Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:11:46.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Petitions From the Mamlūk Period (Notes on The Mamlūk Documents From Sinai) 1

I. THE MAMLUK DOCUMENTS FROM SINAI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

S. M. Stern
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai possesses a large collection of odocuments concerning its own affairs and dating from the Fāṭimid, Ayyūbid, Mamlūk, and Ottoman periods. They were used for historical purposes as early as the seventeenth century by certain writers belonging to the monastery, but, if exception be made for the pioneer (but limited) work done by B. Moritz in the early years of this century, they remained unexploited by modern scholars. The American expedition of 1950, which has microfilmed about one-half of the library's manuscripts in various languages, brought back microfilms of the entire collection of Arabic and Turkish documents, thus making a thorough study of them possible for the first time. There is no need to specify the earlier bibliography of the Sinai documents, since readers of this Bulletin can obtain the necessary information from an article of mine published in an earlier volume.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 1966 , pp. 233 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 ‘A Fāṭimid decree of the year 524/1130’, BSOAS, xxiii, 3, 1960, 439 ff.Google Scholar

3 Die mainlukischen Sultansurkunclen des Sinai-Klosters. xxxix, 353 pp. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1960. DM. 44.Google Scholar

4 Two Sinai documents of the Ayyūbid period, containing petitions with the sultan's decree on their back, are published (together with a third of different provenance), in the article ‘Petitions from the Ayyribid period’. The remaining two decrees from the Ayyūbid period are published by me in Documents from Islamic chanceries (Oxford, [1966]) under the title ‘Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai’. Thus the only medieval chancery documents still awaiting publication are Mamlfik documents which emanate from officials rather than the sultans themselves and which are therefore not included in Ernst's volume (cf. below, p. 260).

5 The Arabic manuscripts of Mount Sinai: a hand-list of the Arabic manuscripts and scrolls microfilmed at the library of the monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai, Baltimore, 1955.Google Scholar

6 The documents in question are nos. v, ix, xix, lx; one document—Atiya, no. 964 add.—is omitted in the present volume, while a document by Qā'itbāy, dated according to Atiya 5 June 1473, cannot be identified, either because the editor dates it differently, or has omitted it.

7 The volume, containing 26 decrees and deeds, was published by Risciani, N. as Documenti e firmani, Jerusalem, 1931Google Scholar; but it—or at least my copy of it—has no title-page. The decrees are photographically reproduced in their entirety. A hand-list of the documents conserved in the Custodia Terrae Sanctae ranging from the Ayyūbid to the most recent Ottoman period (listing 2, 644 items) was published by Castellani, E.: Catalogo dei firmani ed altri documenti legali emanati in lingua araba e turca concernenti i santuari le propriety i diritti della Custodia di Terra Santa conservati nell'archivio della stessa Custodia in Gerusalemme, Jerusalem, 1922. I am most grateful to the authorities of the Custodia, and more especially Father E. Tonini, and to Father A. S. Rosso in Rome, for their generosity in procuring for me copies of these works.Google Scholar

8 As in my former studies on documents from Sinai, I am again indebted to the Manchester University Library for providing me with prints from the duplicates, preserved in the Library, of the microfilms taken by the American expedition to Sinai.

9 In the article ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’.

10 Some further corrections, taken at random. In no. iv, 1. 21, the word does not, of course, mean ‘by messengers’(such a word does not exist) but‘in the Jawlān’, and belongs to the date, which is 12 Ramadan 670/12 May 1272. In that year Baybars, after having concluded peace with the Crusaders in Caesarea on 22 April (Grousset, R., Histoire des Croisades, III, 663;Google Scholar correct misprint mai ' in title) left that city on 3 Sha'bān for Damascus, where he arrived on 2 Shawwāl (al-Magrīzī, Sulūk, I, 598). The document was issued on the way, while he was encamped in the district of the Jawlan, the biblical Golan. In nos. lxv and lxvii the words ruhbān al-Kurj are absurdly rendered as ‘the monks of the Kurds’; al-Kurj or al-Gurj are, of course, the Christian Georgians. These documents are valuable additions to the evidence about a fairly well-known episode. Indeed, most curiously the text of no. lxvii is also extant in the form of an inscription which used to be to the left of the door of the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and has been published by Berchem, M. van, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum, II, 1Google Scholar (Jerusalem ‘ville’), pp. 348–98. (Cf. also Cerulli, E., Etiopi in Palestina, Rome, 1943, 1, 379–81. Ernst quotes in his notes to no. lxv the title of Cerulli's book, but did not notice that the episode is treated in it) I shall re-edit these documents on another occasion.Google Scholar

11 cf. Fāṭimid decrees, section 10 of the diplomatic commentary, and the article on the Ayyūbid decrees quoted above, p. 233, n. 4.

12 A fundamental error consists in that the editor has not recognized that many of these marks contain two complementary entries: one of them being an order to register the document, the other a note that the registration has been effected. In such cases the first entry begins with a jussive, li-yuthbat, the second with the perfect uthbita—li-yuthbat has, however, been usually misread by the editor as uthbita. Cf. below, p. 248 and n. 60.

13 cf. ‘Three petitions of the Fāṭimid period’, and ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’. In these articles too the evidence of the actual documents has been combined with literary information in order to provide as full a description as possible of the administration of this particular branch of justice, viz. the ruler's investigation of grievances (al-naẓar fi 'l-maẓālim). The Mamlūk practice has been described on the basis of the literary authorities only by Tyan, É., Histoire de l'organisation judiciaire en pays d' Islam, Leiden, 1960Google Scholar, 500 if. In Björkman's, W.Beitrāge zur Geschichte der Staatskanzlei im islamischen Ägypten, Hamburg, 1928, 52–3Google Scholar, the Mamlūk petition is described chiefly after al-Qalqashandī, 202 ff. The article by the same author entitled ‘Die Bittschriften im dīwān, n al-inšā’, Der Islam, XVIII 1929, 207–12, is based, as far as the Mamlūk period is concerned, on the same passage; for the suggested antecedents of the Islamic petition cf. my remark in the article ‘Three petitions of the Fāṭimid period’, p. 189, n. 1.Google Scholar

14 Such a statement is contained in nos. ix-xii, xvi, xix, xxv, xxviii, xxix, xxxii-xlix, li-lv, lviii-lx, lxii, lxv, lxix, lxxii. Similarly in the decrees of the Franciscan archives (above, p. 235, n. 7) nos. i-viii, x-xii, xv-xvi, xx, xxv-xxvi. The contents of decrees were, as is well known, often inscribed on stone (Wiet, G., ‘Répertoire des decrets mamlouks de Syrie’, Mèlanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, Paris, 1939, II, 521–37Google Scholar; Sauvaget, J., ‘Décrets mamelouks de Syrie’, Bulletin d'Études Orientates (Institut Francais de Damas), 1932, 1–52, IIIGoogle Scholar, 1933, 1–29, xri, 1948, 5–60; and for the unique case where we have both the decree and the inscription see above p. 235, n. 10). In some of these inscriptions the petitions which led to the issue of the decrees are mentioned: ‘according to the petition (qiṣṣa) submitted by his exalted excellence the qāḍi Bahā' al-Din’ (Sauvaget, BEO, 1932, 25); ‘a petition (qiṣṣa) in the name of the inhabitants of Sarmīn, in which they reported’ (idem, BEO, xii, 1948, 38); ‘a number of the inhabitants of Ḥimṣ … complaining … the petition (qiṣṣa) distinguished by the noble handwriting’ (M. van Berchem, ‘Arabische Inschriften’, in M. von Oppenheim, Inschriften aus Syrien, Mesopotamien and Kleinasien, 9 ff.). A great number of references to the word qiṣṣa in the meaning of ‘petition’ are listed by Quatremēre, I, 236 (note 111); for additional examples for qiṣṣa and rug'a see my articles ‘Three petitions of the Fāṭimid period’, 190, 195, 198–200, 208, and ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, p. 26, 1. 4 of text, and p. 27, 1. 38.Google Scholar

15 , Ernst calls this the verso. Moreover, since he did not realize that one side of the document contains the petition, the other the decree, he writes that ‘the recto is the same as the verso’ — without asking why the same thing should be written twice. (In the collection of microfilms too the petition is called ‘no. 26. Part 2’, the decree ‘Part 1’.) The dimensions of the document are 38 x 11.5 cm.

16 In 11. 4–5 the words yaqūzmu … ilayhi are not read by Ernst, nor are the words 'azza naṣruhu in 1. 6. In 1. 6 he reads lahum instead of amr, in 1. 7 wa- instead of fi F. In 1. 8 he does not read al-qadima. He offers no reading for I. 10 in the text, but in the notes he has: ṭāla'a(?) al-dīwān.

17 The reading ṭāla'a 'l-mamlūk bi-dhālik is suggested by the use of the same formula in reports submitted by government officials, see below, pp. 241–2, where also a passage by al-Qalqashandī is quoted according to which the formula ṭāla' a 'l-mamlūk was sometimes used in private correspondence (modelled on the style of the petition). In the other petitions published below the phrase is more legible than in ours.

18 I cannot read the last words.

19 cf. Encyclopaedia of Islam, first ed., s.v. ‘al-Shawbak’.

20 cf. Weill, R., La presqu'ile du Sinai, Paris, 1908, 93 ff., the article ‘al-ṭūr’in Encyclopaedia of Islam, first ed., and ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, 22–3.Google Scholar

21 Ernst has failed to recognize that the word ‘slave’ in the phrase ‘the slave (al-mamlūk) Salāma’ is merely a formula required by protocol, and describes therefore the decree as concerning ‘a mamlūk living in al-ṭūr’ (whatever this is supposed to mean). Similarly in no. xiii B (see below, p. 250) the petitioners, who describe themselves as ‘the slaves, the monks of the monastery of Mount Sinai in the wilderness’, are made into ‘mamlūks of the monastery of Mount Sinai’; in xiii C (below, p. 257), owing to an erroneous reading (al-mamālīk li ruhbān bi-dayr ṭilt- Sīnā instead of al-mamālik al-ruhbān, etc.), they become ‘the mamlūks for the monks in the monastery of Mount Sinai’!

22 One will have noted that our petition also has ‘from the bounty of our Lord the Sultan’— though here the word ṣadaqa is in the singular. That the plural ṣadaqāt is often used in the Mamlūk chancery in connexion with petitions has already been pointed out by M. van Berchem (in the study quoted above, p. 237, n. 14), 11, who refers to the documents published by Amari (I diplomi arabi del R. Archivio Fiorentino), pp. 166, 167, 185, 207, and more especially p. 227, in connexion with sa'ala, marsūm. See for al-ṣadaqāt al-sharīfa also Ernst, no. xxxi, 1. 14, and Khalil al-ẓāldrī, Zubdat kashf al-mamālik, ed. Ravaisse, 137, wa-sa'ala min al-ṣadaqāt al-sharīfa.

23 ‘Three petitions of the Fāṭimid period’.

24 ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’.

25 See BSOAS, xxiii, 3, 1960, 449.Google Scholar

26 In a petition by the Ragusan consul to the governor of Egypt from the early Ottoman period, when Mamlūk: practices were still followed, the name of the petitioner is in the left margin, quite far down—the petition is very long. (See my review of Bajraktarević, F., Les documents arabes aux archives d'état à Dubrovnik, in Oriens, xviii, forthcoming.) I do not think, however, that al-Qalqashandī's description refers to such a method. It is not clear why in that document the name of the petitioner is put so far down in the margin; the length of the petition is no sufficient reason in itself.Google Scholar

27 The ‘praise to God’ demanded by al-Qalqashandi takes here the form (if the reading is correct) wa 'l-ḥamd li 'llāh waḥdah; in nos. 2 and 3 published below: al-ḥamd li 'llāh rabbi 'l-'ālamīn. The Ayyūbid petitions have wa 'l-ḥamd 'llāh waḥdaḥ. No ‘praise upon the Prophet’ is included. It may be pointed out that the characteristic phrase which comes in the Ayyūbid petitions before the final praise: ‘And the opinion [of the sultan] is the highest’ does not recur in our petitions. All this shows the continuous change of phraseology characteristic of the history of such documents.

28 In this case, however, one can hardly assume a historical development, since no. 2, written only a year before no. 3, lacks the phrases: here we have another feature, namely that there is no absolute consistency even in one given period.

29 For the similarity between petitions and reports in the Fitimid period cf. ‘Three petitions of the Fāṭimid period’, 190. For the Mamlūk period this similarity was pointed out in the article by Björkman quoted above (p. 237, n. 13), p. 211, n. 2.

30 This phrase derives from the Ayyūbid convention referred to in n. 27, above.

31 The whole passage is instructive, so that it may find place here: ‘The seventh method is to begin the letter with “kisses the earth”, make the transition to the subject-matter with the words “and reports”, and end up with “has made his account” or “has reported”. This style of correspondence is found in some of the letters of al-Qāḍī al-Fāḍil; I have seen no earlier example. It is as if they, having been accustomed to write in the preambles of letters to the caliphs “kisses the earth” or “the threshold”, etc., adapted this formula for the beginning of letters and used it in addressing those who were of high rank—such as the sultan and others of his kind-in relation to their subordinates’. There follow some pertinent remarks about obeisance by prostration: it had been the custom of the pre-Islamic empires, was condemned in early Islamic times, and came back—though not in actual fact, but as a verbal flourish of courtly style—with the recrudescence of Persian customs. (I think al-Qalqashandī is wrong here; there are innumerable passages which show the subjects actually ‘kissing the earth’ in front of the prince.) It seems that what al-Qalqashandī means to say is that it was al-Qāḍī al-Fāḍil, Saladin's famous secretary, who transferred the pattern with ‘kisses the earth … and reports’ from its exclusive use in letters and petitions addressed to the (Fāṭimid and 'Abbāsid) caliphs to a more general use. Al-Qāḍī al-Fāḍil did indeed use the formula, as attested e.g. by a letter by him to Saladin quoted by al-Qalqashandi, vii, 90. It also occurs in private letters of the Ayyūbid period (written by Jews) preserved in the Cairo Geniza, of which I hope to treat on another occasion. (For the pattern—beginning with ‘the slave kisses the earth’ and ending with ‘has made his account’—in letters addressed to the caliphs cf. also Ibn Faḍl Allāh, al-Tai bi '1-muṣtalaḥ al-sharīf, 4–5 = al-Qalqashandī, vii 119–20.)

32 As a matter of fact, the passage in question ultimately comes from Ibn al-ṣayrafi's Qānūn dīwān al-rasā'il, written under the Fāṭimids; see ed. Bahjat, pp. 150–1 and the translation in my article ‘Three petitions of the Fatimid period’, 187. From there it was borrowed, with slight stylistic changes, by Ibn al-ṣūrī, whose book, apart from quotations in al-Qalqashandī (see Bjfirkman, Beitrdge, 76–7) is lost, and about whom nothing is known. I quote the derivative version in preference to the original, since it is closer in point of time to our texts.

33 Governor of Damascus, al-Qalqashandī, iv, 194–7 (‘petitions are submitted …’ p. 196, last line ff.); Aleppo, 222–4 (petitions, p. 224, 11. 13 ff.); Tripoli, 234; ḥamāt, 238–9 (the corresponding passages for ṣafad and al-Karak are missing, cf. 240, 242).

34 See the inscription published by M. van Berchem in the study quoted above, p. 237, n. 14. For a discussion of the problem of how provincials submitted their petitions in the Fāṭimid period see ‘Three petitions of the Fāṭimid period’, 196–7.

35 Properly speaking the petition was submitted to the sultan (cf. the sentence: ‘the petition of the slave from the bounty of our Lord the Sultan … is’), but dealt with by the atābak. We shall see, when dealing with the third petition published here, that a petition could also be addressed to an official. Al-Qalqashandī is silent on this subject, so that we do not know when a petition was addressed to the sultan, when to an official.

36 Both in Dhu '1-ḥijja 658, date of decree no. ii, and Sha`bān 659, date of our decree, Bay-bars was staying in Cairo, so that the delegation of this kind of business to the atābak is not due to his absence.

37 For the office see CIA, p. 290, n. 3; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. lvi, n. 3; Ayalon, 58–9.

38 Taghrībirdī, Ibn, al-Nujūm, al-zāhira, ed. Cairo, vii, 43.Google Scholar

39 ibid., 78. He was in the entourage of Quṭuz during Baybars's unsuccessful attempt to invade Egypt in 656/1256.

40 Ibn 'Abd ẓahir Sirat al-Malik al-ẓahir, ed. S. M. Sadeque (Baybars I of Egypt, OUP, Pakistan, 1956), 17 (transl., 97); Ibn Taghrībirdī, vII, 84.Google Scholar

41 Ibn Taghrībirdi, 152.

42 ibid., 242 and 344–5. Baybars's own mausoleum was built on the site of a house which had belonged to Aqṭāy; ibid., 263.

43 Ibn 'Abd al-ẓahir, 23 (transl., 103; I have revised the wording of the translation). The institution of the Palace of Justice (situated at the entrance to the Citadel of Cairo) was taken over from the Ayyūbids; cf. ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, 14, and GaudefroyDemombynes, lxix; CIA, p. 812.

44 Ibn Faḍl. A11ā1, al-Ta'rīf bi 'l-muṣṭalaḥ al-sharif, 91; al-Qalqashandī, vi, 264–5. Since al-Qalqashandī's text is more informative, let it be quoted in translation: ‘The formula is written in the margin in the case of small decrees which are written on the back of petitions. Its position is opposite the first two lines, from below upwards, so that the end of the formula of authorization is level with the first line’. See also xiii, 131 (below, pp. 247, 264); and p. 273, n. 154.

45 In 1. 3 Ernst has as'adahu instead of anfadhahu; he does not read the word rāfi' uhā in I. 4 and the words min nakhlihi in 1. 5. He does not read the words after ya'tamidūna in 1. 6. The reading rasamnāhu was suggested to me by Dr. J. D. Latham.)

46 In the article ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’.

47 Pp. 18–19 of the article.

48 The references are inexact: Ibn Māja (Nikāb, 19) and Abū Dāwūd (Adab, 18) quote this tradition (with small variants) as follows: ‘All important affairs which are not begun with the praise of God … ’—i.e. they refer to the formula al-ḥamd li 'llāh, not the basmata. Nor does the variant ‘in the name of God …’ come from Abū 'Awāna's text: it is true that the tradition does not, as far as I see, occur in the partial edition, Hyderabad, 1362/1943, but it is quoted from Abū 'Awāna by al-Subki, al-ṭabaqāt al-kubrī, I, 3, 11. 11 ff., and the text reads ‘with the praise of God’. Al-Subkī begins his great collection of biographies of the Shāfi'ī doctors with a long dissertation on these traditions, registering the different texts and splitting hairs about them (al-Tabaqāt al-kubrā, 2 ff.) The variant with bismi 'l-raḥmāni 'l-raḥīm (instead of the usual ‘praise of God’, or else ‘mention of God’) is registered on p. 6, 11. 4 if., and is referred to on p. 3 last line, p. 8, 11. 6–7, p. 9, 11. 17 ff. (where the difficulty raised by the differences is resolved). Al-Qalqashandī quotes again the tradition in a similar context (xi, 128), but this time in the form ‘with the praise of God’.

49 The exordium rusinut bi 'l-amr al-'ālī, was inherited from Ayyūbid practice, where also it was used for documents of minor importance; see ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, 33.

50 Above, p. 244. Some decrees carved in stone (cf. above, p. 237, n. 14) also mention that their original was issued on the instruction of the atābak: ‘There was promulgated a decree of our lord the sultan … Sha'bān … at the gracious and exalted instruction of the lord the Great Amīr, the Protector, the atābak, Yalbughā al-Ashrafī, atābak of the victorious armies’ (Wiet, G., ‘Un décret du sultan Malik Ashraf Sha'bān’, Mélanges Louis Massignon, iii, 383 ff.)Google Scholar; ‘According to the noble decree at the exalted instruction of the atābak Sayf al-Dīn Barqūq al-Manṣūrī’ (Sobernheim, M., ‘Die Inschriften der Zitadelle von Damascus’, Der Islam, XII, 1922, 16Google Scholar; note the phrase ‘according …’ together with the ‘authorization’, exactly as in the decrees). Cf. also ‘at the exalted instruction of the lord Sayf al-Dīn ṭaṭar al-Muẓaffarī, regent (niẓām) of the noble kingdom’, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabicarum, II 2 (Jérusalem ‘ḥaram’), no. 183. (These examples are quoted by Wiet, p. 397.) For the origin of the formula ‘on the instruction of …’ see below, p. 270, n. 141.Google Scholar

51 For the interpretation of this passage see below, pp. 263–4. Cf. also p. 244, n. 44.

52 For the detailed discussion of the various notes of authorization see below, pp. 266, 270–4.

53 For the ṭūmār script used for signatures see al-Qalqashandī, iii, 53 ff. A ' specimen of the writing [of the sultan's name] in smaller correspondence ' [to which category our decrees obviously belong] is given on p. 57: it is the signature of ḥasan b. Muhammad and is more or less identical with the actual signature which appears on the decree published below as no. 2, see plate II. The reader will, I hope, also appreciate being able to inspect the signature of Baybars on the photograph on plate 1.

54 pp. 157–9

55 ibid., 131.

56 I found no reference to this in the handbooks for secretaries, but may have overlooked it. The practice is derived from the Ayyūbids; see the decrees published in ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’.

57 Al-Nuwayrī, , Nihāyat al-Arab, VIII, 209, describes a document bearing the sultan's signature and exsequaturs by the lieutenant-general and the vizier (wa-tashmaluh 'alāmat al-sulṭān wa-khaṭṭ nā-'ibih wa-wazīrih bi 'l-imtihāl). Al-Qalqashandī (xin, 153–4) mentions the formula yumtathal al-marsūm al-sharīf in connexion with documents concerning the Office of the Army (dīwān al-jaysh), in which this exsequatur was appended by the head of that Office:Google Scholar

58 See Fātimid decrees, section 10 of the diplomatic commentary; ‘Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai’ (as above, p. 233, n. 4), 36–8.

59 This can, of course, only be done by a fresh scrutiny of either the originals or the photographs.

60 Ernst reads uthbita. Admittedly, the word is not quite clear, but the first letter seems to be a lām rather than an alif; also it seems that ordinarily the phrase in shā'a 'llāh is added to the order, while the clerk who notes the execution of the order of registration adds his 'akānia.

61 For the Office of the Supervision see al-Maqrīzī, , al-Khiṭaṭ, II 224; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. lxviii. It was the central financial office and was taken over from the Ayyūbids (cf. my article on the Ayyūbid decrees [above, p. 233, n. 4], 37).Google Scholar

62 For nazzala ‘to register’ see Fāṭimid decrees, 168.Google Scholar

63 Ernst reads uthbita in the first line, and reads the second line (which I cannot decipher) as al-hamd li 'llāh wa-kafā al-tawkīl 'alayh.

64 Ernst reads uthbita.

65 Ernst reads 'ala 'l-tawakkul.

66 Ernst reads uthbita.

67 Ernst reads iḥsānih.

68 Ernst reads ni'amih.

69 Ernst reads uthbita.

70 Under no. xiii Ernst unites Atiya, no. 37, parts 1–3, which he calls A, and part 4, which he calls B, as well as no. 36, which he calls C. The last does not belong here at all—it will be treated under the next item (see below, p. 257); B is the present petition, A the decree resulting from it. The dimensions of Atiya, 37 are given as 123.5 x 14 cm.

71 The three words after wa-su'āluhum in I. 8 are not read by Ernst; the decipherment of the first of these I owe to Dr. J. D. Latham who proposed li-wajh, a reading which is confirmed by a phrase in the repeatedly quoted inscription from klina published by M. van Berchem (see above, p. 237, n. 14): wa-sa'alū sadaqatihi li-wajhi 'llāh ta'ālā. L. 10: the word khallada is not read by Ernst; wa-adhd.qa is read by him wa-addrita, na`ima ajrihim (I. 11) is not read by him. Admittedly, the phrase is somewhat peculiar, but most of the letters seem to be fairly clear. The last three words of 1. 11 are not read by Ernst.

72 For the argument, often adduced by the monks of Sinai in their petitions, that they-entertain the Muslim pilgrims, cf. ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, p. 19, n. 50.

73 i.e. the reward due for the good act done to the petitioners.

74 For the history of the convention of the risāla see ‘Petitions from the Ayytibid period’, 15–18.

75 For the dawādārs, recruited from the military officers, see Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. lvii-lviii, Ayalon, 62–3. There is an amusing anecdote about the dawādār Balabān (in the reign of Baybars) delivering his message to the head of the chancery in a confused manner. This allegedly gave rise to the later custom of the sultan giving his order directly to the keitib al-sirr. (See Taghrībirdī, Ibn, vii, 332–3.) The anecdote suggests that sometimes the message was actually delivered by the dawādār himself rather than by a barīdī.Google Scholar

76 For the barīdiyya (singular: barīdi) cf. Sauvaget, J., La poste aux chevaux dans l'empire des mamelouks, Paris, 1941, 18–20, who does not, however, deal with this ‘internal’ service of the couriers, but only with their main role as couriers of the postal service proper.Google Scholar

77 ḥaḍara … al-batrīdī (the last word conjectural) was not read by Ernst, bi-risālat was read as risālat, 'azza naṣruh not read.

78 ṭashbughā is well known from the chronicles (see the references quoted by Ernst). Ernst also gives some references for the common title al-maqarr.

79 Yuwaqqa' was read by Ernst as tawqi'.

80 cf. for the reading ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, p. 18, n. 47.

81 For the final sign () which appears on many documents see Ernst, p. xxxvii.

82 In the title of the sultan the word al-nāṣirī is put twice, in the first instance as part of the title al-Malakī al-Nāṣirī, in the second as the (regular) abbreviation of Nāṣir al-Dunyā wa '1-Dīn, another title of ḥasan. Ernst reads the second word as al-nāḍirī, without, however, being able to explain it.

83 Above, p. 245.

84 I used the Oxford MS Pococke 142 (catalogue, II, 363); the passage is on fols. 76v-77r. Since the beginning of the paragraph, which, as can be seen from the discussion in the text, is not devoid of interest, has not been reproduced by al-Qalqashandī, let it stand here in the original:

85 Above, p. 246.

86 I take this to mean an order confirming a legal right to an appointment—such as the trusteeship of a pious endowment.

87 That is, an order confirming previous decrees of the sultan. Whereas petitions were often submitted for the granting of fiefs, it is obvious that there was usually no place for petitions in the case of appointments to offices; in such cases, however, as are quoted here, when it was a question of confirming an appointment, it was appropriate to petition the sultan.

88 I hope I have correctly rendered this sentence, which would then refer to petitions about grievances, such as those with which we are concerned here. This whole introductory sentence is left out by al-Qalqashandī, who begins his corresponding section as follows (xi, 126): ‘The second kind [of the smaller tamī, which is the lowest rank among the letters of appointment] is what is written on the back of petitions. The method followed is to glue the petition—on which is the reply of the head of the chancery, or of another official—on to two sheets of paper of the small ordinary format. The author of the Tathqīf says: “The way to do it is to write on the verso of the petition, without putting the basmala, and at a distance …”’; there follows the text as reproduced.

89 The ‘reply’ in our case is the message transmitted by the dawāidār ‘that a document be drawn up granting their petition’; and indeed the operative words of the decree: ‘and that it be enjoined that they suffer no interference and that their monastery be not entered’ merely repeat the wording of the petition.

90 What follows afterwards is omitted by al-Qalqashandī.

91 Indeed, whereas Baybars's decree treated above under no. 1 has no basbala, our decree has it; the hamdala is absent, also conforming to the description.

92 The author explained that passports (which in their forms are similar to small decrees) bear the authorization in the margin, not at the end after the date; indeed, our document too has the formula ḥasab al-marsūm, al-sharīf in the margin.

93 Since our document was drawn up in consequence of the message of the dawādār, the note appears, exactly as described, after the date.

94 Al-Qalqashandī's section on the classification of the different kinds of letters of appointment (xi, 101–7) is essentially based on the much shorter chapter in the Tathqī, which is commented on and elaborated; sometimes there are also small differences, reflecting the evolution of chancery practice. This is not, of course, the place for more detailed comparisons.

95 The passage from al-Qalqashandī is quoted in translation on p. 244, n. 44.

96 cf. above, p. 247, n. 53, where it was also pointed out that a facsimile of ḥasan b. Muhammad's signature, more or less identical with that appearing in the present document, is given by al-Qalqashandī. It may be worthwhile to point out that on his accession to the throne in Ramadan 748/December 1347 Illasan was 11, or according to others 13 years old, so that at the date of the present decree he was a mere boy.

97 Al-Qalqashandī (xii, 5), speaking of diplomas of appointment, says that they are always issued in the name of the sultan, and the lieutenant-general of the realm (al-nā'ib al-kāfil) only countersigns them: ‘writes yulamad on the documents signed by the sultan’ (I think this is the right rendering of yaktubu bi Ti'timād 'alā mā yaktubu 'alayhi 'l-sulṭan). Al-Qalqashandī adds that he had dealt more fully with this matter before; I could, however, find no passage in which he discusses the i'timād formula added by dignitaries of the central government. In iv, 184, he explains that the governor (nd'ib al-salṭana) in Damascus writes the formula on all kinds of documents issued by the sultan and referring to his province; similarly the governor of Aleppo (217; Gaudefroy-Demombynes's translation, p. 204, 11.6–8 is incorrect). Thus the note yu`tamad in sultanian decrees preserved in the Custodia Terrae Sanctae (nos. ii, xxv) is evidently the countersign of the provincial governor—not, as Risciani writes in his note 3 on no. ii, the sultan's signature; the ‘noble sign’ refers not to this entry, but to the sultan's name in cipher. See also below, p. 260, where it is suggested that in decrees issued not by the sultan, but by high officials, yu'tamad is the signature of the official in question. This much for the i'timād formula; for the imtithāl formula cf. the note on Baybars's decree, above p. 248, n. 57.

98 As explained above (p. 250, n. 70) this text was quite erroneously joined by Ernst to xiii (Atiya, 37). The context shows quite clearly that it belongs together with his no. xiv (Atiya, 36), and on the back of the photographic print supplied by the Manchester University Library it is stated that it is no. 36, part 3 (parts 1–2 being the prints of the decree); this I can confirm from a personal inspection of the microfilm. Just as in the previous cases, the petition is to be considered as the recto, since the decree was subsequently written on the back. The dimensions of Atiya, 36 are given as 136 x 13.5 cm.

99 In 1. 2 Ernst reads li'l-ruhbān instead of al-ruhbān, cf. above, p. 239, n. 21. In 1. 7 he reads wa-yatasaddū li 'l-dukhūl … wa-li-iṣāl instead of wa-qaṣadu 'l-dukhūl … wa-īsāl. Li-wajhi'llāh ta'ālā is not read by Ernst (for the reading cf. above, p. 250, n. 71). In 1. 10 the words wa-ihsānan ilayhim were not read by Ernst, nor was the beginning of 1. 11.

100 cf. al-Qalqashandī, 187: ‘The secretaries of our times conventionally describe most things attributed to the sultan as “noble”’. There follow examples, among them marsūm sharīf. The next section deals with the attribute karīm: ‘It is the convention of the secretaries of our times to treat it as an attribute of lesser value than sharīf, and describe by it documents issued by high dignitaries of the state beneath the sultan, such as nā'ibs, amīrs, and viziers’.

101 Instead of yuwaqqa' Ernst reads tawgī'.

102 See e.g. al-Qalqashandī, , vi, 121; xi, 87.Google Scholar

103 The mark yu'tamad corresponds, of course, to the yu'tamad which appears in the decree published above (no. 2) and in other decrees; but whereas in decrees signed by the sultan the mark yu'tamad is a countersign, here and in the other decrees (to be mentioned presently) issued by officials, it is the signature.

104 See above, p. 235, n. 7. The numbers quoted below are those in Risciani's publication.

105 I hope I shall have the opportunity to treat of the various signatures of this type on a future occasion.

106 An alternative explanation would be to assume that decrees by officials had to be confirmed by another decree by the sultan; but this seems far-fetched.

107 The dimensions are given as 126 x 13.5 cm.

108 This is the short summary—called by Ibn Fadl Allah 'unwān and by al-Qalqashandī ṭurra—which is put at the head of Mamlūk documents; there are many examples in the Sinai and Franciscan as well as in the Florentine archives. I hope to give further particulars on another occasion. From the wording we learn that our decree is a tawqī', but it would again lead us too far to discuss the nomenclature of the decrees and try to establish the use of such terms as tawqī' and marsūm.

109 See for him al-Maqrīzī, , al-Sulūk, II 748 ff. passim; idem, Khiṭaṭ, ii, 320–4; M. van Berchem, CIA, nos. 153, 532, pp. 208–9, 216, 226; G. Wiet, Les biographies du Manhal ṣāfī (as below, p. 270, n. 142), no. 2, 535. We shall meet Manjak again at the peak of his career, holding the office of nā'ib al-salfana: see below, p. 271.Google Scholar

110 The temporary abolition of the vizierate under Muhammad b. Qalā'ūn and the restriction of the functions of the vizier afterwards (see below, p. 273), may have something to do with the combination of the offices of vizier and major-domo. (We shall see that the office of major-domo had a high prestige: below, p. 274.) Similarly, under the Circassians, the vizierate completely lost its importance whereas the major-domo advanced to a position of one of the highest dignitaries: as al-Maqrīzī points out (it, 223–4), the vizierate was then often held together with the office of major-domo.

111 Al-Qalqashandi describes the smallest marsụm, ‘written in the form of a passport on three sheets’ on p. 112 of vol. XIII, the small tawqị ‘written in form similar to the passport’, also on three sheets, on p. 125. Indeed, it is not clear what the difference between the two is, apart from the one being called marsụm, the other tameqị It will be remembered that the passage of al-Qalqashandị deals with letters of appointment, and that he has no section dealing with administrative decrees (see above, p. 246).

112 Al-Qalqashandị insists that all summaries at the top must contain the words ‘as is explained in it’ (XIII, 125) and repeats these words in each formula which he gives for the different turras; I do not know why these words are missing in the turra of our document.

113 The implication is that in these ‘small’ documents one does not, as in the more important ones, leave entire blank sheets between the sheet containing the turra and the text.

114 See p. 123: ‘ … the Sultan, al-Malik So-and-so, So-and-so—giving both the private title (al-laqab al-khạss) and the sultanian title (laqab al-saltana), as e.g. al-Malik al-Nạsir Zayn al-Dunyạ wa ‘I-Din’.

115 We remember that the section deals with letters of appointment. The decision to grant a post was written on the margin of the petition, and the text of the decision was incorporated in the letter of appointment. In the administrative decrees, too, the same practice was followed. We have seen in the case of the preceding decree that the decision written in the margin of the petition was repeated in the decree, and we may safely assume that the operative phrases of our decree (‘that the Bedouins be prevented. ’ up to ‘demands of justice and equity’) reproduce the decision which was written in the margin of the lost petition.

116 There are many variations of this formula as can be seen also from the preceding decrees and from the other decrees from Sinai (the various formulae of which are listed by Ernst on pp. xxviii-xxxi). For the Fāṭimid and Ayyūbid antecedents cf. Fāṭimid decrees, 113–14, and ‘Two Ayyfibid decrees from Sinai’ (as above, p. 233, n. 4), 34–5.

117 While in the other decree of Hasan b. Muhammad published above as no. 2 the position of the note of authorization corresponds exactly to this description, in our decree it is written in the margin level with 11.2–4. Al-Qalqashandī omits to point out yet another characteristic of the ‘smaller decree’, whether written on the back of the petition or independently: that the signature of the sultan is at the top, not between 11.1 and 2 of the text. (See above, p. 247, n. 56.)

118 See above, pp. 239 ff.

119 Above, p. 242.

120 cf. ‘Petitions from the Ayyribid period’, 14.

121 The secretaries of the dast (‘bench’) are those who take part, together with the head of the chancery (the kātib al-sirr) in the audiences of the sultan, in contrast to the secretaries of the darj (‘scroll’), who drew up, according to the instructions of the kātib al-sirr, the documents of the chancery. See Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. lxix-lxxi.

122 A classic description is by Ibn Fadl Allah in his Mas¯lik al-absā, the unpublished text of which was used by Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. xcviii ff. Ibn Fadl Allah's passage is reproduced by al-Qalqashandī, iv, 44. An even more detailed account is found in al-Maqrizi, 208–9. Cf. also Björkman, Beiträge, 52, and Tyan, in the passage quoted above (p. 237, n. 13).

123 VI, 204 ff.

124 Ibn Fadl Allāh has no section on petitions.

125 Above, pp. 244, 247, 256, 262.

126 Ibn Fadl Allāhal-Ta rīf bi l-mustalah al-sharīf, 90–1; al-Qalqashandī, 262–5.

127 To judge by its form, the document is not an open decree but a letter addressed to one particular official; but one would expect also letters to contain a formula of ‘authorization’. The document is dated 740/1339, and is contemporary with Ibn Fadl Allāh, so that tbe absence of the formula cannot be explained by an evolution of practice.

128 206.

129 Ahād al-ayyām. Björkman (Beiträge, 52 and 115) translates this (though with a question-mark) as ‘on Sundays’; but that would be ayyām al-ahad.

130 For the office of the kātib al-sirr, i.e. the head of the chancery, cf. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. lxix ff.

131 Al-Qalqashandī counts as the first case the use of the formula hasab al-marsūm al-sharif without any further addition, as the second case the use of it with the addition of min dar al-'adl al-sharīf.

132 The handbooks reflect the usage of the eighth/fourteenth century; it seems that in the preceding century the practice fluctuated. No. i of the Sinai series (Qutuz, 658/1259) has no formula of authorization at all. Nos. ii-iii have ishāra, no. iv risāla formulae, without hasab formula. Nos. v and vi (Qalāūn, 684/1285 and 687/1288) have ishāra and risāla formulae respectively, preceded by hasab al-amr [sic] al-sharīf, vii (Khalil, 690/1291) the ishāra formula preceded by the same formula. Thus the formula hasab al-amr al-sharīf seems to have been introduced under Qalāūn, and was also used with ishāra and risāla formulae. It looks as if in 690 or 691 the practice was again reformed, because in no. viii, dated 691/1292, we find the ishāra formula without a preceding hasab formula; subsequent documents with ishāra or risāla formulae regularly omit the hasab formula. When we next find the hasab formula (now of course standing alone, without ishāra or risāla), namely in a letter from 699/1300, it reads hasab al-marsūm (not al-amr) al-sharif (see M. A. Alarcén y Santén and R. Garcia de Linares, Los documentos cirabes diplonwiticos del Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Madrid, 1940, no. 146—the first Mamlūk document of that series). Here we seem to have the usage described 40 years later by Ibn Fadl Allāh: the same function (the formula standing alone and presumably referring to the sultan's order given to the head of the chancery) and the same wording (al-marsūm instead of al-amr). From now on the formula appears regularly in the diplomatic letters preserved in Barcelona (first half of the fourteenth century), in the Sinai documents (as noted in the text, for the first time in 752/1352), in the documents of the Franciscans in Jerusalem (those published belonging to the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries); and also in many inscriptions reproducing decrees (see above, p. 237, n. 14—he editors have not always understood the function of this formula). Sinai nos. xi (dated 740/1339) and xii (748/1347) pose, however, a. problem: they have no authorization–I cannot guess why.

133 For the dawadars see above, p. 251.

134 Ayalon, 67–70, provides a brief account of the fluctuating structure of the higher grades of the Mamlūk official hierarchy and the changes in the relative importance of this or the other office in different periods. The inclusion of the nā'ib al-saltana, the vizier, and the atābak in the list of those officials who could receive petitions is self-evident; from Ayalon's pages it can be seen that in the early Mamlūk period the major-domo ranked in importance with them.

135 For the office of al-nāib al-kāfil or nāib al-saltana al-sharīfa see CIA, pp. 211 ff.; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. lv-lvi; Ayalon, 57–8.

136 The fundamental description of the Mamlūk institutions of Ibn Fadl Allāh's encyclopedia has not been printed, but it has been extensively used by later Arab writers, and passages have been quoted from MS by modern authors.

137 There was another kind of lieutenant-general: when the sultan and the nā'ib al-saltana left Egypt for campaigning abroad, a ‘lieutenant of the absence’ was appointed, who had, however, no full powers.

138 I have rendered this sentence somewhat freely; it reads in the original: wa-lā yastabidd bi-mā yuktab mina 'l-abwābi 'l-sultāiniyya bi-nafsih …wa-tashmaluhu 'l-'aleima al-sharifa beeda dhalik. The term 'alāma had in older Islamic usage the ‘meaning of motto used for signature’ (cf. Fātimid decrees, 123 fr.). This specific meaning is also found in the Mamlūk period, in which the sultans used mottoes in signing manshūrs, i.e. letters granting the most important fiefs (cf. ibid., p. 159). Cf. for instance Ibn Fadl Allāhal-Ta'rif, 83: ‘For manshūrs one uses the noble 'alāma’. The word 'alāma can, however, also be used as a generic term for ‘signature’, including the other, more usual, kind of signature: the sultan's name (cf. Fatima decrees, 157–8). Here 'akima is evidently used in this wider sense.

139 We have interesting descriptions of how at first documents were brought to the sultan for signature at irregular intervals during the whole of the day, and how this gave way to the more orderly method of collecting all the documents in a bundle and submitting them together; see Quatremère, I, 1, pp. 219–20 (n. 98). We have seen that petition no. 3 was addressed to a dignitary and the decree on its back was issued by the dignitary. This procedure is (as stated above, p. 258) somewhat enigmatic in itself, but does not infringe the rule that decrees issued in response to petitions addressed to the sultan were signed by him, though they were issued at the instruction of a dignitary.

140 Iv, 17.

141 In the case of petitions handled by dignitaries the decrees were marked with the ishāra formula: ‘at the instruction of …’. This formula, like the one about the ‘message’ (used when petitions were handled by the sultan and his order transmitted by a ‘message’), ultimately derives from Seljūq chancery practice. I cannot go into details here, but confine myself to quoting the same example which I also used for the illustration of the practice of the ‘message’ in my article’ ‘Petitions from the Ayyūbid period’, 15–16: according to al-Nasawi, the end of Seluq and Khwarizmshahi documents bore three indications: that they had been written (1) ‘according to the exalted order’—i.e. the order of the sultan; (2) the ‘exalted instruction’ of the vizier; and (3) the message of So-and-so. These elements appear also in the Mamlūk documents, though their function is modified. The indication concerning the sultan's order (1) is the origin of the formulae ‘according to the noble decree’ etc., while the formula of ‘instruction’, applied in the model to the vizier and figuring together with (1), is distributed among various officials in Mamlūk practice and is entered in cases where the sultan's order is not mentioned. No. 3, the ‘message’, has been discussed in detail above (p. 251).

142 See for him CIA, no. 106; G. Wiet, Les biographies du Manhal Sāfī (Mémoires presentées à l'Institut d'Égypte, XIX), Cairo, 1932, no. 1, 062; L. A. Mayer, Saracenic heraldry, 196–7. These authors give the references to the Arabic texts; add al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, II, index, s.v. Sallār.

143 See the works quoted in the previous note, namely CIA, no. 47; Wiet, no. 673; al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, II, 77.

144 See Wiet (as in the preceding notes), no. 492; Sālih b. Yahyā, ‘History of Beirut’, ed. Cheikho, 52.

145 See for him above, p. 262, n. 109.

146 CIA, no. 35, pp. 60, 222; Wiet, no. I, 117.

147 The word al-amīriyya is missing in the edition, but is extant in the Oxford MS of the book.

148 See the commentary on petition no. 1.

149 For the title al-amīr al-kabīr cf. CIA, p. 275, and Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. lvii, n. 1.

150 For the secretaries of the dast cf. above, p. 265, n. 121.

151 Above, p. 247, n. 50.

152 See for the vizier CIA, p. 403; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. lxvi ff.; Ayalon, 61; cf. also Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar, ix, 64–5.

153 There was no vizier between 713–23 and 728 and the sultan's death in 741; cf. Ibn al-Dawādārī, ix, 265 (1. 18), 312 (11. 7–9), 344 (I. 13).

154 The omission is probably due to the lapse of the vizierate at that period. The Tathqif (above, p. 254) mentions decrees issued on the instruction of the vizier: ‘ Among these decrees [written on the back of petitions] there are those written on the instruction of the vizier, in which case the authorization is put in the margin, as mentioned above’. (For the placing of the authorization in the margin cf. above, p. 244, n. 44.)

155 I am not sure whether all this implies that the vizier could again hear petitions, or that he only gave instructions in cases where no petitions were involved.

156 See for him al-Safadī, al-Wāfī bi 'l-wafayāt, no. 1, 555; Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Manhal al-sāfī, in Wiet (as in p. 270, n. 142), no. 2, 241; idem, al-Nujūm al-zāhira, VII, 334, VIII, 53–4. For the title ‘Companion’ given to viziers if they were civilians see CIA, p. 403.

157 See for the ustādh al-dār or ustādār Quatremére, I, 1, pp. 25–7; CIA, pp. 159, 387–8; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. lx-lx; Ayalon, 61–2.

158 These words must obviously be supplied in the text.

159 Incidentally mentioned by Ibn Taghrībirdī, viii, 67, 1. 8.

160 Jāmi' mahāsin kitābat al-kuttāb, ed. in facsimile by Salāh al-Dīn al-Munajjid, Beirut, 1962, fol. 42.

161 Read at the beginning of the last line anhā dhālik. In the line before I propose (The reproduction is not good enough for an assured decipherment.)

162 See above, p. 241.

163 Naūm Shuqayr, Ta'rīkh Sīnā, Cairo, 1916, 143–4. The tarjama: ‘The slave (banda, a substitute for the earlier al-mamlūk), the dhimmī Firūnas the Christian from al-Tūr’ is placed at the end in the copy, but in the original it must have formed the beginning, since the first sentence of the text (the usual ‘kisses the earth and reports’) presupposes it as its subject.