sis campaign - one erroneously attributed to Ibn Katir - to present a comprehensive view of the entire campaign and its ramifications. On the other hand, his account of the raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan, lifted from an-Nuwairi, is disappointing in its brevity. The extent of al-'Aini's interest in religious affairs can be seen in his truncated version of the Ibn Taimiya episode, which presents the beginning and end of Ibn Katir's report - the encounter with the Ahmadiya and incarceration in Cairo - but omits the middle - the interrogations in Damascus. And the extent of al-'Aini's dependence on Baibars al-Mansuri can be seen in the addition to Ibn Katir's account of the two-line capsule report with which Baibars al-Mansuri dismissed this episode. 1

Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 213 vo. One in the account of the expedition to Sis: al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LVIII, 351; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, XXX, 27; Ibn Katir, Biddya, XIV, 35; the other in the retaliatory raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan: al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LVIII, 351; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X X , 28; Ibn Katir, Biddya, XIV, 35. 2

86

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

No report, al-'Aini felt, was complete without an authoritative statement from Baibars alMansuri, no matter how short and repetitive. Nowhere is this feeling more evident than in al-'Aini's account of the death of Qutlusah, which occupies well over half the space devoted to the events and obituaries of this year. Of this space - some twelve pages - at least eleven and one half are filled with minute details on a dispute between the Ilhans and the rulers of Gilan, the sending of Mongol troops to Gilan, attempted negotiations for peace, the resultant battle as related by an eyewitness, the aftermath, etc. - all of which comes from an unidentified source, probably al-Yusufi who is cited toward the end1. Against this exhaustive account is balanced one short paragraph summarizing the episode, lifted from and credited to Baibars al-Mansuri2. In addition to illustrating al-'Aini's devotion to Baibars al-Mansuri this passage displays once more al-'Aini's main value as a historian: his preservation of vast quantities from primary sources of information extant nowhere else, for not even Baibars al-Mansuri, the only other Mamluk chronicler to record detailed data on Mongol affairs, sees fit to record this chapter of Mongol history. The passage is significant for still another reason. It contains another rare example of a Mamluk historian's deliberate violation of the annalistic form in order to present a unified report of an event unified by sequence and logic but which covers more than one year. True, al-'Aini - or his source - feels obliged to apologize for this deviation from the traditional form: "I know that the affair involving Saih Barraq 3 and the people of Gilan came only after 706 [1306-07] and that historians relate the coming of Saih Barraq to Damascus in [the annal for] 706 as we, God willing, shall relate. But we have mentioned it in [the annal for] this year [705], because we desire [to relate] what happened to the people of Gilan and Hudabanda's army in its entirety and in its full scope without any interruption." 4 This very apology, so similar to the one recorded by an-Nuwairi one hundred years earlier5, demonstrates dramatically that though some Mamluk historians recognized the formal inadequacies of the chronicle for writing history, they felt constrained in all but exceptional instances to adhere to that form. Nevertheless, this realization on al-'Aini's part and his method of producing two or more authorities in order to give a comprehensive view of each event, are enough to establish him as one of the more original historians of the Mamluk period. At this point I must violate the framework of this study to acknowledge once more the limitations of comparing chronicles on the basis of only three annals covering so short a span of time. For while it is true that for the three years in question al-'Aini does consistently present more original information than does al-Maqrizi, this does not hold true for the entire reign of al-Malik an-Nasir, most noticeably for the last fifteen years. For the period between 726-41/ 1325-1340-41, in fact, al-'Aini allots in the manuscript which I have consulted no more than thirty-odd pages6. This means that for this period we are largely dependent on al-Maqrizi for material which we would otherwise expect to find in al-'Aini. And the value of this material is increased when it is realized that few of the other really crucial sources cover - or are extant for - this period, including the works of Baibars al-Mansuri, an-Nuwairi, or al-Gazari, al-Birzali, al-Yunini, and al-Kutubi. In effect, then, we are left with Ibn ad-Dawadari, Mufaddal Ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Ibn Katir, and al-Muqri, few of whom wrote at such length or in as great detail as the aforementioned historians and none of whom, as we have seen, could be considered major sources for the early reign of al-Malik an-Nasir. If this study has accomplished anything, it has revealed the danger implicit in generalizing on Mamluk historians without the support of 1

2 'Iqd, LVIII, 363. Ibid., p. 351. 3 D. 707/1307-08. A strange saih whom Gazan sent with his disciples to fight the people of Gilan. In addition to al-'Aini's account of his activities see Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani, Durar, I, 473-74. 4 5 6 'Iqd, LVIII, 361. See supra, p. 29. 'Iqd, LXIV, 5-37.

LATER HISTORIANS

8y

careful textual analysis and collation; until such analysis can be undertaken, we shall, therefore, refrain from evaluating their importance as sources for the later part of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign. Here I want merely to indicate the injustice done to al-MaqrizI by comparing his work with al-'Aini's on uneven ground. Nevertheless, I feel that the insights gained into the work of each through this comparison are valid within the limits indicated. 5. Ibn Tagri Birdi Throughout this survey we have noticed that the historians of the Bahri period fall into the category either of religious scholars or of officers of state. The career of Abu 1-Mahasin Gamal ad-DIn Yusuf ibn Tagri BirdI (d. 874/1469-70) covers both to a certain extent, although by birth and association he belonged more to the ahl as-saif than to the ahl al-qalam. As the son of a high-ranking Mamluk, Ibn Tagri BirdI must have had connections at court which enabled him to succeed al-'Aini in a rank which was tantamount to court historian, and it was to glorify the reign of Sultan Gaqmaq (842-57/1438-53) with whom he enjoyed close friendship that he undertook to write his great history of Islamic Egypt from the conquest to 872/1467-681. Descent and friends alone do not account for Ibn Tagri Birdi's status as historian at the Mamluk court, for the excellence of his scholarship was recognized by his peers, including al-'Aini2, and is still acknowledged to the extent that he probably ranks second only to al-Maqrizi as historian of medieval Egypt. If, moreover, we were to accept Ibn Tagri Birdi's word for it, he would rank one notch higher inasmuch as he criticizes his former teacher al-Maqrizi for inaccuracies which were inevitable for one removed from official government circles3. Ironically, the question of the accuracy of chronicles of the Bahri period is nowhere so acute as in an-Nugum az-zdhira fi muluk Misr wal-Qdhira4", it should be pointed out, however, that an-Nugum does not follow a strictly annalistic form; rather it is a dynastic history of the rulers of Egypt, with yearly obituary notices of personages who died during their reigns. Nevertheless, the material in the biography of each ruler covers the principal events of his reign in chronological order and is not restricted to biographical data, and for this reason I have included consideration of it here. Table $2 694/1294-95 Nugum, VIII 1. Rulers (48) 2. Uprising of Royal Mamluks (48-49) 3. Accession of Kitbuga (49-50) 4. Obituaries (50-4)

5. Kitbuga's accession, continued (55-56) 6. Famine (57) 7. Pilgrimage (57~58)

In order to facilitate analysis of the key passage of this section, which concerns the uprising of the Royal Mamluks, and to give a clear illustration of Ibn Tagri Birdi's methods, we shall quote the passage in its entirety: 1

For biographical details, see W I E T , G., "L'Historien Abul Mahasin," Bulletin de I'Institut d'Egypte, XII (1929-30), 89-105; POPPER, W., History of Egypt, 1382-1469 A. D., Translated from the Arabic Annals of Abu l-Mahdsin ibn Taghri Birdi, 5 vols.; "University of California Publications in Semitic Philology," Vols. XIII-IV, X V t l - X I X ; Berkeley and Los Angeles i954-°°> l> xv-xviii. 2 3 See ZIYADA, al-Mu'arrihun, p. 30. W I E T , Bulletin, XII, 103. 4 Cf. Twelve volumes published through the year 808/1405-06: Cairo 1930-56; in addition, volumes for the years 366-566/976-1170-71 and 746-842/1343-1467-68 have been edited by POPPER: 5 vols.; "University of California Publications in Semitic Philology," Vols. I I - V I ; Berkeley and Los Angeles 1909-36. 7 Little

88

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

"On the tenth of al-Muharram [November 30, 1294] a group of the Asrafiya Halil Mamluks rebelled during the night in Misr and Cairo. They did a foul deed, capturing the arms markets 1 in Cairo after burning Bab as-Sa'ada 2 ; they seized the sultan's horses and violated the royal sovereignty (namus al-mulk). All this was due to the emergence of al-Amir Husam ad-DIn Lagin and to the fact that he was not executed; he was among those who murdered their ustdd, al-Malik al-Asraf Halil, but al-Amir Kitbuga sheltered and protected him. In addition news had reached the Asrafiya Mamluks of the deposition of their ustdd's brother - al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un - from the sultanate and of the accession of Kitbuga. Their gloom intensified and circumstances became unbearable, so that, having reached agreement, they struck, but in vain. In the morning al-Amir Kitbuga apprehended them; he chopped off the hands and feet of some, exposed some on camels, cut out the tongues of others, and one group he crucified on Bab Zuwaila. The remainder he distributed among the amirs and generals - they were some three hundred - and the rest fled. "Al-Amir Zain ad-DIn Kitbuga summoned the caliph, the qddis, and the amirs and spoke with them about al-Malik an-Nasir's unsuitability for the sultanate because of the tenderness of his years, stating that the situation demanded a mature man feared by army and subjects who would heed his commands and prohibitions. "All this was contrived by Lagin, who knew when he came out of hiding that the Asrafiya Mamluks were bound to take their revenge from him for their ustdd. He also knew that alMalik an-Nasir, once having reached manhood, would not spare him since he had participated in the murder of al-Malik an-Nasir's brother - al-Malik al-Asraf Halil. Sure of this, he began to advise al-Amir Kitbuga to seize the sultanate and to depose the son of his ustdd - al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un. Kitbuga forebore, but Lagin persisted until he had put him on his guard and frightened him of the consequences. "Lagin said to him, 'When al-Malik an-Nasir grows up, he will never retain you nor anyone who took part in the murder of his brother al-Malik al-Asraf. The strength of these Asrafiya will be in the ascendant as long as al-Malik an-Nasir reigns. The best course is his deposition and your succession.' "Kitbuga heeded his words but neglected the situation and was slow of execution. But when the Asrafiya rebelled, he moved, summoning the caliph and qddis as we have mentioned. When they arrived and the amirs and the army agreed on deposing the sultan al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un and crowning Kitbuga in his stead, this did indeed occur. Al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad was deposed, and Kitbuga was made sultan and sat on the throne of state on the day of al-Malik an-Nasir's deposition, i. e., Thursday, 12 al-Muharram, 694 [Thursday, December 2, 1294J, two days after the Asrafiya incident." 3 First it should be pointed out that the beginning and ending sentences of the first paragraph duplicate the version found in al-Gazari, al-Yunlnl, and al-Kutubi 4 . In other words, to al-Gazari's short, factual account, Ibn Tagri BirdI has added a long explanation which blames the uprising on Lagin, who himself became sultan in 696/1296-97. No other historian has made such a claim; on the contrary, several other reasons have been given. Baibars al-Mansuri, who certainly was in a position to know even 1

"Aswaq as-silah." Ibn Tagri Birdi probably should have written suq as-sildh, which was a famous street in the south-eastern quarter of the city. See R U S S E L L , D O R O T H E A , Medieval Cairo, p . 252, a n d P O P P E R Egypt and Syria, I, 27. Al-Gazari, Gawahir, p . 276, and al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, P t . IV. fol. I I 7 V O . write stiq 2 More properly, B a b Sa'ada, a gate of the inside west wall of north-eastern Cairo. P O P P E R 'ESVU and Svria 3 y I, 24. Nugum, V I I I , 48-50. ' 6'r ^ Al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 276; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, P t . IV, fols. 117 ro. - 17 v o . ; a l - K u t u b i 'Uyun X I I fol. 60 ro. '

LATER HISTORIANS

89

though he was in Alexandria at the time, states that the uprising was due to the Royal Mamluks' anger at being "degraded and humiliated, at their unbearable circumstances, at the delay in paying their salaries, at the unfeasibility of their aims" 1 and at their being "dispersed and isolated." 2 Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il gives a better organized explanation based on an earlier passage in Baibars al-Mansuri's Zubdat al-fikraz: "Kitbuga transferred the Royal Mamluks who lived in the citadel, lodging one group on the highest hill, i. e., al-Kabas 4 , on al-Gisr al-'Azam 5 ; another in Dar al-Wizara, which is inside Bab an-Nasr 6 ; another in the Maidan7. Once they were dispersed in these places they were neglected and the pay and rations which they used to take annually were severed, so that their salaries fell into arrears and they, into dire straits . . ." 8 . And the reason why they were moved from the citadel had nothing to do with Lagin: according to Baibars al-Mansuri, they had sided with as-Suga'I against Kitbuga in the recent struggle for control of the throne and thus posed a threat to Kitbuga now that he had won9. Was Ibn Tagri BirdI aware of these explanations ? Did he have access to these sources ? Obviously he knew al-Maqrizi's work since he offered corrections to it, even though he rarely cites it in the text 10 . Otherwise, he frequently cites sources, among whom he mentions the following in the annals and biographies for al-Malik an-Nasir's reign11.

Table 53 Sources for an-Nugum 1. As-Safadi, Salah ad-DIn Halil ibn Aibak (VIII, 53, 79, 81, 92, io8~ 195; IX, 152, 154, 210, 278, 288, 295, 297, 300, 316, 324, 328). 2. An-Nuwairi (VIII, 276; IX, 238, 299). 3. Ad-Dahabi (VIII, 51, 54, 76, i n , 113, 188, 192, 197; IX, 20). 4. Al-Yunlnl (VIII, 59, 80, 92, 124). 1

5. Al-Gazari (VIII, 55; IX, 20). 6. Al-Birzali (VIII, 71, 74). 7. Gamal ad-DIn al-Isna'I (VIII, 74)12 8. Abu Hayyan (VIII, 75)13 9. Al-Qutb al-Halabi (VIII, 75)14 10. Baibars al-Mansuri (VIII, 99, 100, 248, 267; IX, 5).15

2 3 Zubda, I X , fol. 188 ro. Tuhfa, fol. 64 vo. Zubda, I X , fol. 187 ro. For the exact location of this elevation in south-eastern Cairo, cf. B L O C H E T , Sultans, p . 418, note 2. 5 The Grand Dike, " a westward continuation of Cross Street leading over Lion's Bridge west to the Nile"; P O P P E R , Egypt and Syria, I, 26. 6 Bab an-Nasr is one of t h e two principal gates in the north wall of Cairo; cf. P O P P E R , Egypt and Syria, I, 24. Dar al-Wizara was t h e residence until Ayyubid times of the General of the Armies (Amir al-gaif); cf. B L O C H E T , Sultans, p . 419, note 2. 7 According t o an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X I X , 79, two hippodromes are m e a n t : Maidan as-Salihi and Maidan 8 9 az-Zahiri. Sultans, p p . 418-19. Zubda, I X , 187 ro. 10 E. g., Nugum, V I I I , 156; I X , 118. 11 I t is interesting t h a t t h e n a m e of al-'Aini is never cited as a source, even though it is apparent from a glance a t some of t h e annals t h a t I b n Tagri Birdi m u s t have borrowed from him. See, for instance, t h e annal for 709, where he i n a d v e r t e n t l y reveals his indebtedness by citing al-'Aini's own favorite sources (VIII, 2 4 2 2 77)! 12 Died 772/1370-71. Cited in an o b i t u a r y for biographical information, perhaps for his Kitab tabaqdt alfuqahd' as-Zdfi'iya; cf. I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I , 354~56. 13 Died 745/1344-45. Cited in obituaries for biographical information, he was author of some sixty-five works. H e is best known as a g r a m m a r i a n . Cf. G L A Z E R , S., "Abu H a y y a n al-Gharnati," EI2, 126. 14 Died 735/1334-35- Cited in an obituary for biographical information, he was author of a Tdrih Misr in several volumes; cf. I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, I X , 306. 15 All references are t o Zubda r a t h e r t h a n Tuhfa. 4

90

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

i i . As-Saih Ma£d ad-Din al-Harami (VIII, 101)1 ' 12. Al-Qadi Husam ad-DIn al-Hanafi (VIII, 102)2 13. Ibn al-Munagga (VIII, 127)3 14. Ibn Katir (VIII, 177, 178, 250, 255; IX, 226, 256)

15. Sahiban-Nuzha, i.e.,al-Yusufi(VIII, 178) 16. Sahib Nuzhat al-albdb (VIII, 250)4 17. Ibn Duqmaq (IX, 20) 18. Al-Kutubi (IX, 20)

It is clear, then, that Ibn Tagri BirdI, though familiar with Baibars al-Mansuri's work, chose to ignore his explanation for the uprising and that the explanations which he does offer come from a source unknown to us, conceivably one listed above, and are inserted in a passage derived from al-Gazarl. Furthermore, still other aspects of Ibn Tagri Birdi's interpretation conflict with the testimony of those sources which we do know. Baibars al-Mansuri, for example, supports the claim that Kitbuga was urged before the uprising to seize the sultanate and in at-Tuhfa, which, admittedly Ibn Tagri BirdI does not cite, provides a list of seven amirs who advised such a course5, in which the name of Lagin is conspicuously absent. Oddly enough, however, the name of Qarasunqur, an amir who collaborated with Lagin in the murder of alAsraf Halil, who emerged from hiding at the same time, and who, like Lagin, went unpunished does appear on the list. Even if Ibn Tagri BirdI was not acquainted with this list, it still seems amazing that he should seize upon the name of a person that was not on it. On the other hand, it may be recalled that an-Nuwairi assigns a much more active role to Kitbuga in the plot to seize the throne, claiming that it was he who had to win the support of the amirs, not vice versa6. Al-'Aini, following al-Yusufi gives still another version, claiming that Kitbuga, Lagin, and Qarasunqur used the pretext of an imminent Mongol invasion to secure the throne for Kitbuga 7 . Hence it is clear that Lagin must have played an important role in gaining Kitbuga's accession, but this does not explain why Ibn Tagri Birdi should have excluded all other interpretations and participants. Nevertheless, in all fairness it should be admitted that resentment at the unpunished regicide may have helped spark the uprising; but to insist that this was the single or even the main spark is, in the light of contrary testimony to which Ibn Tagri Birdi had access, distortion. Moreover, Ibn Tagri Birdi's version is not coherent since it leaves the impression, initially at least, that the uprising took place after the deposition of al-Malik anNasir and the accession of Kitbuga: "Wa-aidan qad balagahum hal'u ahl ustadihimu 1-Maliki n-Nasiri Muhammadi bni Qala'una mina s-saltanati wa-saltanatu Kitbuga . . ." 8 . No doubt this sentence was intended to mean that the plot to depose al-Malik an-Nasir and to crown Kitbuga had reached them, not the execution of the plot; and it is true that a subsequent sentence makes it clear that Kitbuga was crowned after the uprising. The fact remains that the imprecision of this sentence clouds Ibn Tagri Birdi's account and in combination with other factors undermines the reliability of his testimony. Another puzzling question in regard to sources is raised by this annal when Ibn Tagri Birdi cites and quotes al-Gazari for the familiar anecdote prophesying the accession of a Mongol named Kitbuga to the sultanate 9 . In and of itself this is not unusual; the difficulty arises only 1

Identified only as wakil bait al-mdl, which means t h a t he was probably an oral source t o a historian rather t h a n a historian himself. 2 Qadi al-Qudat H u s a m ad-Din H a s a n ibn A h m a d ibn Anusirwan ar-Razi, u n d o u b t e d l y an oral informant; cf. I b n Hagar al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I , 10. 3 As-Saih Wagih ad-Din ibn al-Munagga, a qddi of Damascus, cited as a n oral informant; cf. supra, pp. 5o-5i4 5 I. e., Sahib Nuzhat an-ndzir; cf. I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, V I I I , 250, note 6. Tuhfa, fol. 65 ro. 6 9 Nihdya, X X I X , 81. ? 'Iqd, L V I I , 105. » Nugum, V I I I , 49. Ibid., p . 55.

LATER HISTORIANS

91

when we notice that elsewhere Ibn Tagri BirdI quotes al-Yunlnl for passages identical to those in al-Gazari, even when al-Yunini and al-Gazari cite the same authority 1 . Such, it seems to me, constitutes another example of Ibn Tagri Birdi's fuzzy, indiscriminate use of sources. In other respects this annal leaves much to be desired, especially when we take into account just how many sources Ibn Tagri BirdI read and used. No mention whatsoever of the Ilhanid strife, much less the accession and conversion of Gazan; nothing about the change in succession in Yemen; no news even of administrative changes in Egypt and Syria. Instead Ibn Tagri BirdI outlines the ceremonies accompanying Kitbuga's accession and sketches the famine in Egypt, borrowing for both accounts from al-Gazari or one of his school. Table $4 699/1299-1300 Nugum, VIII 1. Egyptian army enters Damascus (121) 2. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (121-22) 3. Tumult in Damascus (122-23) 4. Delegation to Gazan (123) 5. Retreat of Mamluk troops (124) 6. Arrival of Mongols (124) 7. Reading of amnesty firman (125) 8. Negotiations with Argawas (125) 9. Destruction (125-26)

10. Poetry (126) 11. Departure of Gazan (127) 12. Totals plundered (127-28) 13. Departure of remaining Mongols (128) 14. Remobilization in Egypt (128-29) 15. Defectors return to obedience (129-30) 16. Mamluk armies enter Damascus (130) 17. Mamluks return to Egypt (131) 18. Obituaries (189-94)

Midway in this annal Ibn Tagri BirdI cites al-Yunlnl as a source2; in this respect he is just as careless as al-'Aini, for in reality practically the entire annal, not just a single passage, is paraphrased from Bail mir'dt az-zamdn as numerous correspondences in phrasing prove. Toward the end, however, Ibn Tagri Birdi introduces two or three scraps of information which cannot be found in al-Yuninl's work nor, for that matter, in any other work we have come across. One of them concerns the return to obedience of those Mamluk amirs who had defected to the Mongols, had fought against the Mamluks at Wadi al-Hazindar, and had figured prominently in the occupation of Damascus. Here is Ibn Tagri Birdi's version: "When Salar and Baibars al-Gasnakir set out for Damascus they met on the way al-Amir Saif ad-DIn Qibgaq, al-Amir Baktamur as-Silahdar, and al-Albaki, who were seeking the sultan. The amirs mildly reproached Qibgaq and his companions for Gazan's crossing into Syrian territory. They pleaded that that was from fear of al-Malik al-Mansur Lagin and hatred of his mamluk Mankutamur, and that when they heard of the murder of al-Malik al-Mansur Lagin they had already talked with Gazan about entering Syria. They could not retract what they had said, and there was no way to flee from him. The amirs accepted this defense and sent them to al-Malik an-Nasir in as-Salihiya where they kissed the ground before him. He also reproached them for what they had caused, and they gave the same excuse. He accepted it and bestowed robes of honor on them" 3 . No other author describes the rehabilitation of the defectors in just this way. Contemporary historians state that the amirs had written to the defectors with kind words, urging them to return to obedience and that once they had, both the amirs and the sultan treated them with generosity4. It is true that Ibn Tagri Birdi's version does not contradict the testi1

For a report, e. g., on a talking ox, cf. Ibn Tagri Birdi, Nugum, VIII, 59; al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 308; 2 3 al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, Pt. IV, fol. 130 ro. Nugum, VIII, 124. Ibid., pp. 129-30. 4 Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 219 ro., and Tuhfa, fol. 75 vo.; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, Pt. IV, 43; Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 118; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 900.

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

92

mony of these historians and that the malefactors may well have used such a defense, especially since we know from an-Nuwairi that they did claim fear of Lagin and Mankutamur as their motive for defecting1; it is possible then that the incident occurred as Ibn Tagri BirdI describes it. Whatever the case may be, this constitutes a second example of his introducing unsubstantiated information which departs from the accounts of the contemporary historians with whose work he was familiar. In both cases the information is interesting, but it should be subjected to close scrutiny before being accepted as fact. As for the annal as a whole, Ibn Tagri Birdi, by choosing al-Yunini as his guide rather than, say, Baibars al-Mansuri, or al-Yusufi adopts the Syrian historians' approach with emphasis on the civil aspects of the occupation of Damascus as opposed to the Egyptian, military approach, in marked contrast to both al-Maqrizi and al-'Aini, who, as we have seen, combine the two viewpoints to give a much more comprehensive and informative account. One of Ibn Tagri Birdi's primary considerations seems to have been space, for twice in the annal he states that events were too numerous and detailed to record2. Thus he omits altogether such important occurrences as the Oirat uprising, Ibn Taimiya's efforts to negotiate with the Mongol leaders, the raid against Gabal al-Kasrawan, to mention only the most obvious. And yet the pressure of space did not prevent him from reproducing a page of uninformative verses prettily bewailing the fate of Damascus under Mongol occupation or such insignificant touches as the necessity of the fleeing Mamluk troops to cover their heads with handkerchiefs3. Enough space, too, for a revealing aside in which Ibn Tagri BirdI compares Gazan's invasion with Timur Lang's 4 . Further support for the reluctant conclusion that an-Nugum is of dubious value as a source for the early reign of al-Malik an-Nasir comes from the complete lack of an annal for 705/13051306. Ibn Tagri Birdi evidently saw nothing worth recording for this year other than bits of information on a gift from Yemen and rain-making ceremonies in Damascus which he relegates to the obituary section5. Other than these two sentences and a few obituaries, absolutely nothing else is mentioned. 6. Ibn I yds The career of Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Iyas (d. c. 930/1523-24)6 is in many ways similar to that of Ibn Tagri BirdI: both were born into prominent Mamluk families, both held a fief, and both were members of auldd an-nds - the regiment made up of sons of Mamluk amirs. Because of family connections Ibn Iyas, like Ibn Tagri BirdI, enjoyed easy access to the Mamluk court and friendship with Mamluk officers, as a result of which his history of Egypt entitled Badd'i' az-zuhur fi waqd'i' ad-duhur1 is a valuable source for the late Mamluk period, especially for the Ottoman conquest of Egypt. The reign of al-Malik an-Nasir, now some one hundred fifty years in the past, is given perfunctory treatment. Table 55 694/1294-95 Badd'i', I 1. Uprising of Royal Mamluks (132) 2. Accession of Kitbuga (132-33) 1 2 6 7

3. Appointments (133)

Nihdya, X X I X , 102. 3 Nugum, V I I I , 125, 127. Ibid., p . 129. * Ibid., p . 124. 5 Ibid., p . 217. For biographical details, see Z I Y A D A , Mu'arrihun, 46-56. Kitdb Tdrih Misr al-mashur bi-badd'i' az-zuhur fi waqd'i' ad-duhur, 3 vols.; Cairo 1893-1894.

LATER HISTORIANS

93

Even this small amount of information is not altogether reliable, for in addition to being careless in copying from his source, Ibn Iyas introduces interpretations which cannot be substantiated from earlier sources. Most curious is his extraordinary assertion that Kitbuga delegated all the affairs of state to his newly-appointed viceroy, Lagin 1 ; this claim is possibly connected with Ibn Tagri Birdi's insistence that Lagin was the moving force behind Kitbuga's bid for power. Table 56 699/1299-1300

Badd'i', I 1. Gazan's invasion of Syria (139-40) 2. Departure of Mamluk troops from Egypt (I4°) 3. Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar (140) 4. Mongol occupation of Damascus (140) 5. Delegation to Gazan (140) 6. Reading of amnesty firman (140) 7. Citadel negotiations (140-41)

8. Departure of Gazan (141) 9. Appointment of Qibgaq (141) 10. Remobilization in Egypt (141) 11. Mamluks march on Syria (141) 12. Return of defectors (141) 13. Anecdote concerning Qibgaq (141-42) 14. Expedition against Bedouins (142)

The most salient feature of the tabulation is the last item, concerning an expedition sent against two groups of Bedouin tribes, salient, because it appears for the first time in an annal for this year. Actually, according to Baibars al-Mansuri, who led the expedition, it occurred in the following year2. Otherwise, it is worthy of note that Ibn Iyas repeats the charge made by alMaqrizi3 and Ibn Tagri Birdi 4 that it was a Mamluk defector (Qibgaq) to the Ilhanid court who persuaded Gazan to launch an attack against Syria. It might be easy to dismiss this charge as the conjecture of later historians had not Ibn Iyas cited a contemporary source5 who quotes Qibgaq himself as his authority. As it is, the claim must be taken into account, but its ramifications are so entangled that consideration of them will be postponed until the problem of Mamluk defectors can be treated within a wider context. For still another story about Qibgaq, Ibn Iyas cites as-Saih Sihab ad-DIn ibn abi Hagala, the famous Sufi litterateur, one of whose works Ibn Iyas may have used as a source for the anecdote6. On the other hand, since it involves Sultan Qala'un, it may have been lifted from an annal of his reign. In any case it is hard to believe that Ibn Hagala was the original author of the story since he did not die until eightyseven years after the death of Qala'un and since the same tale, with striking similarities in phrasing, appears in Ibn al-Furat's annal for 689/1290-91 in his tribute to Qala'un7. Designed to illustrate both Qala'un's skill at soothsaying and to foreshadow Qibgaq's perfidy, this anecdote takes up almost a third of Ibn Iyas' annal, so that very little space indeed is devoted to other events of the year, and of these we have seen that several belong in fact both to the preceding and to the following year. Even the remaining space is not used economically when Ibn Iyas insists on giving such details as the names of the delegation of Damascus 'ulamd' sent to Gazan and the amount of money which al-Malik an-Nasir distributed to his troops according to their grade before marching again to Syria. Since the latter data are found only in al-'Aini8, who probably borrowed them from al-Yusufi, Ibn Iyas probably used one of these two sources. 1

2 3 4 Ibid., I, 133. Zubda, I X , fol. 221 vo. Suluk, I, 871-72. Nugum, V I I I , 117. 5 Namely, al-Qadi Muhyi ad-Din ibn Fadl Allah, father of al-'Umari; Badd'i', I, 142. 8 I b n Hagala (d. 776/1374-75) is not cited b y name in the published edition; cf. Arab League I n s t i t u t e of Arabic Manuscripts MS, 78 tdrih (Photographic copy of M a k t a b a t F a t i h MS, 4197). Vol. IV, fol. 210 ro. For 7 biographical details see I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I, 229-31. Tdrih ad-duwal, V I I I , 94. 8 'Iqd, L V I I I , 219.

Q4

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

In summary, two conclusions may be drawn about this annal: one, it is poorly organized and inaccurate as to chronology; two, it presents information which is not preserved elsewhere, the reliability of which remains to be tested. For 705/1305-06 Ibn Iyas reports only that Baibars al-Gasnakir began the construction of a hdnqdh1. D. Minor S o u r c e s Several works which I have examined are either too short or too lacking in originality for the period to warrant detailed analysis. Among these are the following: (1) Mir'dt al-gandn wa-'ibrat al-yaqzdn2 by a Meccan Sufi scholar, 'Abd Allah ibn As'ad . . . al-Yafi'I (d. 768/1366-67)3; this is a chronicle with more emphasis on obituaries than on events. (2) The fragment by alAmir Badr ad-DIn Baktas al-Fahiri (d. 745/1344-45), covering the years 709-45/1309-44-45, the text of which is included in ZETTERSTEEN'S Beitrdge*. Since these annals are exceedingly short and do not fall within the dates of our analysis, they have not been included in this study. (3) Durrat al-asldk fi daulat al-atrdk5 and (4) Tadkirat an-nabih fi ayydm al-Mansur wa-banih6 both by the Syrian author Badr ad-DIn abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn 'Umar ibn Habib (d. 779/1377-78)7. The former is a rhymed-prose history of the rulers of the Bahri dynasty, of little use for our purposes; the latter, as the title indicates, is restricted to the dynasty founded by Qala'un, but its entries, which end with 770/1368-69, are too brief to permit the type of analysis attempted here. The same holds true for two short works covering a broader span of time: (5) Urguzafil-hulafa was-saldtin . . .8 by Abu 'Abd Allah . . . al-Ba'uni (d. 871/1466-67) and (6) al' Uqud ad-durriya fi l-umara al-misriya9 by Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Banbi, who wrote around 826/1422-23. (7) The history of the caliphs by Ibn Duqmaq (d. 809/1407-08),10 entitled al-Gauhar at-tamin fi siyar al-hulafd' was-saldtin, contains notices for 694 and 699, but they are short and inconsequential11. I have not yet been able to examine the work entitled Tdrih as-sultdn al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qala'un wa-banihi by Sams ad-DIn as-Suga'I (flourished around 745/1344-45), only a fragment of which exists12.

E. C o n c l u s i o n s This survey was begun with the familiar premise that the sources for the Bahri Mamluk period are among the richest to be found for any phase of Islamic history. We are now in a position to amplify and to qualify this generalization by defining the contributions of Mamluk chroniclers to these riches. But before essaying that task, it should be helpful to summarize what has been learned from this study about the nature and interrelationship of the sources, since the strands which unite them have proved to be knotty and snarled. However, I would 1

Badd'i', I, 515. H y d e r a b a d 1920-21. 3 4 For biographical d a t a see K R E N K O W , F., "Al-Yafi'i," EI, IV, 1144. P p . 145-249. 5 Arab League Institute of Arabic Manuscripts MS, 235 tdrih (Photographic copy of A h m a d I I I MS, 3011). 6 British Museum Or. MS, Add. 7335. 7 For a discussion of this author see Q U A T R E M E R E , Histoire, l b , 205-09. 8 British Museum Or. MS, 1550 I I . » British Museum Or. MS, 1550 IV. 10 For a discussion of this author and his works see A S H T O R , Studies, p p . 27-30. 11 12 Dar a l - K u t u b MS, 1522 tdrih, p p . 136-37, 141-42. See supra, p . 81, note 5. 2

CONCLUSIONS

95

like to stress that a summary almost inevitably will be misleading: the pattern of interrelationship is complex, but brevity demands simplicity. The reader is advised, therefore, to remember that the generalizations made here are qualified and modified elsewhere in the text. Comparison has shown that there are three sources for the early reign of al-Malik an-Nasir, on one, or more, of which all the other sources rely to some degree or other. These three are Zubdat al-fikra by Baibars al-Mansuri, Hawddit az-zamdn by al-Gazari, and Nuzhat an-ndzir by al-Yusufi. Zubdat al-fikra and Nuzhat an-ndzir (as far as we can judge from the incomplete version of the latter), belong to and typify the same school of historiography, in that they focus on political and military affairs of the Mamluk empire and other Muslim states, whereas Hawddit az-zamdn is a representative of a different genre, which is characterized by both a more provincial and a more ecclesiastical outlook, although political events, especially those which took place in, or affected, Syria are not slighted. Thus the two types are complementary. The Egyptian writers record what seemed to be the most important events seen from the Mamluk capital and also transcribe what was taking place in other states having relations - either friendly or hostile - with the Mamluks. The Syrians, on the other hand, write from a local vantage point and give political reports a distinctly local coloring; the affairs of foreign states they tend to ignore and, being religious scholars, devote more attention to the activities of members of the religious institution. Apart from this distinction, we can distinguish also between the two Egyptian writers. Baibars al-Mansuri's accounts are shorter and more matter of fact than al-Yusufi's. The reason is not hard to find. The former was writing a universal history of which contemporary events formed only a part; the latter was a specialist in events of his own day and obviously took great delight in discussing them at length. Furthermore, since Nuzhat an-ndzir has been preserved only in those portions transcribed by al-'Aini and others, it can best be regarded as a supplement to Zubdat al-fikra. As stated, almost all other works, whether contemporary or later, are dependent on one or more of these three sources. The task of determining the extent to which these three primary sources were used will be simplified if we begin with Nuzhat an-ndzir, for even though it was one of the longest histories of the period, it was apparently consulted least. To my knowledge, only al-MaqrizI, al-'Aini, and Ibn Tagri BirdI used it. Al-Maqrizi consulted it frequently, always summarizing and editing it, never acknowledging his indebtedness to it. Al-'Aini also used it often, but in a different way, for he quotes long passages and usually acknowledges al-Yusufi (anomymously, to be sure, as Sahib an-Nuzha) as his source. Ibn Tagri Birdi cites al-Yusufi only once (and once, according to the editor of an-Nugum az-zdhira, as "gairuhu", and once, incorrectly, as Sahib Nuzhat al-albdb)1. Since he refers to al-Yusufi with the title (Sahib) adopted by al-'Aini, I would guess that he used Nuzhat an-ndzir indirectly, through, that is, 'Iqd al-gumdn. Clearly it is to al-'Aini that we must look for the bulk of what has been preserved from Nuzhat an-ndzir. In contrast, the work of Baibars al-Mansuri was used by several of his contemporaries and successors. From our detailed analysis of three years and from our reading of other years, we have ascertained that the following authors used Baibars al-Mansuri as a source, whether they acknowledged their indebtedness or not: Author Z., an-Nuwairi, Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, al-'Aini, and Ibn Tagri Birdi. It is probable that Abu 1-Fida relied to some extent on Baibars al-Mansuri's works, but this is difficult to prove because Abu 1-Fida summarized rather than quoted his sources. In addition it should be noted that other historians borrowed from Baibars al-Mansuri indirectly, by borrowing from an-Nuwairi. These include al-Muqri, Ibn al-Furat, Ibn Haldun, and perhaps, al-Maqrizi. It is interesting to observe that none of those who used 1

V I I I , 178, 249, 250.

96

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

Baibars al-Mansuri, whether directly or indirectly, relied on him exclusively; instead they used him in combination with other sources at their disposal. The use of the third of the three primary sources for the early reign of al-Malik an-Nasir is not nearly so clear cut. Although there are few historians who did not use al-Gazari, his history is so inextricably bound up with other works that it is only with great difficulty that his text can be identified with certainty. Nevertheless, it is clear from analysis that the following historians used Hawddit az-zamdn (or al-Yuninl's copy) freely: Ibn ad-Dawadari, Author Z., an-Nuwairi, Mufaddal ibn abi al-Fada'il, al-Yunini, al-Kutubi, Ibn Katir, (probably) al-'Aini, and Ibn Tagri Birdi. At the same time, the following somewhat confusing facts must be repeated in order for the true significance of al-Gazari as a key historian to be appreciated: (i) al-Gazari relied heavily on al-Birzali, both as an oral and a literary source, to the extent that al-Muqtafd seems like an outline for Hawddit az-zamdn. (2) Two authors, Ibn ad-Dawadari and Author Z. cite al-Birzali for information that they borrowed from al-Gazari; the similarities in their texts can probably be attributed to their indebtedness to him rather than to each other. (3) Ibn Katir describes a major portion of his chronicle as a resume of al-Birzali's, but he supplements it from al-Gazari and other sources. (4) For some years, al-Yuninl's Dail is a copy of Hawddit az-zamdn and, as such, constitutes the only existing copy of these annals. (5) AdDahabl's Tdrih al-isldm is closely related to al-Gazari's work. If permitted a guess, I would venture that ad-Dahabi borrowed extensively from al-Gazari, rather than vice versa, but I cannot prove this. Finally, it should be noted that the Syrian school of which al-Gazari is representative - including al-Birzali, al-Yunlnl, al-Kutubi, and Ibn Katir - never borrowed from Egyptian historians, even for events which occurred in Egypt. Within this general pattern of dependence on three primary sources, there are several other factors of interrelatedness which should be restated. First, is the importance of an-Nuwairi, who, although he himself relied heavily on Baibars al-Mansuri and al-Gazari, was used extensively by both Ibn al-Furat and Ibn Haldun. In fact, Ibn al-Furat's annal for 694/1294-5 can be viewed as an adaptation of Nuwairi's, with some additions from al-Gazari. There is also evidence that other historians used an-Nuwairi, namely, Mufaddal, al-Muqri, Abu 1-Fida, al-Maqrizi, al-'Aini, and Ibn Tagri BirdI. Al-Maqrizi's indebtedness can be said to be indirect for some years, inasmuch as his annal for 694/1294-5, for example, is an adaption of Ibn al-Furat's! Second, the relevant annalistic sections of al-'Umari's Masdlik al-absdr are a copy of ad-Dahabi's Duwal al-isldm. Third, Ibn al-Wardi's Tatimma, except for the last eighteen years, is a condensation of Abu 1-Fida's chronicle. Having sketched the patterns of relationship between the various sources, we can now proceed to evaluate their relative merits. It was stated in the beginning that in spite of the detailed attention given to each source, no attempt would be made to establish an easy rule for accuracy or reliability. Nevertheless, the time and effort which have gone into this study would be largely wasted if at this point some evaluation of the chronicles could not be made. If we adopt originality alone as the criterion for importance, then obviously the works of Baibars al-Mansuri, the histories of al-Gazari and his copier al-Yunini, and the chronicle of al-'Aini, because it contains sections of Nuzhat an-ndzir, stand in the first rank. Of these, none has been published for the early years of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign. Fragments of al-Gazari's work have been published in a summary French translation, the shortcomings of which will be remedied only by the appearance of the last volume of al-Yuninl's work. Although al-Maqrizi's unidentified summaries of Nuzhat an-ndzir give some idea of the content of that work, they are not readily identifiable. In effect, this means that none of the most original sources for the period is yet available to scholars in published form and calls attention to the absurdity of publishing manuscripts without first having established their relationship to other histories of the same

CONCLUSIONS

gy

period. What are the prospects for the edition and the publication of these works? Dim, at present, especially if the practice whereby sections of universal histories are published in chronological sequence rather than in terms of originality is followed. Clearly, the last volume of Zubdat al-fikra, which records events witnessed by Baibars al-Mansuri, should be published before the earlier volumes of his history which rework the chronicles of earlier historians1. It is also clear that the sections of 'Iqd al-gumdn which contain passages from Nuzhat an-ndzir should be given priority and published immediately, rather than wait for a complete edition of al-'Aini's history. In this regard, the need for a collated edition of al-Gazari and al-Yunlnl is obvious. Following closely in second position after these three is al-Birzali's al-Muqtafd. Though written in an awkward, abbreviated form, it nevertheless contains information which no other historian recorded. It, too, is available only in manuscript form, and the need for publication is clear. But having stated that these sources are most important, we must stress again that the other sources contain original and thus significant material, enough certainly to demand careful study and often enough to warrant publication, though this certainly should be postponed until the major sources are readily available. Such at any rate I feel to be the case for an-Nuwairi's Nihdyat al-arab and the yet unpublished sections of Ibn ad-Dawadari's Kanz ad-durar, ad-Dahabi's Tdrih al-isldm, and Mufaddal ibn abi al-Fada'il's an-Nahg as-sadid. Other unpublished works such as Natr al-gumdn, Nuzhat al-mdlik, and 'Uyun at-tawdrih, though they contain a certain amount of unique material, are not so rewarding as to demand publication at the present time. Among the remaining published works, Abu 1-Fida's Muhtasar and Ibn Katir's al-Biddya wan-Nihdya, especially in the later sections, cannot, certainly, be ignored in any serious study of the period. And as I have intimated, al-Maqrizi's as-Suluk is of prime importance for the later years of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign and, as the following chapter will prove, the same holds true for Ibn ad-Dawadari's Kanz ad-durar, for which ROEMER adopted the admirable practice of publishing the contemporary section first. The histories of Ibn al-Furat and Author Z. should be consulted, though they contain little not found elsewhere; those of Ibn Haldun and Ibn Iyas are of little or no importance for our period. If the chronicle of Ibn Tagri Birdi is used at all, it should be consulted with caution. This general evaluation of the Mamluk historians of the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir leaves us with two somewhat melancholy conclusions. One, that a substantial number - half at least of the major historians of the period have yet to be edited and published, and, two, that even the minor histories must be examined carefully for the original data which each contains. Finally, it should be kept in mind that we have dealt with only a part of the extant written materials, having ignored completely the non-annalistic portions of the encyclopedias, belles lettres, technical and religious treatises, all of which might be expected to contribute to our knowledge of the period. This, then, is in part what we mean by historiographical riches, that is, sheer numbers of pages to be read, even if we restrict ourselves to annals and biographies. By insisting that few of the historians we have surveyed can be ignored we have emphasized the individuality of each historian. This is justifiable to the extent of showing that each presents a certain amount of original material; on the other hand, they share many characteristics. In spite of what has been said about originality, the ground covered by each historian is much the same, so that a glance at the master tables will show a degree of uniformity in the topics covered by each historian. There are notable variations, it is true, resulting from the area or the time in which the historians lived and to a lesser degree from their individual interests. 1

I myself plan to edit and translate the ninth volume of Zubdat al-fikra and supplement it from

at-Tuhfa.

98

ANNALISTIC SOURCES

And yet, by and large, the similarities in what Baibars al-Mansuri and al-Gazari - an Egyptian amir and a Syrian scholar - relate are at least as great as the differences; the same holds true for Mufaddal and al-Maqrizi though centuries and creed separate them. Within this framework we have noticed traits which permit our dividing the contemporary historians into an Egyptian and a Syrian school, the latter being distinguished by its greater interest in biography and ecclesiastical affairs, but it would be unwise to dwell long on this distinction since we have repeatedly seen Egyptian historians quoting Syrian colleagues as authorities for events which occurred in Egypt. If we stop to ask why the same topics recur with such frequency we meet with another common characteristic, namely the tendency to rely on much the same sources, in particular on Baibars al-Mansuri and al-Gazari or al-Yunini. In fact, one or the other of these is so often the ultimate source of a report that other historians are resorted to only for amplification. These two served as it were as the standard historians of the time, whose works were copied so extensively that / t h e present-day historian's task is largely to find deviations from and additions to these texts. Whatever the reason may be for this practice, it was followed so rigidly and so long that the work of an equally important writer, al-Yusufi, was completely ignored until the fifteenth century and the work of another; Kanz ad-durar, was not consulted at all except perhaps by a Christian writer, Mufaddal ibn abi al-Fada'il, and maybe fleetingly by al-'Aini. It is true that Nihdyat al-arab figured as an important source for later writers, but it should be remembered that an-Nuwairi himself was heavily indebted to Baibars al-Mansuri and al-Gazari. Another factor of uniformity stems from the decision of each historian, whatever his own profession and background, whether he was writing a general history of Islam or an encyclopedia, to choose the annal or what amounts to an adaptation of it as his literary form. Those instances when writers recognized its inadequacy and purposely violated it have been noted, but they are few and noteworthy only as exceptions. Working within this traditional form, the chroniclers as a group are guilty of shocking carelessness, both in citing sources and in the simplest matters of accuracy, for which examples of serious disagreement on facts, dates, and figures have been adduced. Furthermore, we have seen in many chroniclers a lack of discrimination, a faulty sense of proportion in selecting material; more often than not there is no discernible principle of selection involved, so that the ridiculous is mixed with the sublime. Nevertheless, the very wealth in numbers of the sources still extant permits the modern historian to select his material according to his own purposes and by the admittedly laborious process of collation and analysis to compensate for the sins and errors of his sources. In order to make plain the extent of the wealth contained in these sources, I have compiled a list of the topics treated by the historians collectively for the year 694/1294-95. The two principal domestic political events of the year are the uprising of a group of disaffected Asrafl Mamluks and the usurpation of the throne by an amir. For both of these events the chroniclers present extraordinarily detailed accounts so that for the former we know the ringleaders and those who put the uprising down, the alleged causes of the rioting, the course it took, the punishment of the malefactors, and the result of the whole affair. The accession of Kitbuga is even more fully documented. The names of his supporters and their strategems - all this is known, as well as the parade route of his coronation procession, the officers he appointed, and the official document commemorating his accession. On a lower political level the chronicles record the appointment and dismissal of officials in Egypt and Syria; concerning non-Mamluk territories, they relate in detail the struggles in the Ilhanid state leading to the accession of Gazan and contain an eyewitness account of the ceremony of his conversion to Islam. Likewise, the dynastic troubles incident to the death of the ruler of Yemen are recorded. Shorter, isolated notices report on European raids against Muslim shipping, the release of Syrian tribal

CONCLUSIONS

99

leaders from prison, and the launching of a raid against Armenia. Economic data, contrary to what may be expected, are not lacking, since this was a famine year inflicting great hardships on the Egyptian and Syrian people. Our sources not only record facts and figures on prices and deaths but report on population movements and describe the measures adopted by the state and religious officials to end the famine. Brief but interesting notices on currency fluctuation are given. News of mainly religious import is not neglected and is not restricted to the dominant religion since one of the writers was a Copt. If we were interested in reconstructing the religious life of the time, information on the pilgrimage to Mecca, the scheduling of services in the mosques of Damascus, and the enactment of sumptuary laws against Christians and Jews would be invaluable. Of interest to archaeologists is a report on the construction of a bath. Finally, added to all this are the dozens of obituary notices which we could compile for the year, from which can be gleaned data on the political, religious, and literary figures of the time. If we choose to focus on one of these particular figures we will find the routine facts of his life in so far as they are known: the dates of his birth and death; the important positions he has held; his literary output if any; enough information, in other words, to characterize his place in and contribution to the Muslim community. Beyond this, if the figure is one who has made powerful enough an impact on the consciousness of the community at large or on the individual biographer, we may expect to add a new dimension to our knowledge of the period, and it is to that dimension that we now turn.

CHAPTER II

ARABIC BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES FOR THE REIGN OF AL-MALIK AN-NASIR The line which separates annals from biography is thin in Mamluk historical literature, for the one, or at least the methods and techniques of the one, is rarely found without the other. Nevertheless, we have been able to distinguish between Egyptian and Syrian traditions of writing chronicles on the basis of the prominence assigned to biography within the annals, to the extent that with some Syrian historians it is more meaningful to speak of annals within a series of chronologically arranged biographies. Even so, though the two genres are often used side by side within the same work, they are usually kept distinct, assigned, in fact, separate places, with the biographical notices following each annal, except in the case of al-Birzali, who mixes events and deaths in the same chronological sequence; ad-Dahabi, who in Tdrih al-isldm groups a decade of obituaries following a decade of annals; and Ibn Tagri BirdI, who withholds the obituaries until the end of a reign. But they are not always so distinct; in some instances we find a fusion of the two forms, most notably in the case of the biography of rulers, when not just a chronological sequence of the important events in the ruler's life is given but an annual - annalistic - resume of the important events which occurred during his reign is recorded. In such cases, however, the biography of the ruler is not identified with the course of events which took place during his reign; rather the reign is simply superimposed on the annalistic form as a broader unit of historical periodization than a single year 1 . Ibn ad-Dawadari, for example, entitles the last volume of his universal history a sira, namely ad-Durr al-fdhir fi sirat al-Malik an-Nasir, even though the earliest years of his reign fall within the previous volume of annals, ad-Durra az-zakiya fi ahbdr daulat al-muluk at-turkiya. In other words, he arbitrarily calls his annals a biography. The fact that he appends to them a list of the buildings erected during al-Malik an-Nasir's reign - which had not yet ended - constitutes but a lame attempt to sum up his accomplishments2. It is probably inaccurate to regard an-Nugum azzdhira as annals at all, since Ibn Tagri Birdi does not follow the annalistic form; instead he adopts the pattern of dynastic histories, listing the events which took place during the reign of each ruler chronologically; but not year by year, and within the same tradition, he devotes a special biography to each ruler in which his character and main accomplishments are assessed3. Ibn Tagri Birdi's only innovation, then, is to add to the end of each reign the biographies of the notables who died in each year of the sovereign's rule. On the basis of these two cases it would be reasonable to conclude that the course of events was quite different from the sira of the sultan in whose reign they took place. And yet there is evidence too that the two categories were not so distinct, most notably in the biography of al-Malik an-Nasir found in Salah ad-Din Halil ibn Aibak as-Safadl's al-Wdfi bil-wafaydfi, which conforms almost exactly to what ROSEN1

Cf. R O S E N T H A L , Historiography, p . 87. 3 Kanz, I X , 384-91, 400-02. Cf. R O S E N T H A L , Historiography, p . 87. 4 R I T T E R , H., and D E D E R I N G , S., (ed.), Das Biographische Lexicon des Saldhaddin Halil Safadi, 4 vols, (so far); "Bibliotheca Islamica," V l a - d ; Wiesbaden 1931-59, IV, 353-74. 2

ibn Aibak

as-

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

IOI

defines as dynastic history, for in it are combined annals of his reign, an estimate of his character and accomplishments, lists of his children, the chief political, judicial, and bureaucratic officials of his reign, and contemporary foreign rulers. Though there is not an entry for every year of his reign, there are specific headings for twenty-four years in which only single events are mentioned, such as the appointment of a new viceroy of Aleppo, the death of the Ilhan, and the construction of a fortress in Syria1 - none of which had much bearing on alMalik an-Nasir's life or career as sultan. That this is, in fact, the same treatment one would expect to find in a dynastic history does not alter the implication that as-Safadi must have regarded it as sufficient for the purposes of biography or the general conclusion that annalistic material and techniques do figure in biography, though admittedly not so prominently as does biography in annals.

THAL

Nevertheless, in spite of this interrelationship and the existence of certain similarities between the two, there are obvious differences. Collections of biography, after all, whether found grouped in biographical dictionaries or following annals, constitute a distinct literary-historical genre with its own requirements and characteristics which result in the presentation of material not found in annals and a new organization of material which is. It would seem appropriate therefore to analyze and evaluate biographical material first as a separate source of information about the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir and secondly as a source closely related to annalistic material. In its simplest terms, the problem is one of defining the original contribution of biography to history and its relationship to a second historical genre. This task I intend to approach using the same method of comparative analysis employed in the previous section, though certain adjustments will have to be made to fit the new genre. On the surface it might seem most instructive to analyze the various biographies of al-Malik an-Nasir himself since the three annals which were analyzed did fall within his reign. But this is not practical for several reasons. As we have just seen, the biographical treatment given to rulers sometimes differs from that given to less exalted figures, the former being heavily influenced by the techniques of dynastic history and not really typical. Second, his reign is so long as to be unwieldly for the type of analysis here essayed. And third, of the two full-scale biographies known to have been written about him, one - the so-called Kitdb Sirat an-Ndsir - exists only in the form of quotations from it in al-'Aini's manuscript, and the other - Kitdb Tdrih al-Malik an-Nasir ibn Qala'un wa-auladihi by Sams ad-DIn as-Suga'I - is preserved only in a fragment covering a few years of the sultan's later life2. Therefore, I have resorted to selecting for analysis a prominent political figure who lived in al-Malik an-Nasir's reign: al-Amir Sams ad-DIn Qarasunqur al-Mansuri. As was the case with the three annals selected for analysis, the act of selection determines to some extent the results and thereby restricts their value. I am fully aware that neither a prominent nor a political figure need be chosen and that analysis of the biographies of a religious personage such as Ibn Taimiya would be enlightening3, especially in relation to the material concerning him which appears in the annals for 705/1305-06. Here again, however, the vastness and complexity of the material available on such a figure seem formidable, unmanageable within the scope of this study, so that I have selected a man about whom a reasonable amount of information is recorded, mainly in biographies and annals4. This person, almost of necessity, would loom large in al-Malik an-Nasir's reign, and embody at least one important aspect of it; in the end, Qarasunqur was chosen because his life casts light on the interesting problem of the relationship between Mamluks and Mongols. 1

2 3 Ibid p p 367-69. Cf. supra, p . 81, note 5. This has been done by M U R A D in his Mihan. * The fullest secondary s t u d y of Qarasunqur is GASTON W I E T ' S " U n refugie Mamlouk a la cour mongole de Perse", Melanges d'orientalisme offerts a Henri Massi, pp. 388-404- I t is little more t h a n an uncritical s u m m a r y of some of t h e sources.

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

102

A. B i o g r a p h i c a l D i c t i o n a r i e s i. As-Safadi To my knowledge three major writers of the Mamluk era have included a life of Qarasunqur in their biographical dictionaries: as-Safadi, Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani, and Ibn Tagri BirdI; the only biographer who might conceivably have included him in his general collection but did not, was al-Kutubi, whose Fawdt al-wafaydt1 is not broad enough in scope to include a political figure of Qarasunqur's rank. Of these three biographers only as-Safadi (d. 764/1362-63) was near enough a contemporary of Qarasunqur's to collect information about him from people who knew him, and since they were coevals we find a biography not only in al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt2 but in the compilation from this work of the biographies of as-Safadl's contemporaries entitled A1ydn al-asr wa-awdn an-nasrz. Opportunities to garner information about Qarasunqur probably arose from as-Safadl's employment as confidential secretary (kdtib as-sirr) in Aleppo and ar-Rahba (on the Euphrates in Upper Mesopotamia) and as agent of the exchequer (wakil bait al-mdl) in Damascus4, three cities in which Qarasunqur was well known, as will be seen. At any rate there was apparently no lack of information about this amir, for the biography which asSafadi devotes to him in al-Wdfi covers some thirteen pages and the abridgment of it in A 'ydn, almost exactly as many. For purposes of comparison a topical analysis of the biography in al-Wdfi is reproduced below in tabular form. Since there is practically no difference between the two biographies except for the inclusion in A'ydn al-'asr of a general estimate of Qarasunqur's character and the addition and deletion of a few details5, there is no point in outlining both biographies. Table 1 Biography of Qarasunqur Wdfi, XXIV 1. Identifying data (Fol. 99 vo.) 2. Viceroy of Aleppo; feuds with vizier (100 ro.)

3. Transferred, feud continues in Egypt (100 ro.-ioo vo.) 4. Murder of al-Malik al-Asraf (100 vo.-oi ro.) 5. Viceroy of Empire (101 ro.) 6. Term in prison (101 ro.-oi vo.) 7. Posts in Syria and Egypt (101 V0.-02 vo.) a. Viceroy of as-Subaiba (101 vo.) b. Viceroy of Hama (101 vo.) 1

c. Viceroy of Aleppo (101 vo.) d. Virtual rule over sultan (101 vo.) e. Viceroy of Damascus, precautions against arrest (101 VO.-02 vo.) f. Viceroy of Aleppo (102 vo.) 8. Casts off obedience to sultan (102 V0.-03 ro.) 9. Refuge with Bedouin tribe (103 vo.) 10. Defection to Ilhans (103 ro.-03 v o -) 11. Attacks by Assassins (103 V0.-04 vo -) 12. Riches, defects, virtues (104 V0.-05 vo.)

Edited by MUHAMMAD M U H Y I A D - D I N ' A B D A L - H A M I D , 2 vols.; Cairo 1951. Arab League Institute of Arabic Manuscripts MS, 565 tdrih, (Photographic copy of A h m e d I I I MS, 2920), X X I V , fols. 99 v c - 1 0 5 vo. 3 Arab League Institute of Arabic Manuscripts MS, 53 tdrih, copy 1 (Photographic copy of M a k t a b a t A m a n a t Khazina MS, 1216), V I I I , fols. 47 v c - 5 4 ro. * I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I , 87. * Character: A'ydn, V I I I , fols. 47 v o . - 4 8 ro.; additions: a few dates, A'ydn, V I I I , fols. 49 ro., 49 vo., 50 vo.; Wdfi, X X I V , fols. 101 vo., and 102 vo.; and a report on a visit to Baghdad, A'ydn, V I I I , fol. 53 v o . ; deletions: most notably details on the bad relations between Q a r a s u n q u r a n d t h e vizier I b n as-Sal'us: A'ydn, V I I I , fol. 48 vo.; Wdfi, X X I V . fols. 100 ro.-vo., and on Qarasunqur's imprisonment, A'ydn, V I I I , fol. 49 ro.', Wdfi, X X I V , fols. 101 r o . - o i vo. 2

BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARIES

a. Possessions, including mamluks (104 V0.-05 r ° 0 b. Charitable deeds (105 ro.) c. Susceptibility to bribery (105 ro.-05 vo.)

13. Death, Sawwal, 728/September, ( I 0 5 vo.)

103

1328

On the surface, the question of the sources from whom as-Safadi collected this material seems simple, for he cites at least one person for each of the topics listed above and sometimes two or more persons; furthermore, most of these people would seem to be persons whom Qarasunqur and as-Safadi knew in common, and include the following, with the author's identifying remarks when such are provided: Table 2 As-Safadl's Sources Wdfi, XXIV 1. Al-Qadi Mu'In ad-DIn ibn al-'Agami, "an intimate friend of his" (Fol. 100 ro.) 2. Ainabak, "mamluk of Baisari" (100 vo.) 1 3. Qaisar as-Sarafi, "mamluk of my uncle, Saraf ad-DIn" (101 ro.) 4. "He" (102 ro., 102 vo., 103 ro.), whose informants include: a. As-Sahib Tzz ad-DIn ibn al-Qalanisi (102) ro. 2

b. Sams ad-DIn al-Isbahanl, "our Saifa, the peerless one of time" (103 ro.) 3 5. Al-Qadi Sihab ad-DIn (103 vo., 104 vo., 105 ro.), whose informants include: a. As-Saih Abu 1-'Abbas Ahmad ibn 'Umar al-Ansari as-Sufi 6. Magd ad-DIn as-Sallami (103 vo.)4 7. 'Ala' ad-DIn 'AH ibn al-'Adil, "the messenger" (104 ro.)

A little reflection shows that these sources can be readily divided into two groups: oral and literary. It can be determined with ease that such persons as an adjutant, a messenger, a famous slave merchant, the two mamluks, and the intimate qddi friend were not in all probability historians but persons who knew or had contact with Qarasunqur and transmitted information about him, presumably to as-Safadi. But not necessarily to as-Safadi, as the unidentified use on three different occasions of "he said (qala)" would indicate. The only other source mentioned so frequently is al-Qadi Sihab ad-DIn, whom we can assume to be the same source cited in A'ydn al-'asr as "al-Qadi Sihab ad-DIn ibn Fadl Allah 5 ," i. e., al-'Umari, author of Masdlik al-absdr; with this identification in mind it becomes very likely, moreover, that the person to whom as-Safadi refers as "my uncle, Saraf ad-DIn," who figures in the text as an intimate of both Qarasunqur and the sultan Lagin, was not as-Safadl's uncle at all, but al-'Umarl's uncle - the famous Saraf ad-DIn ibn Fadl Allah6 who served as confidential secretary (kdtib as-sirr) to sultans from the reign of al-Asraf Halil (689-93/ 1290-93-94) until 709/1309-107 and thus 1

Baisari is B a d r ad-Din Baisari as-Salihi as-Samsi, died 697/1297-98 in prison; cf. M A Y E R L. A., Saracenic Heraldry, p . 112. 2 As-Sahib 'Izz ad-Din H a m z a . . . ibn H a m z a al-Qalanisi, died 729/1328-29, having served in various capacities in Syria, including t h e vizierate; see I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I , 75-76. 3 As-Saih Sams ad-Din M u h a m m a d ibn Mahmiid al-Isbahani, appointed Saih of the hanqdh of Qusun in 736/1335-36; died 749/1348-49; ibid., IV, 327-28. 4 Magd ad-Din Isma'il ibn M u h a m m a d ibn Y a q u t as-Sallami, died 743/1342-43, an i m p o r t a n t slave merchant in the service of al-Malik an-Nasir; cf. A Y A L O N , L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, No. 1; Jerusalem 1951, 5 p. 3. V I I I , fol. 51 ro. 6 I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I , 428. 7 H e is in fact referred t o b y this n a m e in A'ydn, V I I I , fol. 49 ro. 8 Little

104

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

seems a likely prospect for this intimate of Lagin's. Once al-'Umari is identified as a habitual source it is but a short step to identify him as the "he" in qdla, since there is no other source mentioned whom the reader might be assumed to know. It can be safely concluded, therefore, 1 that al-'Umari was as-Safadl's principal source of information concerning Qarasunqur, even though I find none of these data in al-'Umari's extant works. I am not prepared to say on the basis of my rapid survey of over thirty manuscript volumes of Masdlik al-absdr that it was not a major biographical source for as-Safadi, but I can say that it contains no biography of Qarasunqur or of any other military-political officer. Viziers and qddis, yes; poets and scholars, yes, by the hundred, but there simply is no section devoted to biographies of Mamluk officers of state 1 . It is possible, of course, that al-'Umari served as an oral source to as-Safadi; this is, indeed, the case, for as-Safadi refers to "that which he [al-'Umari] has told me more than once," but in the same sentence quotes from the "hatt" - the written work of some sort - of this same author 2 . It can be assumed, therefore, with a degree of certainty that an important work of al-'Umari's is missing, much of which has been preserved by as-Safadi. In form, this biography is little more than a succession of anecdotes concerning Qarasunqur arranged more or less chronologically, the only deviations from this sequential order being the introductory data and two stories in the last section which attempt to sum up Qarasunqur's character by balancing his virtues against his defects. Otherwise, the anecdotes are obviously arranged to illustrate certain high points in Qarasunqur's career. In form and method, therefore, as-Safadi follows in this biography the tradition of the habar historian which is characterized according to ROSENTHAL by (i) the juxtaposition of various events which are connected temporally only in the sense that an indeterminate interval separates them and (2) "the preference for situation and color as against sober facts." 3 As-Safadl's interest is obviously in anecdote, in a story for its own sake rather than in the point one might expect it to embody. Indeed, often as not, the point is lost in the telling of the story, and sometimes seems to lack pertinence to the subject of the biography. Take, for example, the anecdote which covers Qarasunqur's term in prison, reproduced here in its entirety as a sample of as-Safadi's methods: "Then, when Lagin became sultan, Qarasunqur became chief viceroy, conducting affairs as he saw fit. This was hard for Mankutamur - Lagin's chief mamluk - to bear, and he did not rest until Lagin arrested and imprisoned Qarasunqur and appointed Mankutamur in his place. "Qaisar as-Sarafi, mamluk of my uncle Saraf ad-DIn told me: 'When Lagin arrested Qarasunqur he summoned my ustdd [i. e., my uncle] for a random assignment. He did not come, though his standing with Lagin was good. Lagin summoned him [again], and [again] he did not come. He summoned him urgently, and when he did come, said, "We summoned you two or three times, and you did not come/" '""How," he said, "should I come when you have done this to Qarasunqur? You were like two souls in one body, and just yesterday both of you were released from your difficulties and came out of hiding. What way is this for people to act?"' '""Forgive me this, brother. Releasing him would revive my spirits. I have imprisoned him but I shall not harm him."' "'Saraf ad-DIn said, "You swear that you will not harm him?'" " ' Lagin replied, "By God, I will not harm him."' '""Give me permission to go to him to put his mind at ease by informing him of this."' "'"Go to him," Lagin said, "and inform him.'" 1

For a volume-by-volume description of Masdlik al-absar, cf. H O R O V I T Z , J., " A u s den Bibliotheken von Kairo, Damaskus und Konstantinopel," MSOS, X, No. 2 (1907), 43-45. 2 3 Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 82 vo. R O S E N T H A L , Historiography, p p . 66-67.

BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARIES

105

' " H e did so, whereupon Qarasunqur wept and swore, "I did live and die but with him," and moaned and groaned.' '"Saraf ad-DIn came to Lagin and told him of this: "Master, you said, 'By God, I shall not harm him.' Your oath is trustworthy and your religion, above suspicion."' " 'Lagin said, "Saraf ad-DIn, please bring a Koran." One was brought, and Lagin said, "Take my oath on it that I shall not bring harm to Qarasunqur's spirit and shall not allow anyone else to do so."' " 'Al-Qadi Saraf ad-DIn returned to Qarasunqur and told him of that. "Prison now is pleasant," Qarasunqur said. "May God give you a good reward."' "He remained thus until Lagin was killed and the second reign of an-Nasir began" 1 . Obviously from such an anecdote we learn less about Qarasunqur than about Lagin and Saraf ad-DIn. In the other anecdotes less information is forthcoming about Qarasunqur than about the strategems of the Assassins or the elaborate spy system which Qarasunqur set up to prevent being arrested by the sultan's agents. This is not to suggest, however, that as-Safadi merely collects at random a group of anecdotes related in some way or another to Qarasunqur's life, for apart from the discernible chronological plan, he selects anecdotes which pit Qarasunqur against various antagonists. As viceroy of Aleppo, he incurs the rivalry of a fellow amir and then the enmity of the vizier Ibn as-Sal'us; as-Safadl's interest here is to record Qarasunqur's glee in making a fool out of Ibn as-Sal'us with the connivance of al-Malik al-Asraf. The next report confronts Qarasunqur with al-Malik al-Asraf himself but focuses on the picturesque detail surrounding the murder rather than the reasons for Qarasunqur's involvement in it. His reign in Damascus, as-Safadi reduces to a story describing the lengths to which Qarasunqur went to foil those whom he suspected of being al-Malik an-Nasir's agents. Still other anecdotes depict him against such antagonists as the sultan himself and, once he has reached the court of the Ilhans, the Assassins sent by the sultan to kill him. In effect, the chief merit of such a plan for organizing the biography is that it sets forth certain interesting events in Qarasunqur's life by means of stories brought forth not so much to explain the events as merely to commemorate them. And since there is in the main only one major anecdote for each event, there is no doubt in my mind that as-Safadi did exercise some selection, did pick the stories from a fund at his disposal. As a corollary to this, I believe that the only reason why he failed to give an anecdote for the early period of Qarasunqur's life, prior to his becoming viceroy of Aleppo, was that he did not know a colorful one on good authority. The chief defect of the plan is that it leaves major gaps in our knowledge of Qarasunqur's career, for as will be seen from other sources, important segments of it are not touched at all, while most of the others are covered only by anecdotes. Even in the conclusion, where the impulse to evaluate Qarasunqur is lost once again in the anecdotes, one of which is rich in details about a holiday feast2 and another about the misfortune of an amir's infatuation with a wayward boy3, little of Qarasunqur's character^ emerges other than his susceptibility to bribery and his willingness to assist in serving the poor at a feast honoring the Prophet. It is possible that as-Safadi recognized the defects of such a detailed style to some extent and tried to compensate for them with the generalized estimate of Qarasunqur's character which introduces the biography in A 'ydn al-asr. This is not altogether true, as a sample of it shows: "He was among the great men of the world, one of the clever ones, one of those who if his enemies sought him out, stuck like a bone in their throats. Great in resolution and in routs, he would not keep anyone who used flattery or deceit on him and could not withstand anyone who helped him or who resembled

1

Wdfi, X X I V , fols. 101 r o . - o i vo.

2

Ibid., fol. 105 ro.

3

Ibid., fols. 105 ro.-o5 vo.

106

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

him. He saw good and bad days, knew infamy and glory . . Z'1. True as all this may be of Qarasunqur, it is vague and general enough to apply to almost any amir of comparable rank; furthermore, the style is so ornamental, the words are so obviously chosen for rhetorical effect, that one immediately wonders whether the author was not concerned here more with form than with content: "Kabiru l-'azm, kabiru 1-hazm," "bi-man yudahinuhu au yudahihi . . . li-man yuzahiruhu au yudahihi." Nevertheless, it should be conceded that however weak such a passage may be in execution, the principle of giving the reader a general introduction before immersing him in a flood of anecdote is a commendable one, and that the biography in A'ydn al-'asr represents an improvement over that in al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt to the extent that it follows this principle. And yet, even with the addition of these few general comments, as-Safadi leaves us with no overall picture either of Qarasunqur or of his career. In fact, we learn little more than the data listed on the table, plus the fact that by cleverness and resolution, he succeeded in outwitting a host of foes and thus was able to maintain himself in a series of important posts in the Mamluk state before he finally defected to the Mongols. We learn nothing of his early life except that Qala'un favored him; 2 few dates other than that of his death are given so we cannot even be sure from this biography alone that as-Safadi has given a full account of his activities. As for the causes of his changes in fortune, we know practically nothing other than that he lost the viceroyship of Aleppo because he had alienated the vizier3 and that he was imprisoned at the instigation of an envious mamluk of Lagin's 4 . Why he joined the plot to murder al-Asraf, why he lost the favor of al-Malik an-Nasir, and why he was so afraid of the sultan that he defected to the Ilhans, as-Safadi does not explain. As a self-contained summary of the achievements of Qarasunqur or the facts of his life, as-Safadl's biography leaves much, then, to be desired, and the reader is left with the impression that Qarasunqur was an arresting figure who stood out from his contemporaries mainly by his staying power and by his rather spectacular flight to the Mongols. 2. Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani The second appearance of Qarasunqur in a biographical dictionary comes some one hundred years later in Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalanl's work frequently cited in this study - ad-Durar al-kdmina fi a'ydn al-mi'a at-tdmina. One of the most famous religious scholars of his time (d. 852/1448-49)5, his interest in biography probably stemmed from his specialization in hadit which gained him renown as a teacher and resulted in his being appointed, against his will, apparently, chief qddi. In addition, then, to coming almost a century later than as-Safadi, he differs from him by his legistic as opposed to bureaucratic orientation. The question is whether these differences influenced Ibn Hagar's approach in writing the biography of a prominent Mamluk amir of the fourteenth century. Table 3 Biography of Qarasunqur Durar, III 1. Identifying data (246) 2. Viceroy of Aleppo; feuds (246)

1

3. Murder of al-Malik al-Asraf (246) 4. Imprisoned 696/1296-97 (246)

2 A'yan, V I I I , fol. 47 vo. Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 99 vo. 3 lDid., f o l I O O r Q Ibid., fol. 101 ro. 5 For biographical d a t a see C. VAN A R E N D O N K , " I b n Hadjar al-'Askalani," EI, I I , 379-80; M. Q U A T R E M E R E , Histoire des sultans mamlouks I, P t . 2, pp. 209-19. 4

BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARIES

5. Posts (246) a. Viceroy of as-Subaiba b. Viceroy of Hama c. Viceroy of Aleppo d. Control over the sultan e. Viceroy of Syria, 709/1309-10 6. Enters Mongol territory (246-47)

107

7. Attacked by Assassins (247) 8. Death (247) 9. Data from ad-Dahabi (247)1 a. Virtues and defects b. Veneration of Ibn Taimiya 10. Laudatory verses (247)

The purpose of this table has been fulfilled if it calls attention to the fact that Ibn Hagar selected the same topics for discussion as did as-Safadi, that, in fact, the main part of the biography in ad-Durar al-kdmina is a summary of that in al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt or A'ydn al-'asr2. Even though the later work is highly condensed, there remain some tell-tale direct borrowings in phrasing, but the use of as-Safadl's pattern of episodes is even more obvious. Most convincing are the errors and oversights which Ibn Hagar commits in his evident haste to reduce asSafadi's long, leisurely work to manageable length. Thus, having revealed that Qarasunqur took part in the murder of al-Asraf, Ibn Hagar switches to the dual, stating that "Kitbuga hid the two of them, put out a call for the two of them, even though the two of them were with him."3 The use of the dual is inexplicable here without reference to as-Safadi's text which uses almost the same phrasing to describe how Kitbuga hid Qarasunqur and Lagin after the murder4. Likewise, having omitted altogether Qarasunqur's transfer from Damascus to Aleppo, Ibn Hagar makes it seem, inaccurately, that Qarasunqur defected from Damascus rather than Aleppo. But the table is misleading if it leaves the impression that this biography resembles as-Safadl's for Ibn Hagar has transformed it in the process of condensation. By stripping it of the long anecdotes, and reducing them to bare statements of fact, he produces what amounts to an outline of Qarasunqur's career, or at least those aspects of his career treated by as-Safadi; this in itself lends a factual air to the biography lacking in the original. And yet, in the end, the influence of the older writer or Ibn Hagar's own predilection for anecdote could not be wholly suppressed, for to the facts of Qarasunqur's reception at the Mongol court Ibn Hagar adds as-Safadl's short, insignificant anecdote which tells how Qarasunqur won the Ilhan's favor by requesting a Mongol wife5. As for material not found in al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt, Ibn Hagar replaces as-Safadl's stories illustrating Qarasunqur's virtues and defects with statements to the same effect from ad-Dahabi 6 . Ad-Dahabi, however, charges Qarasunqur of susceptibility to bribery, but omits any mention of his penchant for performing charitable deeds. Curiously, ad-Dahabi attributes to him admiration for Ibn Taimiya and even reproduces a line or two of a letter which Qarasunqur had written to this figure7, which is probably just as much a reflection of ad-Dahabi's interest as Qarasunqur's. The three lines of verse add nothing to our knowledge of Qarasunqur other than the not extraordinary fact that he was well enough known for verses to be preserved extolling him. 1

I have not succeeded in locating the specific work of ad-Dahabi from which Ibn Hagar borrowed. Which, it is difficult to say because of the close correspondence of the biographies of Wdfi and A'ydn. li. F. KRENKOW, "Safadi, Salah ad-DIn . . .," EI, IV, 53, who states that A'ydn "has been largely extracted 3 )y Ibn Hadjar for his Durar al-kdmina." Durar, III, 246. 4 5 Wdfi, XXIV, fol. 101 ro. Durar, III, 247; Wdfi, XXIV, fol. 103 vo. 6 Durar, III, 247; Wdfi, XXIV, fol. 104 vo. 7 The influence of Ibn Taimiya over the Mamluk amirs of Syria has not been studied in the light of the harge recorded by al-Yunlni, Dail, MS A, Pt. IV, fol. 50 ro., repeated by Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz IX, 144: 'When al-Amir Rukn ad-DIn Baibars al-Gasnakir came to a§-Saih Nasr [al-Manbigi] as was his custom, the aih made mention of Ibn Taimiya and the matter of his creed: that he had corrupted the minds of a great lumber, among them the viceroy of Syria and the greatest Syrian amirs." Cf. supra, p. 72. 2

108

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

Other than a few specific dates and an indication that Qarasunqur admired Ibn Taimiya, we learn nothing new about this amir from Ibn Hagar. Furthermore, Ibn Hagar's orientation toward hadit and religious scholarship manifestly fails to affect the approach he adopts toward the life of a political figure, since he adopts as-Safadi's own approach. It would not even be convincing to argue that the act of condensation reflects Ibn Hagar's lack of interest in such a figure, since ad-Durar al-kdmina compared to al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt is conceived on a lesser scale. In this particular instance, furthermore, this lesser conception results in the main value of the biography, for by paring away page after page of anecdote, Ibn Hagar leaves an outline which suggests much more clearly and emphatically than as-Safadl's stories the prominent aspects of Qarasunqur's career. 3. Ibn Tagri Birdi This biography of Qarasunqur written by Ibn Tagri BirdI for al-Manhal as-sdfi wal-mustaufi ba'da al-wdfi1, which contains biographies of the notables of the Mamluk era from 650/1252-53 through the end of Caqmaq's reign in 857/14532, offers several possibilities of contrast with the other two biographies and biographers. First of all, Ibn Tagri Birdi's interest in history is not limited to the biographical approach, and the material on Qarasunqur in his dynastic history, an-Nugum az-zdhira, invites comparison of his techniques as chronicler and biographer; especially interesting since an-Nugum az-zdhira, which was apparently written after an-Manhal as-sdfiz, contains a short obituary notice of Qarasunqur. Perhaps equally important, Ibn Tagri BirdI, neither bureaucrat nor religious scholar but a courtier without portfolio, provides a third possible point of view toward Qarasunqur. In fact, Ibn Tagri BirdI himself takes care in his biography of al-Malik an-Nasir to differentiate his approach from as-Safadl's, though not on the grounds that we would expect. Having made generous use of as-Safadl's biography, he proceeds to point out the defects of his source, berating him for omitting lists of the qddis of all four legal schools: "I say: as-Saih Salah ad-DIn as-Safadl's mention of the Safi'I qddis and the exclusion of others has a manifest cause, namely, the lack of his knowledge of the affairs of the kingdom and his remoteness from them. For he was in Syria, so that everything he wrote in his history he took from the lips of informants, without being absolutely certain of deaths or events. He was a litterateur; as for the true historian, he was the renowned Tmad ad-Din Ibn Katir." 4 This statement is remarkable for more than one reason in the light of what we have learned of Mamluk historiography and especially of Ibn Tagri Birdi's own failings as a historian. Loaded with unintended irony, it is also naive, assuming as it does that the affairs of the kingdom were restricted to Egypt, ignoring the momentous events which occurred in Syria and the dependence of Egyptian historians on Syrian informants, not to mention the practice whereby they often reproduce Syrian historians' versions of Egyptian events. To understand why Ibn Tagri Birdi, having just lifted the laurel from as-Safadi's head because he was a Syrian, should then crown another Syrian with it is difficult, to say the least. Be that as it may, in the case of Qarasunqur, Ibn Tagri BirdI does sketch a different picture from that traced by as-Safadi and Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani.

1

One volume published so far, halfway through the Ahmads; Cairo 1956. I have used the Dar al-Kutub MS, 13475 H. Hand copy of Bibliotheque Nationale Arabic MS, 2068-2072). 2 AMAR, E., "La Valeur historique de l'ouvrage biographique intitule al-Manhal as-sdfi," Milanges Hart3 wig Derenbourgh, p. 251. See ZIYADA, Mu'arrihun, p. 32. 4 Manhal, III, fols. 252 ro.~52 vo.

BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARIES

109

Table 4 Biography of Qarasunqur Manhal, III 1. Identifying data (Fol. 18 vo.) 2. Posts (18 vo.) a. Viceroy of Hama b. Viceroy of Aleppo until 691/1291-92 c. Viceroy of Egypt d. Viceroy of Aleppo 699-709/1299-1309-

3. Flight to Ilhanid territory 711/1311-12 (X8 vo.) 4 . Death (18 vo.) 5. Character traits (18 VO.-19 ro.) 6. Buildings erected (19 ro.) 7. Verses (19 ro.)

10

e. Viceroy of Damascus f. Viceroy of Aleppo By omitting some topics, adding others, and giving a one-sided view of Qarasunqur's character traits Ibn Tagri BirdI builds a more favorable impression of the amir than that created by the other two authors. As-Safadi and Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani take pains to balance the positive aspects of Qarasunqur's character against the negative: susceptibility to bribery against charity and veneration for Ibn Taimiya; but Ibn Tagri BirdI drops the charge of bribery, replaces it, in fact, with the bold claim that Qarasunqur was "abstentious from reprehensible actions." 1 As if in support of this claim, Qarasunqur's role in the murder of al-Malik al-Asraf passes without mention and his defection to the Mongols is dismissed with the vague statement that "he and al-Malik an-Nasir became estranged after certain matters too long to explain."2 Although a new emphasis and a new attitude are observable, it would probably be a mistake to read too much into the omissions and deletions. If Ibn Tagri BirdI had been intent on whitewashing Qarasunqur, he could have emphasized his piety in endowing a school and a caravansary ; but these good works he allows to speak for themselves in matter-of-fact language. Furthermore, as will be seen, he adopts a more conventional view toward Qarasunqur in an-Nugum az-zdhira. Nevertheless, it is obvious from Ibn Tagri Birdi's manipulation of his material that for unknown reasons he was interested in making a more favorable statement about Qarasunqur than was as-Safadi, a source with which he was familiar. Whether this change can be attached to Ibn Tagri Birdi's background or his sympathy toward a figure such as Qarasunqur would require extensive research into the whole of this author's work, more than is possible within the limits of this study. Here it is justifiable only to point once more to Ibn Tagri Birdi's tendency to ignore or change material found in contemporary sources. Other changes are probably unrelated to Ibn Tagri Birdi's favorable attitude toward Qarasunqur and can be attributed to his consultation of sources other than as-Safadi. No dubious motive can be assigned, for example, to his omission of Qarasunqur's prison term nor the Assassins' attempts on his life. Details on Qarasunqur's successors and predecessors in certain offices as well as verses different from these in ad-Durar al-kdmina confirm that he drew on other resources. On the whole, however, this biography does little to change our opinion of Ibn Tagri Birdi's value as a historian of the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir.

1

Ibid., fol. 18 vo.

2

Ibid.

110

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

B. O b i t u a r y N o t i c e s In addition to these three biographies found in dictionaries, others, more in the nature of obituary notices, are found in various chronicles. As might be expected, contemporary Egyptian annalists tend to treat Qarasunqur's death in 728/1327-28 simply as an event of the year to be recorded, without delving into biographical details. Thus an-Nuwairi confines his discussion to the circumstances of the burial and the repercussions of the death in Egypt, which the sultan took as occasion to release Qarasunqur's sons and mamluks from captivity 1 . Two other Egyptian historians - al-Muqri2 and al-Maqrizi3 - also record Qarasunqur's death without including any biographical detail; in fact, both merely reproduce the passage from Nihdyat al-arab with only slight changes. Curiously, however, al-MaqrizI includes a second biography of Qarasunqur under the obituaries for the year 741/1340-41, which, far from being an-Nuwairi's short notice of his death, continues for almost five pages4 almost exclusively on the subject of the Assassins hired by al-Malik an-Nasir to kill Qarasunqur at the Ilhanid court. Nevertheless, this is very definitely a biography, since it is included in the section reserved for necrologies and ends with a few sentences listing posts which Qarasunqur had filled and specifying one or two traits of his character. In tabular form the biography takes on this unsymmetrical shape: Table 5 Obituary Notice of Qarasunqur Suluk, II 1. Death in Maraga (554) 2. Attacks of Assassins (554-58) 3. Identifying data (558) a. Posts

b. Characteristics c. Progeny d. Buildings

The existence of this second biography leads inevitably to the conclusion that al-Maqrizi must have forgotten both the date of Qarasunqur's death and his own earlier obituary notice commemorating it. Why he should have forgotten when no other extant source dates his death in 741/1341-42 is not so easy, however, to explain. It is clear that the sultan's attempts to murder Qarasunqur by Assassins attracted a great deal of attention, for as-Safadi, as we have seen, presents a large amount of material on the same subject, none of which, however, is reproduced by al-Maqrizi, who must have relied on another source. In addition, we find Ibn Battuta's interest aroused by the same topic when he was travelling past the castles of the Isma'lliya in Syria, to the extent, in fact, that he wrote a hikdya - a story - which includes biographical data on Qarasunqur5. For the present, suffice it to say that al-Maqrizi did not borrow from Ibn Battuta's account of the Assassin's attacks against Qarasunqur. Oddly enough, he must have taken it from Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il or his source. Examination of the portion of an-Nahg as-sadid left unedited and unpublished by BLOCHET brings to light an extraordinary digression entitled "What Happened to Qarasunqur in the Land of the Mongols,"6 which is appended to the annal for 741/1340-41 and which, indeed, ends the entire work. Why Mufaddal should choose to close his history with a digression and why he should 1

2 3 Nihdya, X X X I , 93~94Natr, P t . IV, fols. 240 ro.~40 vo. Suluk, I I , 303. 4 8 Ibid., p p . 5 5 4 - 5 6 D E F R E M E R Y , Ch., and S A N G U I N E T T I , B . R., (ed. and trans.), Voyages d'Ibn Batoutah, "Collections d'ouvrages orientaux publiee par la Societe Asiatique," 4 vols.; Paris 1926-27, I, 167-72. Cf. G I B B , Travels, I, 8 107-09. Nahg, fols. 266 VO.-70 vo.

OBITUARY NOTICES

III

choose to digress on Qarasunqur whom he barely mentions (except for a report of his death in 728/1327-28)1 after the annal for 713/1313-14 is a mystery. More remarkable still, the source of this material, identified as usual only as al-mu'arrih, is probably neither al-Gazari, who died i n 739/I330>-39, n o r an-Nuwairi. Though breaking the annals to devote a separate section to this subject would be characteristic of an-Nuwairi, the information is not to be found in Nihdyat al-arab. Whoever the original source may be, collation of al-Maqrizi's text with Mufaddal's leaves no doubt that either the two of them used the same source for this passage or al-Maqrizi copied from Mufaddal. In all probability a third historian ended his annal for the last year of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign with a disquisition on Qarasunqur versus the Assassins, the occasion for which was probably some comment in the sultan's obituary relating to his use of the Assassins. Mufaddal followed this source, even for such an innovation, remembering, however, that Qarasunqur had died long before. Al-Maqrizi apparently forgot the date of his death; what is more, he was probably so steeped in the annalistic form that any deviation from it smacked of error; hence he tried to compensate for the inappropriateness of it by fitting it into Qarasunqur's obituary, even though this necessitated his forgetting that Qarasunqur had died more than twelve years before. In a sense, then, this, al-Maqrizi's second biography, might be considered a contrivance which serves the purpose of recording material on the Assassins by wedging it between a few details on Qarasunqur's life and death. Ibn Tagri Birdi's obituary notice in an-Nugum az-zdhira2, though short, differs enough from that in al-Manhal as-sdfi to warrant comparison of the two. Table 6 Obituary Notice of Quarasunqur Nugum, IX 1. Death (273) 2. Posts (273) a. Viceroy of Aleppo b. Viceroy of Syria c. Viceroy of Aleppo

3. Role in murder of al-Malik al-Asraf (273) 4. Role in restoring al-Malik an-Nasir to throne (273) 5- Defection to Mongols (274)

As Ibn Tagri BirdI himself states, these few lines about Qarasunqur are recorded only to mark his death since "there has been mention of him in the biography of al-Muzaffar Baibars al-Gasnakir and in the first part of al-Malik an-Nasir's third reign, and since we have related how he abandoned Aleppo territory for the Mongols."3 Here, in other words, the author himself sets the limitations of biography within an annalistic framework. Otherwise, this biography is noteworthy for Ibn Tagri Birdi's changed, more conventionally balanced attitude toward his subject, for the attempt to include both virtues and defects is obvious when he mentions Qarasunqur's part in the assassination of one sultan and the restoration of another. The reasons for this change in attitude are conjectural. To my knowledge, there is only one other biography to be found in a Mamluk chronicle, that of Ibn Katir 4 , who might be expected to adopt the traditional approach of a hadit scholar, provided there were such an approach distinguishable from others. Three or four lines long, it gives only enough data to distinguish Qarasunqur from other amirs.

1

2

Ibid., fol. 211 vo.

Nugum, IX, 273-74.

8

Ibid.

4

Biddya, XIV, 140.

112

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

Table J Obituary Notices of Qarasunqur Biddya, XIV, 140 1. Murder of al-Asraf 2. Posts a. Viceroy of Egypt b. Viceroy of Damascus c. Viceroy of Aleppo

3. Defection to Mongols 4. Death

Such treatment is more or less typical of the biographical notices given to non-scholars by the Syrian chroniclers, most of whom it will be recalled were trained in religious scholarship and were assiduous in assuring a place in history for their colleagues and peers. A soldierpolitician, therefore, like Qarasunqur received brief mention, especially since his role in affairs of state would be registered in the annalistic portion of the chronicle. And the effort to state the highlights of his life is noteworthy in contrast to the annalistic treatment of a contemporary Egyptian such as an-Nuwairi, who is content merely to make note of his death, whereas Ibn Katir lists some of his offices, enumerates his feats, and notes the circumstances of his death. That the biographies written later by al-Maqrizi and Ibn Tagri BirdI resemble Ibn Katir's is simply an indication of the influence of the Syrian scholarly tradition on the later Egyptian.

C. T e n t a t i v e Conclusions a n d G e n e r a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s At this point, a general estimate of the biographical literature, by which is meant that material arranged in a biographical form, whether found in a chronicle or a biographical dictionary, is in order. To evaluate a genre which permits such a quantitative difference as that found between al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt and al-Biddya wan-nihdya is difficult. But the temptation to isolate as-Safadi and to consider him as a law unto himself can be resisted when it is realized that he and the other biographers follow the same general pattern and that they differ from him mainly by developing it with fewer details. Such lengthy treatment of a subject is, moreover, not unusual and is to be found, according to GIBB, in biographical dictionaries "from Ibn Sa'd to al-Muradi." 1 Furthermore, the sameness of the pattern reflects a sameness of purpose, namely, to record a person's contribution, no matter how small, whether religious, cultural, political, military, or economic, to the Muslim community as a whole. To evaluate the biographies, we must then analyze the authors' use of the traditional pattern to achieve that purpose. A quick glance at the tables reveals that all the biographers cover more or less the same data, with the implication that Qarasunqur was deemed worthy of the biographer's notice because of these features of his life: his prominent political posts, his participation in the murder of a sultan, his defection to the Ilhans, his survival against the repeated attacks of Assassins. True, most of these seem to be negative contributions; nevertheless, for most of the biographers these aspects constitute an important position in the political and military life of the Mamluk world. For obvious reasons of space, most biographers content themselves with a flat, undeveloped statement of these facts, adding perhaps an original observation or two, often for the sake of expanding the tradition. Were the motivation any more complex than this, it would be 1

"Islamic Biographical L i t e r a t u r e , " Historians

of the Middle East, ed. B .

LEWIS

and P . M.

HOLT,

p . 57.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

113

ficult to explain, for instance, Ibn Hagar's innocuous quotes from ad-Dahabi which he pends to as-Safadi's data. At times, however, an author may remold the material so as to .ve, inadvertently or not, a variant opinion of the subject; such is certainly the case with Ibn gri BirdI in his first biography of Qarasunqur unless he merely lacked sufficient control over i material, as may well be the case in the light of the later biographical sketch in an-Nugum az\ira. In other instances, the personal interest of the author obviously outweighs the demands the general purpose which we have assumed. Such I believe to be the case with al-Maqrizi, LO in his second biography cannot resist transmitting the lively tales of Qarasunqur's adntures with the Assassins; the same is true of as-Safadi, to the extent, moreover, that he dudes anecdotes which are insignificant but colorful and exciting as long as they have some ationship - though tenuous - to the subject, even though they disclose nothing about his conbution to the community. In this category falls as-Safadl's pointless anecdote about wrestling1 well as the story of Qarasunqur's sojourn in jail, which belongs in a biography of Lagin2. And t if we must criticize as-Safadi as a biographer on the grounds of introducing irrelevant maial, we must acknowledge, on the other hand, that these same data, while contributing little our knowledge of Qarasunqur, are valuable from a different, wider, historical point of view >m which it matters little that interesting information about Lagin emerges from a biography out Qarasunqur. Likewise, even if the anecdotes have been edited so as to serve literary ther than historical purposes, they contain many incidental details about life in Mamluk nes invaluable to a social historian; details such as the food eaten by a sultan while on a nting party 3 , the inability of Qarasunqur's mamluks to adapt themselves to desert life4, the sguises adopted by Assassins5. In other words, the main value of as-Safadl's biography lies his violation of both the purpose and pattern of the genre. The theoretical purpose of biography - to outline a person's contribution to the life of the islim community - forestalled the development of biography which aims at the delineation a life lived whole or even of a rounded, shaded character. Other than to name a few virtues d defects, the Mamluk biographer shows little interest in character at all, less in the develment of character, since deeds and accomplishments constituted a person's contribution to e umma. Even the deviations from this purpose, arising from fascination with striking and usual detail, militate against the portrayal of an integrated personality, since such interest ids to the narration of anecdotes focused not so much on the person as the detail6. But the question remains regarding the success of the biographers in defining Qarasunqur's Le in the political events of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, which put in its nplest terms asks whether they give an accurate, reliable account of the significant aspects his career. There are two ways of answering the question, one by comparing the biographies emselves in isolation from other sources, the second by examining them against the backDund of the chronicles. Adopting the first method, we can detect some variations within the neral pattern. As-Safadi and Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalanl can almost be treated as the same author Lee the latter depended largely on the former and both imply that the memorable aspects Qarasunqur's career were his important posts, his part in the assassination of al-Asraf, his fection, and the attempts of Assassins against his life. Ibn Tagri BirdI in one biography minates two of these aspects and substitutes the public buildings which Qarasunqur erected; another, he revives the regicide and mentions for the first time Qarasunqur's role in restoring Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 102 ro. See supra, p p . 104-05.

3

Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 100 vo.

* Ibid., fol. 103 ro.

Ibid., fol. 104 ro. F o r a discussion of these characteristics within a wider context see VON G R U N E B A U M , G. E., %m, p p . 2 7 5 - 8 1 .

Medieval

114

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

al-Malik an-Nasir to the sultanate. Al-Maqrizi focuses on a single topic to the neglect of most of the others; while Ibn Katir omits that topic altogether. Thus it can be seen that no single biographer covers all the aspects of Qarasunqur's career which some of the others consider important enough to mention. It might, therefore, be argued on the basis of this evidence alone that no single biography gives a wholly reliable statement of Qarasunqur's importance. Examination of the material relating to Qarasunqur in the annals demonstrates this even more emphatically when it becomes immediately apparent that the biographers are highly selective when they list Qarasunqur's activities. Thus we learn, for instance, that in 695/1295-96, after he had emerged from hiding but before he had been appointed viceroy of Egypt, he was sent to Syria to accompany to Egypt the leaders of the Oirat Mongols seeking refuge in Mamluk territory 1 ; that in 702/1302-03 he fought against the Mongols at the Battle of Saqhab 2 ; that in 708/1308-09 he supervised an attack against the Mongols of Mosul3; none of which, it is true, seems important individually, but collectively might add up to a comment on his military activities. Furthermore, the existence of a greater number of annals than of biographies and the natural tendency of the annalists to cite dates often, permits a more systematic reconstruction of the posts which Qarasunqur held. More important, research in the annals about particular events in his career gives rise to the possibility that the biographers understood them imperfectly, with the implication that the significance of Qarasunqur's career as a whole was not appreciated or understood. Yet it should be made clear, firstly, that an over-all view was not the biographer's aim; for him, listing and narrating, if he chose, selected events was enough, and it would never have occurred to him to draw a general conclusion from all the specific episodes. Nor, as we have seen, was there any attempt to establish a relationship between episodes other than approximate chronological order. The problem then becomes one of looking into the annals to determine whether enough additional information is recorded and whether it is of different enough a character to change substantially our knowledge of Qarasunqur's role in Mamluk society. To attack this problem requires a change in approach. Up to this point, except to demonstrate the type and scope of information recorded by Mamluk historians, little interest has been shown in the content and implications of their works. It is true that to resolve contradictory versions of the same event, the event itself had to be discussed, but only as a means of understanding the contradiction, not the event. In this section, too, the approach and emphasis remain historiographical, but assume a more historical tinge, for the process of correlating material about events in Qarasunqur's activities involves us more deeply in the issues raised by his life. Since, however, a biography of Qarasunqur is not the purpose of this further inquiry into the sources, these issues have been selected not on the basis of the light they cast on his life but on the methods of the historians, especially on those who contribute what seems to be original data neglected by other historians. Probably the most complex issue, the one most far reaching in its implications, concerns Qarasunqur's defection to the Ilhans, to which I have referred consistently as defection. Actually, and this is at the heart of the issue, the annalists themselves employ no such pejorative term, but content themselves with such neutral terms as the following: '"abara," to cross 4 ; "ta*-

1

Cf. Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz MS, VIII, 316; Author Z., Beitrdge, p. 39; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 85; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I, fol. 235 vo.; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 812. 2 Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 240 vo., and Tuhfa, fol. 78 vo.; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X X , 6; alBirzali, Muqtafd, II, fol. 83 ro.; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 932. Saqhab is a village some twenty-five miles south of 3 Damascus; see POPPER, Egypt and Syria, I, map 13. Al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LIX, 19-20. 4 Baibars al-Mansuri, Tuhfa, fol. 123 vo.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

115

diya," crossing1; "tawaggaha," to go 2 ; "dahala," to enter 3 ; "haraba," to flee4; "sara," to proceed5; "tawassala," to reach; 6 "haraga," to go out 7 ; "tasahhaba," to withdraw 8 . To this purely linguistic indication of the historians' neutral attitude toward what would seem to constitute treachery - desertion to the enemy - can be added almost unanimous lack of condemnation, even of reproach, of Qarasunqur and his companions. Indeed, even those biographers who single out defects in his character mention only his susceptibility to bribery but pass over in silence this crossing into the camp of the enemy. Of all the historians who treat this incident, only one - Ibn ad-Dawadari - takes it amiss and denounces it with a strong phrase or two when Qarasunqur and his entourage come into the presence of Hudabanda: "God (He is exalted!) became enraged with them, cursed them, prepared hell for them - a miserable dwelling!"9 Otherwise there is not a murmur of disapproval for what on the face of it seems to be crass treason. Either, then, the relations between Mamluks and Ilhans were such that passage from one camp to another carried no stigma, or Ibn ad-Dawadari, as the only dissenter, had information about Qarasunqur's activities in the Mongol state which the other historians lacked. Each of the alternatives is worth detailed consideration, for Ibn ad-Dawadari does present such information, and there is evidence that the Mamluks and Mongols at this time did not constitute simply two mutually hostile armed camps. Contrary to expectations, for reasons not explained fully by Qarasunqur's high rank, several historians were indefatigable in recording information on his joining the Mongols as well as other aspects of his career. As-Safadi, we have seen, devotes several pages to this episode, focusing on the events which preceded the apparently irrevocable step of crossing into Ilhan territory and, once he was there, al-Malik an-Nasir's attempts to assasinate him10. This author's interest in Qarasunqur's battle against Assassins was shared most notably by Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il11 and al-Maqrizi12. Relevant passages from Baibars al-Mansuri exist only for the events leading up to the flight, written from the point of view of an important official in Egypt 13 ; an-Nuwairi provides a great deal of material pertaining to the decision of an amir to join Qarasunqur in exile without ever mentioning the Assassins14. Ibn ad-Dawadari gives long accounts of the flight itself and of Qarasunqur's sojourn in Ilhan territory, likewise without mentioning the Assassins15. Of the contemporary Syrian historians, Abu 1-Fida gives an original account of the flight which reflects his partisanship for al-Malik an-Nasir, thereafter little about Qarasunqur 16 ; al-Birzali,17 al-Yunini18, and Ibn Katir 19 are sparing in the space they assign to the exile. Second in time, but not necessarily in importance, to these are al-Maqrizi20 and al-'Aini21, both of whom preserve accounts taken from contemporary sources which have vanished on both the flight and the Assassins. As this outline indicates, there are variant treatments of some aspects of the episode, but it is not appropriate to set them forth in detail, thus repeating the task performed in the first chapter. For present purposes it is sufficient to indicate the general pattern followed by the sources and then to compare briefly a biographical with an annalistic version. A general survey of the sources makes it clear that Qarasunqur and his companions fled into Ilhanid territory from fear that they would be caught up in the purge which invariably accom1

I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 225. A u t h o r Z., Beitrdge, p . 157; as-Safadi, al-Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 103 ro. 3 4 Al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I I , fol. 182 ro. Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, P t . IV, p. 64. 5 6 I b n Katir, Biddya, X I V , 63. I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 246. 7 8 I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, I X , 32. I b n Tagri Birdi, Manhal, I I I , fol. 18 vo. 10 n 9 Kanz, T X , 231. Wdfi, X X I V , fols. 102 VO.-04 vo. Nahg, fols. 266 VO.-70 vo. 12 13 14 Suluk, II,' 554-58. Tuhfa, fols. 122 VO.-24 ro. Nihdya, X X X , 71-74. 15 16 Kanz,'IX, 2 1 8 - 3 5 ; 251-62; 267-82. Muhtasar, Pt. IV, pp. 64-69. 17 18 19 Muqtafd, I I , fol. 182 ro. Dail, MS A, P t . IV, fol. 221 vo. Biddya, X I V , 63, 65, 66. 21 20 Suluk, I I , 1 ' 0 7 - i n ; 115-16; 554-58'Iqd, L X , 2 8 2 - 3 6 4 3 90-430. 2

Il6

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

panied the accession of a new sultan 1 . Not only had al-Malik an-Nasir begun widespread arrests of powerful amirs2, but Qarasunqur had been informed that he himself was to be apprehended by an expedition sent from Egypt 3 . In addition, both Qarasunqur and his most prominent fugitive companion - Carnal ad-DIn Aqus al-Afram4 - had particular cause to fear arrest. AlAfram had worked openly to prevent al-Malik an-Nasir's return to the throne 5 . Qarasunqur had been one of the sultan's most active partisans 6 ; nevertheless, the sultan, and the Asrafiya Mamluks, it is claimed, hated him for his participation in the murder of al-Malik al-Asraf, years ago7. It is clear, furthermore, that Qarasunqur had not originally intended to seek refuge at the Ilhanid court, but that once he had abandoned his position as viceroy of Aleppo and thrown off allegiance to the sultan, a combination of circumstances drove him to this expedient8. At this point, a logical break in the narrative, we shall stop to compare a specific annalistic account of this episode with as-Safadl's biographical version of the same material before proceeding to analyze unique data which occur in only one source. For some reason, as-Safadi chooses to ignore altogether Qarasunqur's help to al-Malik anNasir in regaining his throne; in his only reference to the entire affair he states merely that when the sultan came to Damascus out of exile, Qarasunqur came from Aleppo to meet him9. Then, with no explanation except that the sultan wanted to stabilize his authority, Qarasunqur was given full control of the affairs of the kingdom until the sultan sent him back to Syria as viceroy of Damascus. From this point, Qarasunqur secretly cast off obedience to al-Malik an-Nasir, for reasons also left unexplained by as-Safadi, who is content to describe the elaborate spy system which the amir set up to forestall arrest. In the meantime, Qarasunqur requested a transfer to Aleppo, which, when granted, did not calm his fears. Finally, he requested permission to make the pilgrimage, during the course of which he was instructed to proceed to a station where he would receive provisions sent by the sultan. Suspicious of this offer, he abandoned the pilgrimage and sought the amnesty of Bedouin princes allied to the Mamluks, who helped him recover his own mamluks and possessions left behind in Aleppo. When the sultan refused to

1

For recurrence of this practice which was necessitated b y the very structure of t h e Mamluk system, see BSOAS, XV, No. 2 (1953), 208-09. 2 I n 711/1311-12 the viceroys of Egypt, Damascus, Safad, and Gaza were arrested in t h e space of two d a y s ; see I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 211-13; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X X , 7 1 ; I b n Katir, Biddya, XIV, 62. According to al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 99-100, and al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L I X , 218-30, Q a r a s u n q u r h a d begun to t a k e precautionary measures earlier as a result of the arrest of t h e viceroy of Aleppo in 710/1310-11. And it is clear from as-Safadi, Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 102 ro., t h a t Qarasunqur h a d begun t a k i n g elaborate precautions against arrest as early as 709/1309-10. 3 Baibars al-Mansuri, Tuhfa, fol. 122 vo.; I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 218; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X X , 70; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 108; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L X , 288. 4 For biographical details, see I b n Hagar al-'Asqalani, Durar, I, 396-98. 5 Cf. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 169; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X X , 54; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p. 6 6 1 ; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 56; I b n Katir, Biddya, XIV, 5 1 ; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 57; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L I X , 59; I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, V I I I , 260-61. 6 Cf. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 175; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X X , 53; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, P t . IV, 56-57; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 5 7 - 6 1 ; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L I X , 125; I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, VIII, 258, a n d I X , 273. 7 As-Safadi, Wdfi, X X I V . fol. 104 ro.; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 79. 8 The best evidence for this lies not just in as-Safadi's assertion, Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 103 ro., t h a t Qarasunq u r ' s plan to remain in the Syrian desert was foiled b y the inability of t h e Mamluks t o a d a p t t o desert life, which drove t h e m to go to Mongol territory, b u t in the prolonged negotiations which took place before Qarasunqur finally took this step; cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Tuhfa, fols. 123 r o . - 2 3 v o . ; I b n ad-Dawadari Kanz, I X , 220-25; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 108-11; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L X , 282-344; I b n Tagri'BirdI, Nugum, IX, AYALON,

9 Wdfi, X X I V . fol. 101 vo.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Iiy

assign to Qarasunqur a remote fortress which he had requested and when life in the desert proved difficult, he sought and received asylum at the Ilhan's court 1 . Such an account obviously leaves much to be desired since we are left with no information whatsoever on either the causes or the appropriateness of Qarasunqur's fears toward the sultan, so that we do not know whether he was justified in casting off allegiance or not. As-Safadi leaves the impression that the relationship between the two was bad, but makes no attempt to define it and by omitting all mention of an important episode obstructs the reader's attempts to grasp it. Tempting as it may be to attribute these faults to the episodic structure of Muslim biography in general and as-Safadl's interest in anecdote in particular, it would be prudent to withhold judgment until an annalistic version of the same material is examined. Abu 1-Fida, as a Syrian and almost a contemporary of as-Safadi, affords a fair comparison from the point of view of a chronicler. Though it is futile, of course, to look in an annal for a distinct, compact section on the episode as a whole, information on various aspects of it can be drawn from the various annals for the years in which the relevant events occurred. In the annal for 709/1309-10, for instance, Abu 1-Fida does not mention Qarasunqur's part in alMalik an-Nasir's return to power, except to say that as viceroy of Aleppo he began "secretly to win the obedience of the people to Our Lord the Sultan and to disparage their obedience to Baibars al-Gasnakir." 2 The next mention of Qarasunqur states that once the sultan had returned to Egypt he appointed him viceroy of Damascus 3 , neglecting altogether Qarasunqur's brief elevation to power above the sultan himself. In the annal for 710/1310-11, the next relevant passage concerns his transfer to Aleppo. Like as-Safadi, Abu 1-Fida states that Qarasunqur had requested the transfer but does not connect it even by implication with his fear of being arrested; instead Abu 1-Fida, who was in Aleppo at the time, asserts that Qarasunqur feared arrest by the army then resident there and had to be reassured before he entered the city 4 . The causes and validity of his fears are not discussed. Once Qarasunqur has discarded allegiance, Abu 1-Fida discards the tone of an objective observer and labels his decision to abandon the pilgrimage out of fear of arrest by the official Egyptian pilgrims as "schism (musaqqaqa) and insubordination ('isyan)" 5 , in which Qarasunqur is joined by the prince of the Arab tribe Muhanna ibn Tsa 6 . Furthermore, Qarasunqur's return to Aleppo Abu 1-Fida regards as aggression, as an attempt to seize the city. The sultan, having tried to placate the two rebels, next sends an army to bring them to their senses. This army, which Abu 1-Fida accompanied, moved into the desert in search of Qarasunqur, whereupon he took up a position on the Euphrates. Finally ; in his annal for 712/1312-13 Abu 1-Fida accounts for the final decision to flee into Mongol territory. For reasons which he does not make wholly clear, al-Afram and other Mamluk officers decided to join Qarasunqur. An army was raised, including Abu 1-Fida and a detachment from Hama, which pursued Qarasunqur and al-Afram beyond ar-Rahba on the Mamluk frontier. The Mamluk forces could proceed no further and withdrew, but Qarasunqur and al-Afram grew tired of the frequent exchange of messengers and the attempts to placate them and decided to cross into Ilhanid territory 7 . With these various passages Abu 1-Fida narrates a relatively comprehensive summary of the flight from the point of view of a participant in several aspects of it. His version, moreover, is distinguished from as-Safadi's by the introduction of more relevant facts and the omission of colorful but insignificant details. Discrepancies exist 1

2 Ibid., fols. 101 VO.-103 ro. Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 56. 3 4 6 Ibid., p . 58. Ibid., p p . 63-64. Ibid., p . 64. 6 D. 735/1334-35; Chief of Al Fadl, who were allied with t h e Mamluks in Syria and received amirates and fiefs from t h e m ; c f . ' l b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, IV, 368-70; I b n Tagri Birdi, Manhal, I I , fols. 499 r o . 99 v o . ; T R I T T O N , A. S., " T h e Tribes of Syria in t h e F o u r t e e n t h and Fifteenth Centuries," BSOAS, X I I (1948) 7 567 ff. Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 66.

Il8

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

which are probably due to the different vantage points from which they viewed the affair; none, however, are irreconcilable. Qarasunqur, for example, may well have feared arrest before he left Damascus, on his way to Aleppo, and in Aleppo itself. What is interesting and important is that Abu 1-Fida goes no further than as-Safadi in connecting the various stages of the flight, so that while we know more facts about it we still lack the reasons for the enmity between the two principals and cannot even be sure that Qarasunqur's fears were justified. In addition, Abu 1-Fida omits important data: he does acknowledge Qarasunqur's assistance to the sultan but then neglects the aftermath, when he rose briefly to power. Clearly, then, the failure to link episodes into cause-and-effect relationships and to include all relevant material is not attributable to either genre exclusively but to the underlying purposes and techniques of both. The biographer selected only a limited number of aspects of a person's life which he considered important or perhaps only interesting, with no effort to join them organically; the annalist, using the same criteria, chose only a limited number of the events of the year, arranging them in chronological, but no more meaningful, order. The matters outlined above are discussed by practically all the historians who devote appreciable space to Qarasunqur or his activities; once he has left the Mamluk kingdom, all reports about him cease except for these few which relate the attacks of the Assassins sent by al-Malik an-Nasir. Against this general pattern of silence, broken, when it is broken, in the same way, Ibn ad-Dawadari opens a totally new, unexpected subject, namely, the role played by Qarasunqur in the Ilhanid state, a role of which the biographers and other annalists were ignorant or chose to ignore. As such, it touches upon the particular problem of the biographers' implied estimate of this phase of Qarasunqur's career and the general problem of evaluating unique material in Mamluk sources. Ibn ad-Dawadari's version of the circumstances surrounding the flight is distinctly personalized, garnered, characteristically, from one of Qarasunqur's underlings some nine years after it took place. His informant for the events up until Qarasunqur crossed the Euphrates is one Baihan, identified only as a mamluk faithful to his master 1 . It is also characteristic that Ibn ad-Dawadari should devote so many pages to news of Qarasunqur, for he had first-hand acquaintance with him, having served with him on the mission sent by al-Malik an-Nasir to apprehend Baibars al-Gasnakir2, so that he took a personal interest in him. But Baihan's account stops when Qarasunqur crosses the border, and thereafter no source is named except "an-Naqil", the transmitter 3 , which is unfortunate since much of the information is unique and therefore not verifiable from any other Arabic source. Nevertheless, the nature of the material recorded is enough to establish the authoritativeness and, to a degree, the reliability of an-Naqil, and we can be sure that he - or they - was in a position to observe not only the intimate details of the life of Qarasunqur and that of the entire Mongol court, but the exact deployment of Mongol troops. In fact, so detailed and precise are the reports that the informant must have had access to written records belonging either to Qarasunqur or to the court; in view of the low rank of Ibn ad-Dawadari's other sources, he was probably a scribe or similar functionary. Without this assumption it is impossible to explain how he could have procured such data as a list of the gifts presented by Qarasunqur to Hudabanda, including the very names of the Arabian horses4 and lists of the Ilhanid and Golden Horde officers and the position in which they fought in the battle of 713/1313-145. Not all of the data have so clear a ring of authenticity, and we may legitimately question that of private conversations between two 1 3 4

2 Kanz, I X , 219, 225. Ibid., p p . 197-205. Ibid., p p . 233, 253, 255, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 279. 5 Ibid., p . 232. Ibid., p p . 274-76.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

119

persons quoted verbatim. But the dubiousness of what probably amounts to a literary device gives no basis for doubting the narration of events which he did observe. At issue here is the claim, stated repeatedly, that Qarasunqur was able to win control over the Ilhan, that Hudabanda, in fact, more than once relinquished control to him, and that Qarasunqur used it to introduce into the Ilhanid state Mamluk practices, institutions, and equipment; furthermore, he was instrumental in launching a Mongol attack into Mamluk territory and, by assuming command of and reorganizing the army, was largely responsible for the Ilhans' defeat of the Golden Horde. All these claims an-Naqil makes artlessly plausible by supporting them with details which he had no conceivable cause to fabricate: for example, the fact duly reported by Ibn ad-Dawadari that Qarasunqur was drunk at a royal drinking party the first day after his arrival at the Mongol court lends credibility to his bold offer to regain the Mongols their glory. "The transmitter of these reports said: 'When Hudabanda saw Qarasunqur's gifts, he was greatly pleased and on the second day summoned them [Qarasunqur and al-Afram], after having sat in a drinking session. Again he bestowed resplendent robes on them. The great Mongol amirs and the ladies attended, and the cups passed among them. Qarasunqur drank of that qumiz and qardqumiz1 and al-Afram drank from that ancient vintage. Qarasunqur summoned a troupe of slave-girl singers - moonlike - who sang to the tambourine and pipe, much to the ladies' liking.' "He said: 'And when Qarasunqur was in good spirits and had forgotten his cares and cast them behind him and when his face had reddened and the grey hair with which God had crowned him in misfortune after prosperity became disheveled, he rose, bowed to the han and said: "I would like to address a few words to the han." " ' "Say what you like, Amir Sams ad-DIn," Hudabanda said, "though your words be stronger than iron. Don't mince words and don't hold back anything you want to say!" "'"God keep the han! You [the Mongols] have mastered the inhabited lands and strong fortresses and destroyed them; the inhabitants of the earth you have killed and all the riches you have melted into bricks and buried under the ground. With the wealth that you have, you five as best you know how. In your land there are crops, livestock, and cattle, but your highest amir has no better life than eating porridge; your horses, without fodder, roam at random, unable to bear a rider because they lack provender. May God keep the han, order me to manage this situation as I see best, with my guarantee that I shall conquer for you to the last setting of the sun and you shall be king of east and west."' "He spoke a great deal; this is the substance - a summary - of it" 2 . Plausible and credible though such an anecdote may be when related on the authority of a person indisputably privy to the workings of the Mongol court, the mind still balks when confronted with sensational claims made by no other Arabic historian. It is certainly conceivable that Hudabanda responded in kind on this convivial occasion, humoring Qarasunqur as it were, but that he accepted the offer and turned over to him leadership of the state and army and that Qarasunqur thereupon introduced Mamluk institutions is too much to accept at face value in the absence of supporting evidence from other sources. Such, however, is an-Naqil's assertion contained in Hudabanda's immediate reply: "'"Amir Sams ad-Din, I delegate to you the complete authority of my kingdom. Do as you see best.'"" 3 In the annal for 713/1313-14, for example, it is stated that "'Qarasunqur had gained great power in the land of the Mongols and had organized everything according to the system of Islamic lands,' " 4 and on two separate occasions it is recorded that Hudabanda renewed his declaration delegating power to Qara1 Qumiz is t h e famous drink qf t h e Mongols - fermented mare's milk; qardqumiz, or black qumiz, is a distilled variety of t h e same. See V E R N A D S K Y , G., The Mongols in Russia, p . 144. note 22. 2

Kanz,

um 9 Little

IX, 233-34.

3 Ibid

" P- 2 34-

4 Ibid

" P"

268

'

120

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

sunqur: ' " " I have made you stand in my place; whosoever may oppose you, dies . . . ' " " 1 and, in the face of a Golden Horde invasion, " " T turn over affairs to you and stand you in my place."' " 2 Before judging the credibility of such reports, two questions should be raised. First, how is it that an Ilhan should so cavalierly relinquish authority to a deserter from the enemy camp without opposition from the Mongol nobles? And, second, what does it mean that the Ilhanid state was turned into an Islamic one? The first question poses little or no difficulty since in an-Naqil's narrative, Hudabanda is consistently portrayed as a man with a distaste for war and affairs of state, being devoted instead to wine and women3 and fully capable of shifting the responsibilities of his office to another. Furthermore, it is made abundantly clear that Qarasunqur did not climb to power unopposed by members of the Mongol court, for he continually found himself pitted against Cuban, the viceroy4, whose rivalry he was able to eliminate by threatening to expose certain incriminating letters of his to the sultan - letters, in fact, which reveal his intention to defect to the Mamluks!5 As to the unlikelihood of Hudabanda's trusting a Mamluk amir with high office, the sultan himself justifies this action on the basis of intelligence reports on Qarasunqur and his service to al-Malik an-Nasir6. From the standpoint of internal consistency, then, it is entirely reasonable that Hudabanda could act in a way which at first glance seems incomprehensible for the lord of the Persian Mongols. The second question is not so easy to dispose of, but analysis of exactly what an-Naqil himself considered to be Islamic innovations is helpful from more than one point of view. Here in anNaqil's words are the measures which Qarasunqur took after first receiving his commission from Hudabanda at the party: " T h e n , after that [party], Qarasunqur held sessions for extracting funds; he had the regional bailiffs brought to him and put them under sequestration. He obtained great sums and set up the system of the Islamic countries in everything pertaining to property. He put skillful cooks in the [royal] kitchens to prepare sumptuous kinds of food, and established a sarabhdna, a tisthdna, and a firdshdna1, and the tistddriya resumed serving foods prepared with rose water. Likewise, he arranged for the ladies all kinds of lovely things sweets, drinks, and fruits. He summoned hairdressers for them in order to improve their appearance. He also provided for the amirs and enfeoffed them with the lands, and re-established the ustdddriya8. for them, which Qarasunqur staffed with his mamluks, using them in his behalf as spies over them to inform him of all that they said. Likewise he set up a wooden bath with lead basins, to be born by Bactrian camels for the han and the ladies.' "He said: 'This pleased the ladies greatly. He ordered splendid jewelry fashioned for them, and had brocade clothing and first-rate materials made for them until he had engaged the interest of all of them.' " 9 Admittedly "everything pertaining to property" is neither a felicitous nor accurate translation of dldt al-m-l-k and I have vowelled m-l-k as milk reluctantly, only because previously an-Naqil was discussing financial matters. Surely; though, it would make more sense to translate the phrase as instrumentalities of state authority, assuming that mulk was intended, even though a later statement on the same subject would indicate that he was 1

2 3 Ibid., p . 269. Ibid., p . 272. Ibid., p p . 254, 261, 270. 4 D. 728/1327-28. See I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I, 541-42. 5 6 Kanz, I X , 269-71. Ibid., p . 269. 7 Sarabhdna was the royal b u t t e r y a t the Mamluk court; t h e tisthdna, t h e vestiary; and t h e firdshdna, the storehouse for carpets and t h e like; see P O P P E R , Egypt and Syria, I, 95, whose transliteration of these terms I have adopted. Cf. G A U D E F R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , La Syrie, p p . li-lii. 8 W h e t h e r an-Naqil is referring to t h e office of the major-dome in charge of "all t h e buildings connected with the palace," or the office of a subordinate ustdddr such as t h e one in charge of t h e sultan's estates is not 9 clear; cf. ibid. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 234.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

121

thinking chiefly of property: "Qarasunqur arranged all affairs according to the pattern of Islamic countries ('ala qa'idati biladi 1-islami) and made the land [again bildd] into fiefs for the Mongol amirs, setting up for them an ustdddriya and diwdns."1 Clearly, then, when an-Naqil claimed that Qarasunqur established the Islamic system in the Ilhanid state, he was referring to the introduction of the system of enfeoffment and taxation used in the Mamluk state and to certain institutions like the ustdddriya, the sarabhdna and the like, so that it would be presumptuous to infer that far-reaching changes were effected. Instead, what seems to have happened is that Qarasunqur perceived that the Ilhanid system of taxation did not provide enough income to equip a fighting army and that he therefore adopted the custom long-practiced by Muslim rulers of calling to account his tax collectors and confiscating the wealth they had amassed from their office. Such a practice was neither peculiarly Islamic nor new to the Ilhans, whose treasuries suffered from the peculations of officials2. In addition, probably to provide an organized system of equipping troops and feeding the army's horses, Qarasunqur introduced or perhaps merely enforced, the practice followed for centuries in Islam of assigning lands to the officers of the army, the revenue of which they were to use in supporting a certain number of troops. This is not the place to analyze the complex Mamluk system of iqtaz or the Mongols' acquaintance with it. One might assume on purely linguistic grounds that the Mongols practiced the same system, because the Mamluk historians often refer to the Ilhans' having granted certain territories to individuals as fiefs4. Support for this assumption is forthcoming from a recent study by PETRUSHEVSKY who intimates that the Ilhans had been granting land to the military as a payment even before Gazan tried to legalize the system as a part of his reforms5. If, then, Qarasunqur did assign lands in fief to the Mongol army, he had been anticipated by the Ilhans themselves. This is a question which requires further study as does the ultimate origin of such institutions as ustdddriya and sarabhdna and the like whose Persian names betray their Persian origin. It is clear, though, that Qarasunqur introduced them as a means of consolidating his own position in the state; the ustdddriya as spies, and the sarabhdna as part of his campaign to make himself popular among the amirs and especially the women, whose importance in Mongol society, as an-Naqil relates, was much greater than in Mamluk6. Even cursory analysis of an-Naqil's claims would indicate therefore that Qarasunqur's innovations were not as spectacular as a first reading might indicate, but the fact remains that a foreigner from the enemy camp was permitted to make changes in the Ilhanid state. This has several implications. One, that similarities between the Ilhanid and Mamluk systems must indeed have been great for changes to be accomplished so readily. Two, that Mongol power was on the decline if the economic situation demanded such emergency measures as Qarasunqur applied. And, three, these measures lacked long-term application or even significance since they are totally ignored by all other Arabic historians. The other innovations credited to Qarasunqur are military, and it is to them that the victory of Hudabanda's army, led jointly by Qarasunqur and Cuban, in 713/1313-14 over the Golden 1 2

Ibid., p p . 268-69. Cf. S P U L E R , B., Die Mongolen

in Iran: Politik,

Verwaltung

und Kultur

der Ilchanzeit,

1220-1350, p p .

311-12. 3

Cf. P O L I A K A. N., Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and the Lebanon, 1250-1900, p p . 18-45. For a survey of t h e pre-Mamluk fief system in Islamic territories, see C A H E N , C , " L ' E v o l u t i o n de Viqtd' du IXe au X l l l e siecle," Annates, Economies, societies, civilizations, V I I I , No. 1 (Jan.-March, 1953), 25-52. The most recent discussion of t h e iqtd' system under t h e Ilhans is to be found in P E T R U S H E V S K Y , I. P., " T h e SocioEconomic Condition of I r a n under t h e Il-JOians," The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, ed. b y J. A. B O Y L E , Vol. V of The Cambridge History of Iran, p p . 514-22. 4 E. g., " W a - a q t a ' a Q a r a s u n q u r a M a r a g a ; " al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 115; I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, IX, 33. 6 6 Saljuq and Mongol Periods, p . 518. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 269. 9 Little

122

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

Horde Army of Tuqtay 1 is attributed, even by Tuqtay himself, who lodged an official complaint with al-Malik an-Nasir against the assistance given by the Mamluk defectors2. The precise nature of this assistance insofar as it can be determined must be sought in analysis of Ibn adDawadari's text, which as usual, is not very straightforward. Weapons and equipment are mentioned in his letter of complaint; specifically "'weapons to which the house of Hulagu had not been accustomed before,'" 3 and Qarasunqur, in fact, had offered to train and equip an Ilhanid army in the Egyptian manner: " 'With the han's order, I shall choose from these armies ten thousand riders with ten generals of tumdns^, whom I shall instruct and outfit with Egyptian gear. I shall be a banner and the han will see what I do. I shall show you how the armies of Islam fight!'" 5 The ten generals were chosen and were equipped by Qarasunqur with what we are to assume was Egyptian gear: "'Qarasunqur gave them comely gear and fine horses, and dressed them in satin robes, and Bahdduriya helmets6, and their horses he arrayed in satin caparisons. He made them a torch and advanced before Hudabanda's army by two days. To his mamluks - some two hundred - he gave naff equipment, saying to the leaders, "You alone will take the land of Berke7. Through you I shall conquer to the end of the east!"'" 8 Now whether the satin garments can be considered Egyptian in origin or not, it is doubtful that they could have contributed in any way to the Ilhans' strength. Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that by "Egyptian gear" the naff equipment was meant, particularly since an-Naqil goes on to relate that Qarasunqur arrayed in front of Hudabanda's army "'five hundred naphta-throwers whom he trained in the equipment and throwing of naff.'"9 Furthermore, he organized a three-hundred-man Bactrian camel corps for Hudabanda, who rode in a great group, the like of which was unheard of before10. Finally, in a summation of the factors which contributed to the defeat of the Golden Horde troops, an-Naqil concludes that though they were more numerous than the armies of the Ilhan, most of them were Bedouins lacking weapons other than "'bow and arrows, heath sticks, and slings,"' and lacked appropriate clothing. Furthermore, the Ilhanid armies "'are braver than they and better trained in battle because of their experience in war; and [also, they] had more equipment, particularly since Qarasunqur had put them in the order which we mentioned.'" 11 Here it would seem that Qarasunqur had deployed the Ilhan's troops in an Egyptian formation, having noticed earlier, when Hudabanda paraded them before him, that though they were numerous, "'they were like straw, without order.'" 12 The decisive Egyptian and Islamic factors creditable to Qarasunqur seem then to have been the use of naff and a new deployment of troops, i. e., the formation of storm troopers led by Qarasunqur and the ten hand-picked generals in addition to the regular troops led by Hudabanda, who was protected by a newly-formed detachment of naff throwers. The importance of naff is again emphasized when it is related that the Golden Horde army began to flee when confronted with it: '"Qarasunqur's mamluks threw naff and fire, whereupon the horses of the Mongols turned because of their riders' lack of experience with these things'" 13 . That Qarasunqur used a new deployment of troops may well be true, though it is doubtful from the description whether there was anything Egyptian or Islamic about it. Were the Mongols - both

1

Ruled 690-712/1291-1312; see S P U L E R , Die Goldene Horde: Die Mongolen in Rutland, 1223-1502, 2 3 pp. 77-85. Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 279. Ibid. 4 Mongol military unit of 10,000 soldiers; cf. B A R T H O L D , W., " T u m a n , " EI, IV, 836. 5 I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , p. 272. 6 " B a h a d u r i y a " probably refers to golden helmets; for this usage, see ibid., p . 231. 7 First independent ruler of the Golden Horde, 655-65/1257-67; S P U L E R , Die Goldene Horde, p p . 33-51. 8 9 1( I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 272. Ibid., p . 273. > Ibid. 11 12 Ibid., p . 275. Ibid., p . 231. ™ Ibid., p . 276.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

123

Ilhans and Golden Horde - familiar with or trained in the use of naff} This is quite another matter. We know from al-Maqrizi and al-'Aini that in the Battle of Wadi al-Hazindar, the Mamluks used naff unsuccessfully against the Ilhanid army, unsuccessfully because they lit it too soon, forlornly expecting the Mongol cavalry to charge right into it1. But because they had faced it, does not mean they had mastered the Egyptian methods or implements; Qarasunqur and his cohorts were apparently experts in this art and prided themselves in it, for we are told that when they approached Baghdad they were preceded by one hundred mamluks throwing naff, so that it is plausible that they could have taught their technique to the Ilhan's forces. It is even more plausible that the Golden Horde were ignorant of the technique since they had never met the Egyptians in battle. At any rate, a special technique it must have been, since we know from other sources that the Mongol armies had been familiar with the use of naptha in siege warfare since the days of Gingiz Han 3 and, in fact had equipped themselves with a supply of one hundred bottles for a siege of ar-Rahba 4 . In view of all this, the significance of Qarasunqur's military innovations - like his political - must have been considerably less than they might seem at first sight. Some corroboration for Ibn ad-Dawadari's claim that Qarasunqur had improved the Ilhans' weaponry is provided by Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il. But Mufaddal says nothing of naff or of a battle against the Golden Horde; instead he states merely that in the siege of ar-Rahba, the Ilhans "used mangonels under the supervision of al-Afram and Qarasunqur." 5 Otherwise I can find nothing to substantiate Ibn ad-Dawadari's account of Qarasunqur's role in the battle against the Golden Horde. In fact, no other Arabic source mentions that such a battle even took place 6 ; furthermore, if such contemporary sources as Abu 1-Fida7, Mufaddal8, and Ibn Katir 9 can be trusted, Tuqtay had been dead for at least a year and perhaps even longer before the date which Ibn ad-Dawadari assigns to the battle - Gumada II, 713/September, 1313 !10 Later sources disagree as to whether his death occurred in 713/1313-14 or 714/1314-1511, and Ibn Hagar sticks to 712/ 1312-13, the customary date assigned to it12. Furthermore, no other historian mentions the arrival of the Golden Horde delegation to protest Qarasunqur's assistance to the Ilhans 13 , even though Mufaddal thought it noteworthy that Uzbak sent a delegation in 713/1313-1414. It is true, certainly, that few Mamluk historians show much interest in Mongol affairs; yet al-'Aini did and he records nothing of such a battle. Diplomatic affairs, the coming and going of missions, are assiduously recorded. How then do we account for the fact that only Ibn ad-Dawadari records this mission, an important one to which al-Malik an-Nasir pledged military assistance to Tuqtay in case of an attack by Hudabanda? 15 What remains to be considered is Ibn ad-Dawadari's contribution to our knowledge of Qarasunqur within the context of Mamluk biography. It has already been pointed out that he is the sole source for much, if not most, of the information on Qarasunqur's sojourn with the Ilhans. But above and beyond this, the over-all portrait which emerges from the pages of Ibn ad-Da1

Al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 886-87; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I I , 194. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 230. 3 S P U L E R , The Muslim World, Vol. I I : The Mongol Period, trans. F . R. C. B A G L E Y , p . 8. 4 5 S P U L E R , Mongolen, p . 412. Sultans, p p . 728-29. 6 Al-'Aini mentions a b a t t l e between H u d a b a n d a and one Duladay, commander of the armies of " t h e King of the T u r k s , " which took place in H u r a s a n in 712/1312-13, following t h e siege of a r - R a h b a ; 'Iqd algumdn, L X , 443-51. Duladay has a certain phonetic similarity to Tuqtay b u t there the similarity between the two battles ceases. 7 8 Muhtasar, P t . IV, 63, gives 710/1310-11 or 711/1311-12. Sultans, p . 735, gives 712/1312-13. 9 10 Biddya, X I V , 67-68, gives 712/1312-13. Kanz, IX, 275. 11 Cf. Al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 137; al-'Ayni, 'Iqd, L X I , 22; I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, IX, 226. 12 Durar, I I , 226. 13 u 15 Kanz, I X , 280. Sultans, p . 744. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 281. 2

124

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

wadari's chronicle is more comprehensive and consistent than that drawn by as-Safadi, Ibn Hagar, or Ibn Tagri Birdi in their biographies. In this instance, at least, it seems as if the formal, planned biography yields less about the broad aspects of a man's life and character than what can be gleaned from passages distributed through a chronicle. Such is not so unlikely as it may seem if we grant that modern Western standards of what biography should contain are not those by which Mamluk biographies were written and that we should not expect, therefore, to find a psychological delineation of Qarasunqur's character. The fact that Ibn ad-Dawadari uses no criterion for selecting the material about Qarasunqur other than general historical significance or even personal interest results in a greater range of information from which to reconstruct a portait than that given by as-Safadi, who restricts his range by recording only those anecdotes which marked major events in Qarasunqur's life. In Kanz ad-durar we see whole sequences of actions in which Qarasunqur was involved; in al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt, we see only disconnected glimpses of him, the parts that as-Safadi wants us to see. In other words, a much more human and recognizable Qarasunqur emerges from Ibn ad-Dawadari than from asSafadi, simply because we are allowed to see a part of his life as a continuum rather than the highlights in flashes. Yet there is something else involved too, namely, an interest in and a sympathy for persons and personalities which is much more evident in Ibn ad-Dawadari and an-Naqil's narrative than in as-Safadl's biography. Thus, an-Naqil sees fit to record (perhaps even to invent) scenes in which Qarasunqur expresses his reluctance to be fighting with his former enemies against the armies of Islam1, and swears revenge against al-Malik an-Nasir for expropriating his property and imprisoning his sons2. Thereby an-Naqil and Ibn ad-Dawadari make his defection and subsequent actions more credible, simply by recording a few details to indicate his personal involvement in a difficult situation. Still another device adopted by these authors which is effective in sketching character is to contrast Qarasunqur with al-Afram, especially their respective relationship to Hudabanda 3 , in the process of which a general estimate of each emerges. In the light of this unusual interest in personalities displayed by Ibn ad-Dawadari and an-Naqil, one cannot help wondering what would have happened had either chosen to write biography and whether the power exerted by a traditional form would have overwhelmed these impulses and vitiated the techniques - whether, in other words, the necessity of selecting episodes significant in Qarasunqur's career, combined with the necessity of a certain brevity, would have required Ibn ad-Dawadari to omit such passages. This is doubtful since similar considerations operative in compiling an annal did not deter Ibn ad-Dawadari from recording such data which contribute little if anything to our knowledge of the events of 713/ 1313-14. Ibn ad-Dawadari is important as a historian for his originality, his deviations from the typical annalistic form which are attributable to his own personal interests. There is no reason to believe that these interests would not have overcome biographical strictures as well. In a sense, the question concerning the attitude of the Mamluk historians toward Qarasunqur's flight to the Mongols has been answered: Ibn ad-Dawadari was the only historian to denounce it because he alone had information which made him believe that Qarasunqur had betrayed Mamluk secrets to the enemy. Even if this pat answer were altogether convincing, and it is not, it accounts only for Ibn ad-Dawadari's denunciation but fails to explain the acquiescence of the other historians in an act which on the surface seems reprehensible. The question is whether such an act was reprehensible in the framework of Mamluk society and can best be treated here as part of a larger problem raised by Qarasunqur's life - that of loyalties within the Mamluk state, loyalties which were complex, ranging from that of the slave for his master to ethnic solidarity which transcended the Mamluk system. 1

Ibid., p p . 240, 253.

2

Ibid., p . 268.

s ibid., p p . 233, 234-35.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

125

As AYALON has shown in L'Esclavage du Mamelouk, the mamluk owed first loyalty to his ustdd - the master who was last to purchase him and later freed him - and to his husddsiya - his comrades who served with him in slavery under the same master and were later freed by him. It was the solidarity which such a system produced that gave the Mamluk state its stability and at the same time undermined it. Although a sultan could build on it a hard core of loyal supporters, he could not rely on the mamluks of his amirs or even on those of his predecessor, since the loyalty which dependence, gratitude, and camaraderie engendered was not always transferable from father to son1. Even the loyalty to one's fiu§dd§iya was at best tenuous when pitted against the demands of personal ambition. Among the husdd&ya of Qarasunqur himself, listed by Baibars al-Mansuri as those Royal Mamluks who had served Qala'un since the days of his amlrate 2 , are persons who figured prominently as his foes: Turuntay 3 , as-Safadi depicts as trying to remove him as viceroy of Aleppo 4 ; his great friend Lagin threw him into prison 5 ; Kitbuga, for whose elevation to the sultanate he had worked, was deposed by a group of amirs of which Qarasunqur was a part 6 . In addition to the loyalty due to one's husddsiya, there are definite indications in the sources that the loyalty due to the ustdd was in principle transferable to his progeny. Thus we see in as-Safadl's biography the claim put forward that Qarasunqur's life was forfeit because al-Malik an-Nasir regarded him as " ' " M y mamluk and the mamluk of my brother [al-Asraf] and the mamluk of my father [Qala'un]."'" 7 Elsewhere, we see similar claims cited, specifically on two separate occasions when the mother of al-Malik an-Nasir had to be reassured that rash measures were being taken only to protect her son. Thus, in the civil strife of 693/1293-94 between as-Suga'I8 and Kitbuga, the latter justified his siege of the citadel as follows: "'We have no purpose but to apprehend as-Suga'I and to quell this strife. If there remained of the house of our ustdd a blind girl, we would be her mamluks; all the more, then, of his son.'" 9 And when called upon to justify the deposition of an-Nasir to his mother, a similar argument was used. She asked: "Tf you depose my son, whom would you crown?' They [Kitbuga's supporters] said, 'The mamluk, al-Amir Zain ad-DIn Kitbuga; he is the mamluk of the sultan and has best right to preserve the son of his ustdd and the house of his ustdd . . .' " 10 All these instances show clearly that although the loyalty to the sons of one's ustdd was felt as an obligation, it was not one which weighed heavily against self interest and personal ambition. That Qarasunqur himself was fully aware of the pressures of loyalty to his ustdd, the son of his ustdd and his husddsiya, and that in the event of conflicting loyalties, one had to make a choice is evident from a speech he made to three amirs whose support he was seeking for alMalik an-Nasir's return to the sultanate in 709/1309-10: ' " " I n my opinion the son of your ustdd is more deserving of the kingdom than anyone else; you know that he inherited it from his father and his brother and also that he conquered Syria after it had slipped away from the Muslims. Also that he is valiant in adversity, steadfast amidst increasing terrors and the clash of men. There is not one of you but was with him at Hims [i. e., Battle of Saqhab] and saw him stand firm in spite of his youth when all of us had turned in flight."' '"Qattal as-Sabu' 11 said, "Amir, your words show that your heart is with him."' 1

2 Cf. AYALON, L'Esclavage, pp. 27-31. Zubda, IX, fols. 99 r c - 9 9 vo. . 3 Al-Amir Husam ad-Din abu Sa'Id Turuntay ibn 'Abd Allah al-Mansuri, d. 689/1290; cf. Ibn Tagri Bir4 5 di, Nugum, VII, 383-84. Wdfi, XXIV, fol. 100 ro. Supra, pp. 104-05.. 6 Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 193 vo.; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz MS, VIII, 321; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, 7 XXIX, 89; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, Pt. IV, p. 33Wdfi, XXIV, fol. 104 ro. s Al-Amir 'Alam ad-Din Sangar ibn 'Abd Allah as-Suga'i, d. 693/1293-94; for biographical information, 9 10 see Ibn Tagri BirdI, Nugum, VIII, 51-52. Author Z., Beitrdge, p. 30. Al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LVII, 105. 11 Al-Amir Gamal ad-DIn Aqu§ al-Mansuri al-Mausili, known as Qattal as-Sabu', d. 710/1310-11; see Ibn Tagri Birdi, Nugum, IX, 216; Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani, Durar, I, 399-4°°-

126

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

" ' Qarasunqur replied: "How should it not be, for the son of my ustdd is dearer to me, by God, than my husddsV""1 True, these arguments do not necessarily reflect Qarasunqur's own feelings since he was obviously trying to use any argument at his disposal to win over these amirs; nevertheless, the very fact that he appealed to their loyalty to the son of their ustdd demonstrates that it was still an operative feeling in the Mamluk system. AYALON has shown that racial solidarity and domination by a single race are far more pronounced in the Circassian than in the Bahri period, and, in fact, that the preferment and advancement of mamluks for reasons of race rather than excellence contributed to the decline of the Mamluk state in the Burgi period2; but we are concerned with evidence that the feeling of loyalty to the members of one's race over and above other loyalties, though relatively insignificant, was present in the earlier period too3. More specifically, there is occasional evidence that the consciousness of being Mongol outweighed the traditional Mamluk loyalties. Several historians produce the same anecdote to illustrate an extreme example of this in the clash between Kitbuga and as-Suga'I in 693/1293-94:" . . . al-Amir Zain ad-DIn Kitbuga learned that 'Alam ad-DIn as-Suga'I wanted to kill him. It was Saif ad-DIn Qunuq at-Tatari who informed him of as-5uga'I's secret intentions. The reason for this disclosure is [as follows]: This Qunuq came from the land of the Mongols in the reign of al-Malik az-Zahir to reside in Egypt. God blessed him with twelve male sons, six of whom were in the service of the sultan al-Malik alAsraf, five in the service of 'Alam ad-Din as-Suga'I, and one who was [still] young. Qunuq enjoyed high standing with as-Suga'I so that his words were heard and his intercession accepted, and he was well informed on state matters because of his sons. But racial origin (al-ginsiya) prompted him to inform Kitbuga of as-SugaTs intention." 4 That such an anecdote was cited not merely because it illustrates an unusual, exceptional feeling is indicated by passages from al-'Aini which focus on the reign of Kitbuga, himself a Mongol, captured in the battle of 'Ain Galut. It is, for example, al-'Aini's claim that as-Suga'I had imprisoned a number of amirs "all of one race - that of Kitbuga: Mongol . . .," all of whom were inclined to him "because race is the motivating factor in cohesion."5 Later, al-'Aini attributes the preferment shown by Kitbuga to the Oirat Mongols who sought refuge in Mamluk territory to their common racial origins, and this, he alleges, caused resentment among non-Mongol amirs who ultimately deposed him. True, we find the Bahri historians inveighing against the Oirats' paganism, not their race6, and yet Baibars al-Mansuri leaves no doubt that al-'Aini's sentiments were current in the early fourteenth century: "Kitbuga favored them [the Oirats] wholeheartedly and inclined towards them because of his nature and his race." 7 But the question of racial feeling, and specifically the attitude toward the Mongols, cannot be reduced to the simple formula that Mamluks of Mongol origin harbored atavistic sympathies for their kin and that Mamluks of other races resisted the growth of Mongol influence, for by this time the racial content of the Mamluk system was diffuse and complex. Although no com1

Al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L I X , 124. " T h e Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom," JAOS, X L I X , No. 3 (July-Sept. 1949), 135-47. 3 This is not the place to discuss w h a t Mamluk historians understood b y t h e t e r m "r&ce/ginsiya". I a m accepting the terminology of the sources a t face value and adopting their classification of t h e Mongols as a race, even though elsewhere, in other Muslim sources, t h e Mongols are considered T u r k s . For a discussion of this problem see A Y A L O N , " T h e European-Asiatic Steppe: A Major Reservoir of Power for t h e Islamic W o r l d , " Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Congress of Orientalists, Vol. I I , p p . 46-52. 4 Al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p p . 215-16; Author Z., Beitrdge, p . 29; I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, V I I I , 42. 5 "Al-ginsiya 'illat a d - d a m m " , 'Iqd, L V I I , 95. 8 Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fols. 192 ro.-92 v o . ; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X I X , 85. 7 "Bi-tab'ihi wa-ginsiyatih", Tuhfa, fol. 66 vo. 2

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

127

prehensive study of the reciprocal influences of Mamluks and Mongols has yet appeared, theories have been advanced. One of the most sweeping is that advocated by A. N. POLIAK, the gist of which is indicated by the title of his study: "Le Caractere colonial de l'etat mamelouk dans ses rapports avec la Horde d'Or." 1 As AYALON has shown, the main evidence adduced for POLIAK'S argument is erroneous 2 ; nevertheless, POLIAK'S insistence that the Mamluks were ruled by Mongol secular law rather than Muslim canon law and that broad aspects of the Mamluk feudal system were Mongol in derivation 3 has not been disproved. More cautious in his conclusions, BERTOLD SPULER has pointed out similarities in the internal structure of the Mamluk and Mongol states which are traceable to the fact that in "Egypt as well as Persia a military caste with Turkish characteristics was grafted onto an alien population." 4 Certainly there is no denying that the Mongols, either as prisoners of war or as boys purchased or stolen from their parents and sent as slaves into Egypt, provided a main source of Mamluk manpower. Al-Maqrizi, indeed, suggests that so fortunate was the lot of the Mongol sold into Egypt and so high the prices offered for slaves that the resultant sale of large numbers of Mongols led to a decline in their circumstances 5 . In theory, the Mongol boys who were imported into Egypt were deprived of their racial identity and loyalty by conversion to Islam and by uniform military upbringing; such is not necessarily the case, since until the time of al-Malik an-Nasir the boys were assigned to barracks on the basis of their race and, presumably, would continue speaking their mother tongue. Al-Malik an-Nasir, in fact, realized that segregating the mamluks according to race served to propagate racial solidarity which constituted a loyalty rivalling that due their ustdd. He therefore dispensed with this system and inaugurated the practice of presenting new mamluks with "splendid garments, golden girdles, horses, and gifts, in order to astonish them . . . " When objections were raised to this, he replied, "If the mamluk sees prosperity fill his eye and heart, he will forget his country and prefer his ustdd."6 But the Mongol element in Mamluk society was further increased by the immigration of large numbers of Mongols seeking refuge from unsympathetic rulers7. Thus, in the reign of Kitbuga (694-96/1294-96), who, as we have seen, showed favoritism to his fellow Mongols, ten thousand Oirats families poured into Syria, seeking refuge from Gazan, the recently crowned ruler of the Ilhans 8 . Settled in Palestine, many of them died, and the rest were absorbed into Mamluk society; the women by marriage and the men into the armies, including their leaders, who, as we have seen, carried out an abortive revolt against Mamluk leadership in 699/1299-1300. In addition to migrations of large numbers of Mongols, there were occasional defections of small groups of high-ranking Mongols. Such, for example, was that of a Mongol commander who arrived in Egypt in 703/1303-04 with ten other Mongol notables. Granted fiefs and made an amir of forty in the Mamluk army, he grew in favor with al-Malik an-Nasir until he became a high-ranking member of his advisory council9. The avenues for infiltration by Mongols into the Mamluk state were many. But this is not to suggest that their influence was ever paramount in the Mamluk system, which was, of course, 1

Revue des itudes islamiques, IX, No. 3 (1935), 231-48. " T h e Wafidiya in t h e Mamluk K i n g d o m , " Islamic Culture, XXV, No. 1 (Jan.-Oct., 1951), 973 Such is his thesis in " T h e Influence of Chingiz-Khan's Yasa upon the General Organization of the Mam4 luk S t a t e , " BSOAS, X, No. 2 (1940-42), 862-76. Muslim World, I I , 57. 5 8 Suluk, I I , 525. Ibid., 524-25; cf. A Y A L O N , L'Esclavage, p p . 13-14. 7 See A Y A L O N , Islamic Culture, X X I V , No. 1, 89-104. 8 Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 192 ro. and Tuhfa, fols. 66 v c - 6 7 ro.; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X I X , 85; al-£azarl, Gawdhir, p . 320; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 3 3 ; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p p . 4 2 4 - 2 6 ; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 8 1 2 - 1 3 ; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I , 117-19; I b n Tagri Birdi, Nugum, V I I I , 60. 9 An-Nuwairi, Nihaya, XXX, 19; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p p . 604-05; al-Yunini, Dail, MS A, P t . IV, fol. 29 r o . ; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 950. 2

128

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

completely foreign in composition. Nevertheless, there was a definite feeling among historians of the fifteenth century that a strong current of Mongol influence had flowed through the Bahri dynasty, partly because of the presence of so many Mongols in the Mamluk armies, partly because the two most prominent Bahri sultans had deliberately introduced Mongol practices into the Mamluk state. Al-MaqrizI in al-Hifaf is the first historian to argue that since the time of the Bahri Mamluks, Egypt and Syria had been subject to two sets of law: the sari'a and the siydsa, the former being the ordinance of God, the latter being derived from Mongol secular law, the ydsa, codified by Gingiz Han. After recounting the main provisions of the ydsa, alMaqrlzl explains that once Mongol prisoners and immigrants had risen to positions of authority in Egypt and Syria, they delegated religious matters to the qddis but that "in their innermost beings they felt a need to revert to the custom of Gingiz Han, to be guided, that is, by the authority of the ydsa; therefore, they appointed the chamberlain (al-hdgib) to judge them when they differed in their practices . . Z'1 This last point, that the Mamluks assigned new, Mongol functions to old offices is a point developed by Ibn Tagri Birdi2 and as-Suyuti 3 (who obviously quotes the former), who claim that al-Malik az-Zahir Baibars and al-Malik an-Nasir were responsible for the innovations, chiefly in such offices as those of dawdddr*, amir maglis5, and the like. POLIAK goes further and claims that "not only the Mamluk criminal, civil, and commercial law but also the general organization of the Mamluk state was based upon the ydsa."6 Though such claims should be carefully tested before being accepted at face value, enough, I think, has been said to show that the milieu of Mamluk state and society carried heavy Mongol overtones; that there was within the Mamluk hierarchy a certain element sympathetic toward members of the race; that, taken as a whole, certain Mongol-like concepts and institutions were operative - all of which probably should be taken into account before one repeats glibly the judgment that the Mamluks were the saviors of traditional Islamic civilization from Mongol destruction. Our purpose here is much more confined: we are attempting to sketch an outline of Mamluk-Mongol interrelations so as to understand the implications of Qarasunqur's defection to the Ilhans and the attitude which the Mamluk historians took toward it. Can, for example, the fact that only one annalist and not a single biographer saw cause to utter a word of condemnation against Qarasunqur for defecting to an enemy which he had met repeatedly in the battlefield be explained by Mamluk-Mongol affinities? It is true that by 712/1312-13, when Qarasunqur fled to the court of Hudabanda, the last great battle with the Ilhans had been fought and for a century the Mamluk heartland of Egypt and Syria was not threatened from the east. True, too, that the Mamluks had declined the invitation of their allies of the Golden Horde - themselves Mongols - to join them in an attack against Ilhanid territory, justifying themselves, according to al-Maqrizi, on the grounds that peace had been concluded with Hudabanda 7 . And yet there is no doubt that the Ilhans were the dread enemy, for no sooner had Qarasunqur crossed into

1

Al-Hitat wal-dtdrfiMisr wal-Qdhira . . . 2 vols.; Cairo 1853-54, 11> 219- Al-Maqrizi's views are accepted 2 in the anonymous article on "Hddjib: E g y p t and Syria," EI2, I I I , 47-48. Nugum, V I I , 182-86. 3 Husn al-muhddara fi ahbar Misr wal-Qdhira, Cairo 1881-82, p . 113. 4 The sultan's executive secretary; cf. P O P P E R , Egypt and Syria, I, 92; G A U D E F R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , La Syrie, p . lvii. 5 Amir of the Council Chamber; cf. P O P P E R , Egypt and Syria, I, 92; G A U D E F R O Y - D E M O M B Y N E S , La Syrie, p. lvii. 6 BSOAS, X, No. 2, 862. 7 Al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 27, reports this in his annal for 706/1306-07; t h e following a u t h o r s record the invitation to attack, b u t not the refusal, in the annal for 704/1304-05: I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX 128; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p. 610; al-Yunlni, Dail, MS A, P t . IV, fol. 37 vo.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

I2

g

Mongol territory than they launched another major offensive into Mamluk territory 1 . Some of the Mamluk historians point out that Qarasunqur marched with the enemy, claim, indeed, that it was at his instigation that the Mongols marched in the first place2, but this, too, they record without reproach. Part of the explanation for such tolerance probably lies in the generally objective attitude of the Mamluk historians, whose custom it was to record all occurrences, whatever their nature, with the same cool matter of factness. But their objectivity fails to explain why a group of earlier defectors to the Mongols not only was welcomed back into the Mamluk fold, but was restored to high office. The defection of al-Amir Saif ad-DIn Qibgaq accompanied by a number of lesser Mamluk officers, has already been mentioned in several places in connection with the events of 699/1299-13003. It will be recalled that the misgivings which Qibgaq had expressed at Lagin's accession were substantiated when Mankutamur, Lagin's favored mamluk, gained power. Qarasunqur himself was thrown into prison, and it was to escape_such a fate that Qibgaq decided to flee Mamluk territory. But why directly to the court of the Ilhans? Why not to Byzantine or to Armenian territory? First of all, both were either allied or subject to Mongol authority. Secondly, Qibgaq was himself a Mongol whose grandfather, father, and brothers were officers at Gazan's court4. Thirdly, as a high-ranking, disaffected officer he could probably expect to be welcomed by the Mamluks' arch enemy; and the group as a whole, as professional warriors, must have realized that a place would be found for them in the Mongol army. There is no disputing the fact that they were welcomed, that Qibgaq did march with the Mongol armies against the Mamluks in Syria, that he was appointed viceroy of Damascus. It is obvious that Gazan tried to exploit his status as a Mamluk to persuade the commander of the Damascus citadel to surrender and, secondly, to capitalize on his popularity as former governor of Damascus to stabilize the situation once the main body of the Mamluk army had evacuated. In this respect, it is significant that although Qibgaq was given a title of honor and was invested with a grandiloquent decree, a Mongol general was also given the title of viceroy and left behind at Gazan's departure 5 . It would not be very convincing, therefore, to argue that Qibgaq was easily absorbed into the Mongol system and that the transformation required from Mamluk to Mongol was slight, for the Ilhans were using this prominent amir for their own purposes. What is interesting, however, is the apparent case with which he was readmitted into the Mamluk ranks soon after the last Mongols had left Damascus. As we have seen, there was no question of punishment; instead, Qibgaq was appointed viceroy of Saubak (Crac de Montreal)6. There was, of course, no lack of arguments and excuses to justify such behavior and to show that they had done everything possible under the circumstances to aid the Mamluk cause: when the Mamluk armies fled from the field at Wadi al-Hazindar and Gazan was ready for pursuit, Qibgaq dissuaded him, it is said, by cautioning him against a Mamluk ambush. And when the Muslim left defeated the Mongol right and Gazan was ready to take flight, Qibgaq urged 1

Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 245-46; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, XXX, 78; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, Pt. IV. p. 66; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, II, fol. 194 vo.; Ibn Katir, Biddya, XIV, 66; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, II, 119; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LX, 417; Ibn Tagri Birdi, Nugum, IX, 34-35. 2 Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 245; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, II, fol. 191 vo.; Ibn Katir, Biddya, XIV, 66; al8 'Aini, 'Iqd, LX, 405. See supra, pp. 8, 23, 26, 44, 63, 79, 91-92, 93. 4 Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz MS, VIII, 328; al-Gazari, Gawdhir, p. 477; as-Safadi, Wdfi, XXIV, fol. 82 vo., Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani, Durar, III, 242. 5 Cf. Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 208 vo.; Ibn ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 31; Author Z., Beitrdge, p. js; an-Nuwairi, Nihaya, X X I X , 116; Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, Sultans, p. 494; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, Pt. II, fol. 11 vo.; ad-Dahabi, Tari}i al-isldm XXX, fol. 129 vo.; Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 895; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LVIII, 207. 6

Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 219 vo., and Tuhfa, fol. 75 vo.; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, XXIX, 119; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, Pt. IV, p. 46; al-MaqrizI, Suluk, I, 902; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, LVIII, 222.

130

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

him to stand firm: "His purpose was, according to what he said after his return [to Egypt], to seize Gazan and his armies when the defeat was decisive" 1 . Nor was this double feat of persuading Gazan not to flee and not to pursue Qibgaq's only assistance to the Mamluks; in addition, when the ruler of Sis asked permission to sack Damascus, Qibgaq intervened with Gazan so that only as-Salihiya was delivered to the Armenians2. These and other statements the Mamluks must have accepted, for the historians record them without comment, with no attempt to reconcile such noble deeds with the fact, also duly recorded, that after Gazan's departure Qibgaq took to himself the title of sultan with all its appurtenances 3 , and continued to collect money from the Damascenes for the Mongols4, not to mention his own admission that he influenced Gazan's decision to march against Syria5. It might be argued, as as-Safadi and Ibn Hagar do, that Qibgaq was under the Mongols' control and actually helped the Damascenes as much as he dared 6 ; the other historians merely withhold judgment. Still the reluctance of contemporary historians to criticize a person of Qibgaq's influence - he remained in official favor until he died in 710/1310-11 - is understandable, especially since he redeemed himself against the Mongols by fighting for the Mamluks at Saqhab 7 . But the issues are not so clear cut for the flight of Qarasunqur, so that the historians' acquiescent attitude toward it is even more striking; for he cooperated willingly with the Mongols, did not return to obedience, did not redeem himself in later battle against the Mongols. It is difficult, therefore, to escape the conclusion that what seems to us culpable did not seem so to most of the historians who recorded it. There is, moreover, additional evidence to support the thesis that the conflicting loyalties inherent in the Mamluk system had produced a curious ambivalence toward the Mongols which early in the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir can be detected not only in the interactions between Mamluks and Ilhans but in the attitude of historians toward them. The idea of taking refuge with the Ilhans from violence engendered by struggles within the Mamluk state was not, as we have seen, original with Qarasunqur, but was a precedent set by Qibgaq with which the historians were familiar. What is more, between these two instances, the sultan himself had threatened to follow this course if the Syrian amirs - who had been mamluks of his father - did not redress his grievances against the usurper Baibars al-Gasnakir: "'You are aware of what you owe my father for your upbringing and manumission and for good treatment in times past . . . Either you protect me from these evil usurpers or I will seek refuge in the land of the Mongols; for this would be preferable to banishment in the land of unbelievers.'" 8 Were there no examples of just such a course of action, such might be dismissed as an idle threat. But if it had been so foolish a proposal that it could not even be countenanced, there would have been no point in utilizing it. Furthermore, al-Malik an-Nasir endows it with credibility by the final comment which implies that life with the Mongols who were at least Muslims would be 1

Nihaya, X X I X , 112. Cf. as-Safadi, Wdfi, X X I V . fols. 84 ro.-84 v o . ; I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 242; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I I , 200; I b n Iyas, Badd'i', I, 142. 2 Al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 892; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I I , 208. 3 I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 34; Author Z., Beitrdge, p p . 77-78; al-Birzali, Muqtafd, I I , 16 r o . ; adDahabi, Tdrih al-isldm, X X X I I I , fol. 130 vo.; al-Yunini, Dail, MS Y, P t . IV, fol. 221 ro. 4 Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 218 vo.; I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, I X , 35; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 895; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I I , 205. 5 As-Safadi, Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 84 ro.; I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 242; I b n Iyas, Badd'i', I, 142. 6 As-Safadi, Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 84 vo.; I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 242. 7 Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 240 vo., and Tuhfa, fol. 78 v o . ; an-Nuwairi, Nihdya, X X X , 8; as-Safadi, Wdfi, X X I V , fol. 85 ro.; Abu 1-Fida, Muhtasar, P t . IV, p . 49; I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, Durar, I I I , 243; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I, 933-35; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L V I I I , 285-86. 8 Baibars al-Mansuri, Zubda, IX, fol. 270 vo.; cf. al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 56; al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L I X , 109; I b n Tagri BirdI, Nugum, V I I I , 244-45.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

ZoZ

tolerable, while the alternative would be unthinkable. The recent conversion, then, of the Mongols to Islam may well have strengthened the latent affinities between the two states. Finally, a passage from as-Safadi's biography of al-Malik an-Nasir shows that the growing political rapprochement between Mamluks and Ilhans caused no concern but was regarded as perfectly natural. As-Safadi, summing up the brilliance of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign, is speaking of the many, far-flung sovereigns who send envoys to the Mamluk court: "As for Bu Sa'id, king of the Mongols [716-37/1316-36-37], messengers never stopped passing between al-Malik anNasir and him. Each of them called the other brother and their two words became one word, the two kingdoms, one kingdom. The decrees of the sultan were executed in the land of Bu Sa'id, and his messengers made their way with their troops and their drums, with banners unfurled"1. Undoubtedly as-Safadi is referring to the improved relations between the two courts as a result of peace overtures which were concluded in 723/13232. From al-'Aini, it can be inferred that an exchange of letters in that year set down the final terms, in which each sovereign proclaimed the virtual unity of the two realms3. In a letter announcing the terms of the peace to his viceroys, al-Malik an-Nasir decreed that no one is to be denied access to Euphrates territory "for the East and Egypt are one land, Islam having united them" 4 . Whether or not this agreement actually resulted in the conditions portrayed by as-Safadi is not our concern; for our purposes it is sufficient to point out that relations were so amicable between the two powers as a result of the long, complex growth of bonds between them, that the Mamluk historians could report such developments with complete equanimity. Within the framework of this prolonged process of rapprochement, the acquiescent attitude of the historians toward the flight of Qarasunqur can be taken as a gauge of the interpenetration of these two societies. Furthermore, if we now adopt the point of view of the biographers, such as as-Safadi or Ibn Tagri BirdI, and take into consideration the material about Qarasunqur's sojourn which was available to them, we can see their problem in treating the episode. Most of the reports which drifted back concerned al-Malik an-Nasir's flamboyant, bungling attempt to assassinate the amir. Ibn ad-Dawadari's history apparently did not circulate widely, and even if it had done so, it is doubtful that the biographers would have adopted his highly impressionable point of view since they share the other annalists' more balanced perspective. If the biographers can be faulted, their failure to note Qarasunqur's active role in the Mongol siege of ar-Rahba is most striking. And yet neither this battle nor Qarasunqur's participation in it captured the interest of many of the annalists except for Ibn ad-Dawadari. An-Nuwairi gives few details other than to say that the Egyptian troops had no sooner embarked from Cairo than the Mongols withdrew5, while al-Birzali discusses efforts to negotiate a settlement and speculate on the reasons for the Mongols' departure 6 . Both Abu 1-Fida7 and Ibn Katir 8 mention that Qarasunqur urged Hudabanda to undertake the attack, but neither dwells long on the battle. Al-Maqrizi9 and Ibn Tagri Birdi 10 barely mention it, obviously regarding it as an insignificant skirmish on the eastern frontier. Al-'Aini, as might be expected, devotes many pages11 to the siege with close attention to Qarasunqur's role in it, but then little escaped the omnivorous attention of this author who, as we have seen, is important for his interest in events and details which other historians considered unimportant. If, then, most of the annalists do not dwell upon this campaign, it is not surprising that the biographers should omit it from their considerations of Qarasunqur's dealings with the Ilhans. This is not to say that the biographers leave an altogether accurate, well1

2 Lexicon, IV, 370. I b n ad-Dawadari, Kanz, IX, 312-13; al-Maqrizi, Suluk, I I , 242. 3 4 5 Al-'Aini, 'Iqd, L X I I I , 356. Ibid., p p . 354~57Nihdya, X X X , 78. 7 8 • Muqtafd, I I , fols. 194 r c - 9 4 vo. Muhtasar, P t . IV. pp. 69-70. Biddya, X I V , 66. 10 u • Suluk, I I , 119. Nugum, IX, 34-35. 'Iqd, L X , 416-31.

I32

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

balanced account of these dealings, but that against the background of similar defects in the annals, their shortcomings do not loom so large. Admittedly, there is no evidence which suggests that the biographers were even aware of such information about Qarasunqur, much less that they weighed it, found it wanting in relevance or in accuracy, and consciously decided to omit it. Nevertheless, the assumption that they did not select and weigh the vast amount of material at their disposal and delete and omit according to standards of relevancy and accuracy would be equally misleading. Analysis of one last example will illustrate this point and at the same time permit a review of the general problem of the criteria to be adopted in evaluating the reliability of Mamluk sources, since the passage in question makes still another extravagant claim about Qarasunqur which is difficult to verify from other authors. In this instance, however, some of them at least acknowledge the claim in such a way that conclusions can be drawn regarding their attitude toward it and their reasons for denying it credence. Quite boldly, the author (al-Yusufi?) of Kitdb [Nuzhat an-ndzir fi?] Sirat an-Nasir, as quoted by al-'Aini, accuses Qarasunqur of murdering the ruler of Mardin, with whom Qarasunqur and his companions stopped during their journey to the Ilhanid court1. Here we are confronted squarely with the troubling question of the reliability of Mamluk sources and the validity of our assumptions in regard to them. Put most simply, the problem is, on what basis do we judge the authenticity of an account of which there is no mention in any other source or which other sources contradict ? A tentative reply is implicit in our treatment of Ibn ad-Dawadari's claims about Qarasunqur's activity in reorganizing certain Mongol institutions. In the complete absence of corroborative evidence from any other source, we analyzed Ibn ad-Dawadari's account for probability, adopting as standards its internal consistency and intelligibility in the light of implications which could be tested from other sources. In the case of the murder of the ruler of Mardin, the circumstances differ, for here there is no possibility of reinterpreting an exaggerated claim; either Qarasunqur killed the ruler of Mardin or he did not. From the point of view of sources, the two accounts are similar, since we do not know the identity of either and we can argue as we did for Ibn ad-Dawadari's ndqil that al-'Aini's authority shows signs of close familiarity with the events which he described. And yet the possibility remains that he concocted the charge and the minute details which substantiate it on the basis of rumor. Such a conclusion leads us, of course, to the question of motives, a question with two horns, since we must determine not only why an anonymous author went to such lengths to document a he, but also why al-'Aini, who was familiar with contradictory versions, consciously chose - or carelessly failed to delete - a lie. Finally, we must concede that the only way we have of assigning motives to these men is by analyzing their attitudes as revealed in their texts. If analysis fails to produce any conceivable reason for fabrication, then we must accept the account as true since we have no reason for disbelieving it except for the lack of supporting testimony from other sources. On the other hand, it should be clear by now that the sheer force of the number of those who record a given incident is no sure test truth or authenticity, since the instances of uncritical, indiscriminate borrowing are in no way exceptional. And yet such theorizing, indeed theorizing of any sort concerning Mamluk sources, means little, I believe, apart from specific cases, and it is with the death of the Sahib of Mardin with which we have to deal. Al-'Aini's source, Sahib Sirat an-Nasir we have seen to be extremely well-informed, with access both to the private conversations and correspondence of high-ranking officials. This means, of course, either that he himself was a dignitary or at least a functionary in contact with these personages or that he had friends who enjoyed this status. Probably both aspects were true; other1

Ibid., p p . 35°-54-

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

I33

wise it is difficult to explain how he had access to letters from so many different places, unless he did not hesitate to reconstruct letters in much the same way that some historians reconstruct conversations. Though no letters are involved in this incident, he does record an intimate, incriminating conversation between Qarasunqur and al-Afram in which the former announces his intention to murder the ruler of Mardin, fearing his enmity and treachery. Asked about his plan, he proposed to kill him with poison which he kept with him as a precaution against capture by al-Malik an-Nasir. At the drinking session to which they were invited, Qarasunqur took great pains in putting the poison in the cup and invited the ruler to drink, which he did but unfortunately did not finish it and returned it for Qarasunqur to drink. He refused, whereupon the ruler persuaded his son to finish it. Hours later, when everyone was drunk, Qarasunqur and al-Afram took flight, but the ruler heard them departing and insisted on riding for a full half day with them before returning to Mardin. Three days later, a messenger informed Qarasunqur of the death of the ruler and his son! 1 The only contemporary historian who intimates that Qarasunqur had a hand in either of those deaths is Ibn ad-Dawadari, who clouds the issue by claiming that Qarasunqur was accused of murdering the son but not the father. Ibn ad-Dawadari's account states that since the ruler was sick when the defectors reached Mardin, they were met by his son, who accompanied them on the way to Hudabanda until he received news of his father's death. Some ten days later the son himself died and Qarasunqur was accused of poisoning him. It is important that Ibn adDawadari did not pronounce on the validity of the accusation, which may signify that he did not know whether it was true but did consider it worth recording2. Obviously a report of Qarasunqur's involvement in the death of members of the ruling house of Mardin was circulated, and both Ibn ad-Dawadari's and al-'Aini's source heard different versions of it, since the contradictions in the two accounts make it unlikely that Ibn ad-Dawadari used Sirat an-Ndsir as his source. In no other contemporary source that I have examined are these deaths linked with Qarasunqur except by Abu 1-Fida, who states in an obituary that the ruler of Mardin died after Qarasunqur left him on his way to Hudabanda 3 . In all probability, Abu 1-Fida heard the report, too, but did not see fit to confirm or deny it except by this oblique reference. In Ibn Katir we find an obituary for the Sahib of Mardin, without mention of death by foul play4. The same is true for such later authors as al-Maqrizi5 and Ibn Tagri Birdi6. The only other citation of the report comes in the obituary in ad-Burar al-kdmina, in which Ibn Hagar states the following: "When al-Afram and Qarasunqur passed by him [through Mardin], he received them hospitably, but it is said that they poisoned him . . . His son succeeded to the throne and lived in the kingdom seventeen days. It is said that he was poisoned too . . ."7 It is evident by Ibn Hagar's use of the word yuqdlu that he, too, was not certain of the validity of this report, though he does not take the further step of adding Alldhu a'lam to deny it credence. Since most of the historians whose reports survive on the death of these two figures do not mention the charge at all and since two of the three writers who do mention it regard it as unproved and even then disagree on the facts of the matter, there are firm grounds for regarding the report from Kitdb Sirat an-Nasir with suspicion. We must, then, account for the minute detail with which this author describes the murder by his imaginative treatment of a rumor which had been repeated to him. The transcript of the conversation in which Qarasunqur revealed his plot to al-Afram is manifestly an invention of the author's imagination; the way in which Qarasunqur slipped the poison into the cup, poisoned the ruler, avoided drinking the poison 1

Ibid., p p . 350-54. * Muhtasar, P t . IV, 67. • Nugum, IX, 224.

2

7

Kanz, IX, 241-42. 4 Biddya, X I V , 68. Durar, I I I , 217.

5

Suluk,

I I , 121.

134

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

himself, and inadvertently poisoned the son reads like Renaissance melodrama and is an illustration, extreme to be sure, of the lengths to which a writer enamoured of the anecdote - fyabar tradition of writing history could embroider his material. Yet whether the report is true or false is not at issue here; what is significant is that here is a report which was apparently part of the well-circulated tradition regarding Qarasunqur which most historians would have known about, so that the absence of it from their works bespeaks not their ignorance but their judgment that it had no historical value either for biography or for annals. And as far as motivation is concerned - the motivation of al-'Aini and of his source for repeating this story - one need look no further than their own devotion to the elaborate exposition of striking, colorful material neglected by other historians. These inquiries into specific questions about a historical figure, although admittedly discursive, have served a useful purpose if, in addition to demonstrating once more the entanglement of Mamluk sources in general, they have provided a perspective for viewing the relationship between biography and annals. Without such detailed analysis of all the material available from both types of sources, the conclusion that identical material is rarely found in both biographies and annals would be difficult to document. There are exceptions to this rule, of course: al-Maqrizi, for instance, relates in a biography the same anecdotes about Assassin attacks as Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il recounts in his chronicle. That this is truly a special case is clear from Mufaddal's relegation of this material to a special section at the end of his work, and from al-Maqrizi's obvious attempt to fabricate a biography around this central episode. But asSafadi's anecdotes on the same subject present original information derived from an altogether different source. Not that the same material was not adaptable to both genres; the nature of as-Safadl's anecdotes and the style he uses to relate them is no different from Mufaddal's or al-Maqrizi's. The point is, rather, that a compiler of biographical dictionaries did not rely heavily on annals as a source for his biographies, probably for reasons of convenience. It would have been a cumbersome, laborious process for an author faced with writing a thousand or more biographies to sift through the bulky information provided by annals on such prominent figures as Qarasunqur, - especially the long, comprehensive annals. Beyond that, to attempt to weigh conflicting testimony about the same event from several sources would have required enormous energy and effort. Energy and effort were expended, but mainly in garnering data about as great a number of persons as possible. The biographer's main source for information about political figures seems to have been not annals, but other biographies whose authors had received reports from informants. Ibn Hagar al-'Asqalani's biographies provide the clearest proof of this technique: to the summary of as-Safadl's work he adds a few comments from adDahabi, another biographer. As-Safadi himself relied not on annals but on an informant with a large stock of Qarasunqur stories - al-'Umari. Ibn Tagri Birdi's judgments in his first biography of Qarasunqur have little connection with the data he records in an-Nugum, and in the second biography he opts to let the annalistic material about Qarasunqur speak for itself. By the same token the chroniclers incorporated little material from biographies into their annals. The great blocks from Kitdb Sirat an-Nasir that al-'Aini used in 'Iqd al-gumdn indicate that this work was not a conventional biography but was quite similar to the chronicle which Ibn adDawadari arbitrarily chose to call a sira. In fact, as I have indicated more than once, there is the distinct possibility that Kitdb Sirat an-Nasir and Nuzhat an-ndzir fi sirat al-Malik an-Nasir are one and the same source. Again, inconvenience - the awkwardness of fitting material from hundreds of biographies into chronological sequence - militated against the interchange of material between the two types of sources. In the final analysis this means only that annalists tended to borrow from annals, biographers from biographies, and both from correspondents or oral informants. The information about a

CONCLUSIONS

135

person's life was, of course, the same, and extended treatment of any single aspect of it tended to take on the same anecdotal form. Yet the reluctance of each to cross the line into the territory of the other undoubtedly resulted in the recording of more original material than would have been the case had the biographers merely reworked annalistic data. As we have seen, the anecdotal treatment to which much of this material has been subjected often weakens its historicity; so that the incidental, peripheral details which emerge from the anecdote take on more value at times than the main subject matter itself. This is a characteristic defect in which annals share to the extent that their authors make use of the anecdotal style.

D. C o n c l u s i o n s The observations which have emerged from this study of several biographies of Qarasunqur and the attempt to correlate them with material about him from the annals can be summarized as follows: 1. As a whole, the biographies of Qarasunqur succeed in suggesting his importance as a political figure by sketching the verifiable aspects of his career, although noticeable gaps are left because of the necessity of selectivity and the penchant for isolated anecdote observable in biography. 2. Some of these gaps can be filled in from the copious information recorded about him in the annals; nevertheless, this material suffers from the same defects - selectivity and anecdote so that answers to important questions, e. g., Qarasunqur's relation to the sultan and the significance of his activities at the Mongol court, are speculative. 3. When an annalist gives sustained attention to a person such as Qarasunqur, a more comprehensive view of that figure may possibly be reconstructed from the annals than from a biography because of the annalists' attention to an episode which spans a long period of time. 4. Long biographies are dominated by anecdotes whose peripheral details bear more historical value than the topic of the anecdote. 5. The literary techniques of biography and annals are to an extent interchangeable. Biography x can be arranged in annalistic form. Annals, especially those written in a personalized vein, often include anecdotes on prominent persons. 6. Though biography and annals overlap, the former is not based on the latter but on original information or data common to both. For this reason, not because of irreconcilable differences in the genre, identical material is rarely found in both. Beyond these observations, we should perhaps attempt to adjust the conclusions of the first chapter regarding the priority for publication of manuscripts relevant to the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir and the kind of material to be gleaned from them. As for priority of publication, it is obvious from the single biographical figure studied that al-Wdfi bil-wafaydt abounds with detail invaluable for a social history of the Bahri period, though its contribution to the political history which can be reconstructed from the annals is problematic. This work, therefore, certainly should be listed among the more important sources of the period not yet published, but low on the list, following, perhaps, al-Yunini's Dail mir'dt az-zamdn. Al-Manhal as-sdfi is more difficult to rank on the basis of a single, short biography which contains original, but suspect, material. Its main value lies probably in its potentiality as a reference work supplementary to ad-Durar al-kdmina rather than the information it records about contemporaries of al-Malik an-Nasir, if this single biography is typical. The attempt to correlate annals with biography led to a reconsideration of Ibn ad-Dawadari's Kanz ad-durar which showed that it is a far more

x

36

BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

valuable source for the later part of al-Malik an-Nasir's reign than our preliminary analysis indicated. This work is, in fact, filled with information found in no other source and is thus of equal importance as Zubdat al-fikra, Hawddit az-zamdn, and 'Iqd al-gumdn. Furthermore, we have learned that the unpublished section of Mufaddal's an-Nahg as-sadid and al-Maqrizi's Suluk contain much of value for al-Malik an-Nasir's reign. Finally, the biographical literature as a whole can best be regarded as supplementary to the annals. Much of what we want to know about a prominent figure can be gained by analyzing the material in the annals, both from anecdotes similar to those found in biographies and from narrative accounts of incidents in which the figure took part. The biographies often indirectly reveal more about the general life of the time than the particular subject of the biography. For this reason, as well as for the original information recorded about important - and unimportant but interesting - contemporaries of the sultan, Mamluk biography is indispensable as a source for a biography of alMalik an-Nasir and his time.

APPENDIX: MASTER TABLES u id "d

T303

43

1

^

HH
60, 79, 85, 131-33 Methodology, methods, 1, 2, 17, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 68, 73 Mihmanddr, 11 Military: affairs, 10, 28, 42, 94, 95," institution, 24; officers, 67; training, 2 Milk,

mulk,

120-21

Monetary affairs, 17, 28 Monographs, 1 Motives, see causes Muhtasib, 76, 80 Muqaddim al-halqa, 81 Murder of ruler of Mardin, 13234 Naft, 122-23 Nd'ib al-futuhdt (viceroy of the conquered lands), 25 Namus al-mulk, 88 Naqib, 19 Ndzir ad-diwdn, 24 Ndzir al-guyus*, 24 Negotiations, 63, 70, 71, 76, 83, 9 L 93 News of accession, 73, 77

152

Notables, 5 N u m b e r s , figures, 17, 20, 33, 39, 48, 56, 63, 65, 74, 77, 79, 84, 98, 99 Obituaries, o b i t u a r y notices, 6, 12, 14, 16, 19, 2 i , 25, 26, 28, 3 i , 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86, 87, 91, 94, 99, 100, 108, 110-112, 133 Objectivity, 48, 129 Occupation of Damascus, 15, 16, 20, 26, 27, 35, 36, 44, 45, 49, 5 i , 57, 63, 65, 83, 84, 91, 92, 93. Officials, administrative, state, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24, 35, 38, 87, 98, 101, 104, 115, 132; judicial, 101 Omens, 77, 84 Omissions, deletions, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 14, 22, 29, 31, 49, 55, 61, 108 Originality, original, 2, 13, 32, 34, 45-46, 57, 61, 63, 64, 66, 72-73, 86, 96-97, I Q I , 124 Ox, see bull Philology, 2 Pilgrimage, pilgrims, 9, 12, 42, 49, 53, 54, 60, 62, 67, 68, 74, 81, 83, 99 Plagiarism, plagiarize, 21, 43, 64 Plunder, 83 Poems, poetry, 1, 21, 27, 50, 54, 58, 63, 78, 83, 91, 92, 107, 109; Poets, 13, 104 Politics, political: figures, 99, 102, 134, 135; m a t t e r s , 6, 10, 17, 28, 42, 46, 48, 52, 55, 61, 75, 95, 113; institution, 46 Possessions, 103 Prayers, scheduling of, 47, 48, 54, 62, 68, 69, 74, 82; see rain Prices, 5, 6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 23, 25, 33, 38, 47, 48, 50, 54, 56, 58, 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, 73, 77, 78, 81, 99 Prison, burning of, 15, 50, 58, 63, 70, 71, 83, 102, 104 Proclamations, 50, 58, 70, 78 Qddi, Qddis, 28, 30, 31, 48, 66, 76, 80, 88, 103, 104, 106, 108, 128 Qdla, 23, 36, 54, 103-04; qultu, 37, 57, 66; yuqdlu, 133 Qaraqumiz, 119 Qumiz, 119

INDICES Race, see ginsiya, 126, 127, 128 Raids, raiding, 58, 76, 78, 83 Rain, 9, 25, 47, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 67, 69, 7 3 ; ceremonies, prayers, 47, 48, 52, 54, 68, 71, 77, 79 Re-equipping, see remobilization Reference work, 12 Religion, religions, 37, 38 Religious: institution, 46, 70, 76, 80, 9 5 ; matters, affairs, 10, 13, 17, 46, 48, 52, 67, 85, 99, 128; officials, scholars, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 57. 62, 69, 70, 80, 87, 99, 101, 108 Remobilization, 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 21, 23, 26, 28, 34, 36, 44, 58, 59, 63, 65, 76, 78, 83, 84, 91, 93 Repertorium, 2, 3 Reprisals, retaliation, 26, 28, 76 R e t r e a t of Mamluk forces, 8, 14, 1 5> 5 1 , 56, 58, 78, 84, 91 Rhetoric, rhetorical, 14-15, 59, 74, 105 R h y m e d prose, 21, 23, 57, 59, 82, 94 Royal affairs, 43, 44, 45 Rulers: biographies of, 100, 101; list of, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 34, 37, 41, 54, 56, 58, 60, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 81, 83, 85, 87 Sadd ad-dawdwin, 11 Sahib ad-diwdn, 24 Saih, $aihs,^o, 31, 49, 59, 86 Saih al-masa'ih, %i Saih as*-suyuh, 76 Sarabhdna, 120-121 Sari'a, 128 Scholar, scholarship, see religious Secretaries, 4 Selection, principle of, 43, 44, 68, 70, 98, 105, 118, 124, 131 Sequence, 21, 35, 85, 86, 100, 104, 124 Ships, 4, 5, 98 Sikka, 25, 48, 55 Sira, 12, 100 Siydsa, 128 Slavery, slaves, 34, 124-27 Sources, acknowledgment/identification of, 23, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 73, 81, 82, 89, 95, 98; common, same, 19, 21-23, 27, 28-29, 35-36, 43, 5 i , 54, 57> 59, 69, 98; oral, 32, 54, 55, 90, 96, 103, 104, 118; written, literary, 24, 25, 31, 32, 46, 96, 103, 118

Spies, 8, 105, 116, 121 S t a t e affairs, 5, 17, 38, 40, 42, 47, 61 Style, 32, 46, 82 Sufi, 31, 93, 94 Sultanate, 13, 20, 27, 50, 56, 58, 62, 63, 73, 88, 90, 114 S u m m a r y , abridgment, 5, 6, 7, 9-10, 20, 22, 27, 30, 32, 60, 66, 71, 83, 84, 96, 106-08 S u m p t u a r y laws, 18, 47, 48, 69, 82 Tabaqdt, 62 Taxes, 4, 8, 121 Tadyil, 66 Teacher, 76, 80, 106 Tistdariya, 120 Tisthdna, 120 Tracts, 1 Tribute, 9, 27, 29, 41, 45 Tumdn, 122 T u m u l t in Damascus, 50, 56, 58, 70, 78, 91 Turkish D y n a s t y , 5 'Ulamd', 30, 52, 60, 64, 68, 70,93 Umma, 113 Universal chronicle, history, 12, 24, 40, 42, 62, 69, 80, 95, 97 Ustad, 88, 90, 104, 125-26, 127 Ustdddriya, 120—21 Verses, see p o e t r y Viceroy: Aleppo, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109, i n , 112, 116, 117, ! 2 5 ; Conquered lands, see nd'ib alfutuhat; Damascus, 11, 12, 28, 30, 102, 109, 112, 116, 117, 129; E g y p t , 14, 35, 109, 112, 114, 116; empire, 4, 25, 102; Gaza, 116; l l a m a , 102; 107, 109; Ilhan, Mongol, 17, 29, 4 9 ; N o r t h e r n Syria, 13; Safad, 116; as-Sam, 15; as-Subaiba, 102, 107; Syria, 21, 27, 59, 71, 72, 107; Virtues, 102, 104, 107 Vizier, vizierate, 12, 19, 20, 25, 38, 62, 102, 104, 105, 106 Wakil bait al-mal, 90, 102 Wdlidi, 57-58 Waqfs, administrator of, 76 Wine, 50, 58, 63, 70, 78, 83 Witness, 48, 53 Ydsa, 128

153 4- Authors 'Abd al-Badi', L., 67, 93 Abu 1-Fida, al-Malik al-Mu'ayyad, 41, 42-46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55. 66, 67, 73, 91, 95, 96, 97115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 1 3 1 , 133

'Abd al-Hamid, Muhammad Muhyi ad-Din, 102 Abu H a y y a n , 89 Abu 1-Mahasin, see I b n Tagri Birdi Abu Sama, 46, 47, 69 Abu t-Tana' al-Isfahani, 66 Ahlwardt, Wilhelm, 81 al-'Aini, Badr ad-Din, 80-87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 114, 115, 116, 123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 Amar, Emile, 108 Arendok, C. van, 106 Ashtor, E., 4, 29, 32, 73, 74, 84, 94 Author Z., 18-24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35-36, 38, 44, 46, 48, 49-51, 54, 55, 56-57, 59, 64, 95, 96, 97, 114, 115, 125, 126, 129, 130 Ayalon, David, 11, 19, 81, 103, 116, 125, 126 A'yan al-'asr, 102, 105-06, 107 Badd'i' az-zuhur fi waqd'i' adduhur, 92-94, 130 Baibars al-Mansurf, 3, 4-10, 11, 12-18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 2 5 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 55> 56, 57, 61, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85-86, 8 8 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 9 8 , 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130

al-Banbi, M u h a m m a d ibn H a san, 94 Barthold, Wilhelm, 122 al-Ba'uni, A b u 'Abd Allah, 94 Bazmee Ansari, A. S., 55, 62 Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Mamlukensultane, 18-24, 27, 35, 36, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 64, 94, 114, 115, 125, 126, 129, 130

al-Biddya wan-nihdya, 57, 68, 69-73, 85, 97, 111-12, 115, 116, 123, 219, 131, 133 al-Birzali, 'Alam ad-DIn, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 40, 4 1 , 46-53, 5 4 56, 57> 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69-72, 79, 80, 8 1 , 82, 86, 89, 96, 97, 100, 114, 115, 129, 130, 131 Blochet, E d g a r d , 32, 33, 34, 35, 89, n o Boyle, J . A., 121 Brockelmann, Carl, 5, 47, 76

and

Works

Cahen, Claude, 1, 2, 4 1 , 47, 57, 121

ad-Dahabi, Sams ad-Din, 40, 46, 61-66, 71, 76, 79, 89, 96, 9 7 , 100, 107, 113, 129, 130,

Dail mir'dt az-zamdn, 39, 5 7 - 6 1 , 63, 64, 68, 72, 76, 79, 80, 85, 88, 9 1 , 107, 115, 127, 128, 130, 135 Dedering, S., 100 Defr6mery, Ch., n o ad-Durar al-kdmina, 20, 30, 31, 4°, 57, 66, 67, 86, 89, 90, 93, 103, 1 0 6 - 0 8 , 109, 115, 116, 117, 120, 123, 125, 129, 130,

133, 135 ad-Durr al-fdhir fi sirat alMalik an-Nasir, see Kanz addurar, vol. I X ad-Durr a az-zakiya fi ahbar daulat al-muluk at-turkiya, see Kanz ad-durar, vol. V I I I Durrat al-aslak, 94 {Kitdb) Duwal al-isldm, 40, 6 4 66, 71, 96 al-Fahiri, al-Amir B a d r ad-Din B a k t a s , 94 Fawdt al-wafaydt, 67, 68, 102 Gama.1 ad-Din, al-Qadi, 40 Gaudefroy-Demombynes, M., 11, 14, 2 5 , 40, 120, 128

Gawdhir as-suluk, 52-57, $8, 61, 64, 65, 68, 74, 88, 91, 126, 127 al-Gauhar at-tamin, 94, 129 al-Gazari, Sams ad-Din Muh a m m a d , 20, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53-57, 5 7 - 6 i , 62, 64, 65, 67-69, 70, 71, 72, 73-75, 76, 78, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, i n , 126, 127, 129 Gibb, H . A. R., 19, n o , 112 Glazer, S., 89 Grunebaum, G. E . von, 113 Guest, A. R., 40, 41, 81, 82

I b n B a t t u t a , 19, n o I b n ad-Dawadari, 3, 10-18, 1 9 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30-31, 32, 34> 35-36, 37» 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54» 55> 56-57, 59, 61, 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 77, 82, 84, 86, 96, 97, 100, 107, 114, 115, 116, 1 1 8 124, 128, 129, 130, 1 3 1 , 132,

133, 135 I b n D u q m a q , 84, 85, 90, 94 I b n al-Furat, 32, 73-75, 77-78, 80, 85, 93, 96, 97 I b n H a b i b , B a d r ad-Din, 94 I b n H a g a r al-'Asqalani, 20, 30, 31, 40, 57, 66, 81, 82, 86, 89, 90, 9 3 , 102, 103, 1 0 6 - 0 8 , 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 120, 123, 125, 129, 130, 133, 134

I b n Hagib, 42 I b n Haldun, 75-76, 95, 96, 97 I b n Hallikan, 66, 67 I b n Iyas, 92-94, 97, 13° I b n Katir, 57, 67, 69-73, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 90, 96, 97, 108, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 114, 115, 116, 123, 129, 1 3 1 , 133

I b n Muzhir, Saraf ad-Din, 66 I b n Sa'd, 112 I b n as-Sa'i, 41 I b n Tagri BirdI, Abu 1-Mahasin, 18, 20, 32, 87-92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 102, 108-09, i n , 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133 I b n al-Wardi, 66-67, 96 I b n al-Wahid, Saraf ad-Din, 81 I b n Wasil, 42, 66 'Iqd al-gumdn, 80, 90, 93, 95, 97, 114, 115, 116, 123, 125, 126, 127, 1 2 9 , 130, 131, 136

Horovitz, Josef, 104

al-Isna'i, Gamal ad-Din, 89 'Izz ad-Din, Najla, 73 Kanz ad-durar wa-gami' algurar, 12, 61, 83, 97, 98, 124, I 35 Vol. V I I I , 11, 13, 19, 20, 34, 55> 65, 70, 77, 100, 114 Vol. I X , 10-18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, 39, 44, 46, 49, 51, 52, 59, 61, 64, 72, 100, 107, 115, 116, 118-24, I 2 8 , 129, 130, 131, 133 Karpovitch, M., 119 Kitdb al-Agdni, 42 Kitdb al-'Ibar, 75 Kitdb al-Lata'if, 81 Kitab ar-Raudatain, 46 Kitdb Sirat an-Nasir, 81, 101, 132, 133, 134 Kitab Tdrih al-Malik an-Nasir,

I b n 'Abd az-Zahir, 41, 66 I b n abi Hagala, Sihab ad-Din, 93 I b n al-'Amid, 32, 33

Kitab Tdrih Misr, see az-zuhur Koran, 14, 21, 53 Kratschkowsky, I., 24

H a a r m a n n , Ulrich, 36, 81 H a m z a , 'Abd al-Latif, 2 Hawddit az-zamdn, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 78, 79, 95, 96, 136 Histoire des sultans mamlouks (Sultans), 32-38, 39, 44, 46, 49, 55, 59, 64, 116, 123, 127, 129

8 1 , 101

Badd'i'

154

INDICES

Krenkow, Fritz, 39, 94, 107 al-Kutubi, M u h a m m a d ibn Sakir, 46, 67-69, 79, 85, 86, 88, 90, 96, 102

an-Nugum az-zdhira, 18, 20, 8 7 92, 93, 95, I O ° , I Q 8 , 109, i n , 113, 115, 116, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134

an-Nuwairi, Sihab ad-Din, 32, 34> 36, 37, 38, 39, 4°» 43, 44, 45, 49, 5 1 , 52, 54, 57, 59-6o, 61, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73-75, 75-76, 78, 79, 82, 86, 89, 90, 9 1 , 92, 95,

Lane-Poole, Stanley, 18 Laoust, Henri, 31, 69 Lapidus, I. M., 19 Lech, Klaus, 40 Le Strange, Guy, 11 Lewis, Bernard, 112 Lowinger, Samuel, 62

97, n o , i n , 112, 114, 115, 116, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131

Magd ad-Din al-Harami, 90 al-Manhal as-sdfi, 108-09, m , 115, 117, 135 al-Maqrizi, 1, 32, 76-80, 83-84, 86-87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, n o , i n , 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 1 2 1 , 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 1 3 1 , 133, 134, 136

Marcais, W., 80 Masdlik al-absdr, 40, 66, 71, 96, 103-04

al-Mas'udi, 17 Mayer, L. A., 103 Mir'dt al-gandn, 94 Mir'dt az-zamdn fi tdrih a'ydn, 57 al-Mu'arrih, 35, 36, 37, 40, 52, 54, i n al-Mu'ayyad, 40, 41 Mufaddal ibn abi 1-Fada'il, 38, 39, 44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59, 64, 69, 86, 89, 95, 97, 98, I I O - I I , 115,

116,

244X> 56, 69, 80, 96,

Nuzhat al-andm, 84 Nuzhat al-mdlik wal-mamluk, 38-39, 97 Nuzhat an-ndzir fi sirat alMalik an-Nasir, 81, 84, 95, 96, 132, 134 Petrushevsky, L P . , 121 Poliak, A. N., 121, 127, 128 Popper, William, 20, 87, 88, 89, 114, 120, 128

51,

al-Qalqasandi, Sihab ad-DIn, 1, 24 Quatremere, M., 76, 94, 106 al-Qutb al-Halabi, 89

3255, 96,

F i t t e r , Helmut, 100 Roemer, H a n s R., 10, 18, 19, 97 Rosenthal, Franz, 12, 46, 82,

al-

123,

127, 128, 129, 134, 136^ al-Muhtasar fi tdrih al-basar, 41, 42-46, 55, 66, ' 9 1 , 97, 115, 116, 117, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 1 3 1 , 133

al-Munaggid, Salah al-Din, 10, 47, 55> 62 al-Muqaddima, 75 al-Muqri, A h m a d ibn Muhammad, 40-42, 46, 86, 95, 96, n o al-Muqtafd li-tdrih as-Saih Sihab ad-Din abi Sama, 46-53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 96, 97, 114, 115, 129, 130, 131 Murad, H a s a n Q., 71, 73, 101 al-Muradi, 112 an-Nahg as-sadid, 32, 33, 34, 35, 97, n o , 115, 136 an-Naqil, 118-24, x 3 2 Natr al-gumdn, 40-42, 46, 97, no Nihdyat al-arab fi funun al-adab, 24-32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 4 1 , 43, 44, 45, 5 i , 52, 59, 61, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 75-76, 79, 80, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 98, n o , i n , 114, 116, 125, 126, 127 , 129, 130, 131

100, 104

Russell, Dorothea, 88 Sadarat ad-dahab, 62 Sadeque, S. F., 1, 77 as-Safadi, M u h a m m a d 'Abd Al' lah, 38-39 as-Safadi, Salah ad-Din Halil, 38, 89, 100, 1 0 1 , 102-06," 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 124, 125, 129, 130, 1 3 1 , 134

Sahib (an-Nuzha, Nuzhat anndzir), see al-Yusufi Sahib Nuzhat al-albdb, see alYusufi, 90, 95 Sahib Sirat an-Nasir, 132, see al-Yusufi Salibi, K. S., 40 Salim, M., 2 Sanguinetti, B. R., n o Sauvaget, Jean, 36, 47, 53, 54, 68 Schregle, Gotz, 1 Sibt ibn al-Gauzi, 57 Siyar a'lam an-nubald', 62 Somogyi, J., 62 Spuler, Bertold, 121, 122, 123, 127 Subh al-a'id, 1, 24 as-Suga'i, Sams ad-DIn, 81, 101

(Kitab) as-suluk li-ma'rifat duwal al-muluk, 76-80, 83, 84, 91, 93, 97> I I O > I J 4 , J I 5 , n 6 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 127, 128, 129, 130,

I 3 1 - x 3 3 , 136 Surur, M., 1 as-Suyuti, 128 (Kitab) Tabaqdt idfi'iya, 89

al-fuqaha'

a$-

at-Tadkira dl-kdmiliya, 38 Tadkirat an-nabih, 94 Tdrih ad-duwal wal-muluk, 7 3 75~ 77, 29, 93 Tdrih al-Gazari, 53 Tdrih Ibn al-Furat, 73-75 Tdrih Ibn al-Wardi, 66-67 Tdrih al-isldm, 61-66, 71, 76, 9 6 " 9 7 , 100, 129, 130

Tdrih Misr, 89 Tdrih al-Qadi Saraf ad-Din ibn al-Wdhid, 81 Tatimmat al-muhtasar, 66—67, 96 Tritton, A. S., 117 at-Tuhfa al-mulukiya, 4-10, 12, 13, '14, 15, 17, 20, 25, 26, 27, 44, 45, 55> 65, 89, 90, 9 1 , 97, 114, 116, 127, 129, 130

al-'Umarl, Sihab ad-DIn I b n F a d l Allah, 40, 66, 71, 93, 96, 103-04, 134 al-' Uqud ad-durriya, 94 Urguza fi l-hulafa" was-saldtin, 94 'Uyun at-tawdrih, 67-69, 88, 97 Vernadsky, G., 119 Wafaydt al-Wdfi

al-a'ydn, 67 bil-wafaydt,

38,

100,

1 0 2 - 0 6 , 107, 108, 112, 113, 115, 116, 124, 125, 129, 130,

135 Weil, Gustav, 32 Wiet, Gaston, 87, 101 al-Yafi'I, 'Abd Allah, 94 al-Yunini, Q u t b ad-Din, 39, 46, 57-61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 9 i , 92, 96, 97, 98, 107, 115, 127, 128, 135 al-Yiisufi, Musa ibn Y a h y a , 8 1 82, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90," 92, 93, 95, 98, 131 Zetterst6en, K. V., 18, 19, 23, 35, 48, 59, 62, 94 Ziyada, M., 76, 80, 87, 92, 108 Zubdat al-fikra, 4-10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44. 45, 55, 59, 65, 70, 71, 74, 79, 82, 84, 85, 89, 9 1 , 93, 95, 97, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 136

Zurayq, Q., 73