² Such an abrupt decline and such an appalling contrast in the state of the historiography of two consecutive periods is, in my opinion, a unique phenomenon in Muslim history. I cannot find a full explanation for this phenomenon. For a partial explanation see p. 218, n. 1.

³ As is well known there were two Egyptian historians, father and son, called Ibn Abī al-Surūr (see Babinger, F., Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, Leipzig, 1927, pp. 147–8, 188–9Google Scholar, and the bibliography mentioned there; also Stanford J. Shaw, art. ‘al-Bakrī, b. Abi'l-Surür’, in EI (new edition)). Al-Isḥāqī's chronicle is entitled Akhbār al-uwal fī man taṣarrafa f¯ Miṣr min arbāb al-duwal, Cairo, A.H. 1315. All the references in the notes of this paper where the source's name is omitted are from al-Jabartī's ‘Ajā'ib al-āthār.

⁴ This is due to a certain revival of Egyptian historiography at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, the extent of which was, in my opinion, extremely limited. The local chronicles of Ottoman Egypt are, on the whole, quite reliable as sources of information, and some of them are quite detailed. The standard of almost all of them is, however, low. From what is said in this article it should by no means be concluded that the history of Ottoman Egypt cannot be reconstructed, if all kinds of source material pertaining to it are exploited.

¹ One of the main reasons for the decline of historiography in Egypt under the Ottomans lay in the fact that Egypt, which had been up to the time of the Ottoman conquest the centre of a big and powerful empire, became after that conquest only a province in an even bigger empire. Another important reason must have been the mass transfer of historical works from Cairo to Constantinople, a considerable number of which are still extant there. In view of the fact that such works are usually available only in very few copies, the devastating effects of their mass transfer are obvious. I have no information regarding any transfer of historians from Egypt to the Ottoman capital. Ottoman historiography from the sixteenth to the early nineteenth centuries had been far richer and on a far higher level than Egyptian historiography in the corresponding period (see Lewis, B., ‘Some reflections on the decline of the Ottoman Empire’, Studia Islamica, ix, 1958, 126–7Google Scholar, and the same author's paper for the Conference, entitled: ‘The use by Muslim historians of non-Muslim sources’, pp. 4–9Google Scholar, and Babinger, F., Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen)Google Scholar. Yet it did not seem to have affected or stimulated the latter to any appreciable extent. The works of Ottoman historians and travellers should also be considered as sources of no mean importance for the history of Egypt in the above-mentioned centuries. See also Jansky, H., ‘Beiträge zur Osmanischen Geschichtsschreibung über Ägypten’, Der Islam, xxi, 1933, 269–78.Google Scholar

² E. W. Lane, who saw and studied so thoroughly the Egypt which al-Jabartī had described, held a very high opinion of our author: ‘The Shaykh ‘Abd Er-Raḥman el-Gabartee… particularly deserves to be mentioned as having written a very excellent history of the events which have taken place in Egypt since the commencement of the twelfth century of the Flight’ (The manners and customs of the modern Egyptians (first published in 1836)Google Scholar, Everyman's Library, p. 222; al-Jabartī is one of the very few Egyptian scholars mentioned in this book). He repeats his praise in similar terms in his translation of the Thousand and one, nights (London, Chatto and Windus, 1889, Vol. i, p. 61)Google Scholar. In his notes to this translation, he occasionally refers to al-Jabartī's chronicle (i, p. 61, and n. 28; p. 209, n. 85, n. 86; p. 213, n. 94; p. 215, n. 96; p. 288, n. 43). A. von Kremer, who came to Egypt only 25 years after our author's death, speaks of his chronicle as ‘ein Geschichtswerk welches die Geschichte seiner Zeit mit grosser Wahrheit und Treue schildert’ (Aegypten, Leipzig, 1863, II, 325)Google Scholar. Toynbee, A. J. says of our author: ‘The great Egyptian historian al-Jabartī… would undoubtedly figure on a list of candidates for the distinction of ranking as leading historians of civilized society up to date’ (Civilization on trial, New York, Oxford University Press, 1948, 76, 77)Google Scholar. Toynbee's use of al- Jabartī's chronicle is, however, haphazard and erroneous (ibid., 76, 77, 79–81, 82, 83, 86–7, 88; A study of history, IV, 458–60Google Scholar; 462, n. 2; ix, 104). Though al-Jabartī wrote only a local history of Egypt, his chronicle figures perhaps as prominently as any other Muslim source mentioned in Gibb and Bowen, 's Islamic society and the West (Vol. IGoogle Scholar, Parts i and II), which deals with the whole Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth century. Heyworth-Dunne, J., in his Introduction to the history of education in modern EgyptGoogle Scholar, made very thorough use of this chronicle. See also Heyworth-Dunne, 's ‘Arabic literature in Egypt in the eighteenth century’, BSOAS, ix, 3, 1938, 675–89.Google Scholar

¹ The great process of Westernization which commenced in Egypt in the early nineteenth century, and the beginnings of which our author still witnessed, made it all the more difficult for the new generation of Egyptian historians to become the continuatore of al-Jabartī, who wrote in the Muslim traditional historical style. In its attempt to write history, this new generation suffered from the weakening of its ties with the old Muslim civilization on the one hand, and from the difficulty in adopting the new European civilization on the other. Apart from al-Jabartī, ‘Alī Mubārak was the only person in nineteenth-century Egypt who wrote a monumental historical (or, to be more exact, biographical-topographical) work (al-Khiṭaṭ al-Tawfīqīya). Though he cites al-Jabartī frequently, he cannot be considered his follower. ‘Ajī'ib al-āthār and al-Khiṭaṭ al-Tawfīqīya are very different in structure, contents, and aims. Besides, al-Jabartī's creative power was far superior to that of Mubārak, who was mainly a compiler. On ‘Alī Mubārak see Heyworth-Dunne, J., An introduction to the history of education in modern Egypt, London, 1938, 253–4Google Scholar, and index; see also Gamal el-Din el-Shayyal's paper for the Conference on Historical Writing on the Near and Middle East, ‘A comparative study of Egyptian historiography in the nineteenth century’.

² The phrase ‘desolate surroundings’ refers only to the degree of interest in history manifested in Egypt under the Ottomans. In other Islamic cultural fields there was much ferment and lively activity. Without that rich cultural background in which al-Jabartī grew up, even a historical work far inferior to his chronicle could not have been written.

³ I, p. 5, 11. 1–2.

¹ I, p. 5, 11. 6–13. On al-Jabartī's cares and anxieties, which sometimes hampered him in the writing of his chronicle, see iv, p. 124, 11. 25–26. On his occupation mainly with scholarly work after the French evacuation see Cardin, A., Journal d'Abdurrahman Gabarti, p. 1.Google Scholar

² One of them was Muṣṭafā al-Damanhūrī, the right-hand man of Shaykh al-Azhar, ‘Abdallāh al-Sharqāwī. He is said to have had a passion for historical books and for the biographies of the people of the past. He bought books on these subjects, such as the Sulūk and the Khiṭaṭ of al-Maqrīzī and parts from the histories of al-‘Aynī and al-Sakh¯wī, etc. (III, p. 67, 11. 16–18). Another was the amīr Dhū al-Faqār al-Bakrī, the mamlūk of Muhammad b. ‘Alī Afandī al-Bakrī al-Ṣiddīqī. He bought parts of Mir'āt al-zamān of al-Jawzī, Ibn and the KhiṭaṭGoogle Scholar of al-Maqrīzī (iv, p. 26, 11. 6–7). For other persons whom al-Jabartī mentions as having shown some interest in history or who wrote, in verse or in prose, compositions which can hardly be classified as historical, or whose verses our author used in order to illustrate some events described in his book, see I, pp. 209, 262; II, pp. 167, 263–7. Heyworth-Dunne, , Introduction, 75–6.Google Scholar

³ I, p. 396, II. 6–7. For al-Jabartī's reference to himself as al-ḥaqīr see also II, p. 52, 1. 22; p. 228,1. 19; iv, p. 163, 1. 6.

⁴ I, p. 5, 11. 25–26, 1. 15.

¹ I, p. 6, II. 16–20. The number of extant historical works in Egypt in al-Jabartī's time had, undoubtedly, been bigger than his estimate. But as many of these works had not been available either to him or to others, their existence did not change the situation.

² I, p. 13, 11. 17–21, 1. 26.

³ I, p. 20, 1. 27. There is no justification whatsoever for considering al-Jabartī as the continuator of Ibn lyās, as al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd suggests (Dirāsāt fī ta'rīkh al-Jabartī, I, pp. a–b).Google Scholar

⁴ Al-Khiṭaṭ, al-Sulük, al-Dhahab al-masbūk fī dhikr man ḥajja min al-khulafā' wal-mulūk (I, p. 16, 11, 26–27Google Scholar; iv, p. 153, 11. 18–19; pp. 162, 1. 19–163, 1. 6). He mentions also a treatise by al-Maqrīzī on the people of al-Jabart without giving its title (I, p. 385, 11. 32–33).

⁵ I, p. 6, 11. 10–11.

⁶ Al-Sakhāwī, (I, p. 69, 11, 23–24Google Scholar; p. 86, 1. 2); Ḥajar, Ibn al-‘Asqalānī (I, p. 65, 1. 7Google Scholar; II, p. 257, 1. 17; iv, p. 24, 1. 23; p. 167, 11. 19–20); al-Suyūṭī (I, p. 297, 1. 13; p. 312, 11. 10–11; p. 374, 1.25; p. 390, 11. 11–12; p. 410, 1. 1; II, p. 26, 1.8; p. 69, 11. 29–30; p. 85, 1. 32; p. 227, 11. 28–29; p. 252, 11. 17–18; III, p. 113, 1. 29; p. 216, 1. 4). Al-Suyūtī's Ḥusn al-muḥāḍara is mentioned because it contains a biography of a famous ‘ālim from al-Jabart (I, p. 386, 11. 1–2). Al-Qalqashandī is mentioned in a rather dubious context (I, p. 86, 1. 2). Ibn lyās, al-Qaramānī, and Ibn Zunbul are mentioned in a too general way, which can by no means serve as a proof that al-Jabartī really read them (I, p. 20, 1. 27). Al-Jabartī mentions as well a two-volume biography of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalā'ūn which he did not see (I, p. 18, 1. 25), and a two-volume book describing the Frankish attack on Alexandria, which he had seen (or read—iṭṭala'tu ‘alayhi) (I, p. 19, 1. 26). This might be the Ilmām of al-Nuwayr¯, in three volumes (see Atiya, , The Crusade in the later Middle Ages, p. 349, n. 1)Google Scholar. The fact that al-Jabart¯'s chronicle resembles in its structure the chronicles of Mamluk and other Muslim historians of the Middle Ages can by no means serve as a proof that our author was well acquainted with Muslim medieval history. He could adopt this structure even through a very superficial knowledge of that history.

¹ He clearly speaks of his intention to open the chronicle with the year A.H. 1100 (I, p. 6, 11. 27–28). After giving the two versions he knew of the creation of the Qāsimīya and the Faqārīya, the two rival Mamluk factions in Ottoman Egypt, he abruptly starts his narrative with the beginning of the twelfth century A.H. (I, p. 23, 1. 33).

² The chronicle's title is ‘Aj¯'ib al-âthār fi al-tarājim wal-akhbār. On the publication of the chronicle and of its French translation, see below, pp. 229–30. In vol. I, pp. vii–x, of the translation, there is a biographical note on our author. A. Cardin, the ‘dragoman-councillor’ of the French Consulate-General in Egypt, compiled the earliest biographical note on al-Jabartī, which he incorporated in his French translation of Muẓhir al-taqdīs (pp. 1–4)Google Scholar, published in 1835 and 1838 (on this chronicle see below). Cardin claims to have obtained his information from our author's family. Though it contains some valuable data, this biographical note is superficial and the accuracy of some of its details is rather doubtful. For additional details and bibliography see Macdonald, D. B.'s article ‘al-Ḏjabartī’ in EI.Google Scholar See also: GAL, II, pp. 364, 480Google Scholar, Supplement, p. 730Google Scholar; Supplement to the catalogue of the Arabic manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1894Google Scholar, No. 571; Huart, Cl., Littérature arabe, Paris, 1902, pp. 415–16Google Scholar; Zayd¯n, Jurji, Ta'rīkh ādāb al-lugha al-'Arabīya, Cairo, 1914, iv, pp. 283–4Google Scholar; Cheikho, P. L., al-Ādāb al-‘Arabīya fī al-qarn al-tāsi‘‘ashar, second edition, Beirut, 1924, p. 21Google Scholar. The most recent works on al-Jabartī are by two Egyptian scholars—Khalīl Shaybūb, (‘Abd al-Raḥm¯n al-Jabartī, No. 70 in the series iqra', Cairo, 1948, 118 pp.)Google Scholar and al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd (Dirāsāt fī ta'rīkh al-Jabartī, Miṣr fī al-qarn al-thāmin ‘ashar, 3 vols., Cairo, 1955–1956)Google Scholar. In spite of certain shortcomings, these two works provide us with a considerable amount of information which cannot be overlooked by anyone undertaking research into the subjects concerned. The authors' failure, in most cases, to give source references, and Shaybūb's habit of mingling fact with fiction make the use of these works by the student of al-Jabartī extremely difficult. In 1954 there appeared in Cairo a very useful index to the chronicle (Arabic title: Fihris 'Ajā'ib al-āthār; French title: Index de Djabarti), compiled by Gaston Wiet and revised by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Zakī.

³ I, p. 6, 11. 22–25. Al-Jabartī mentions again this pamphlet ‘which I have lost’ (I, p. 56, 1. 8)Google Scholar. In fact, Aḥmad Chelebi's chronicle is considerably bigger in size than a ‘pamphlet’. A single copy of it is found in the Yale University Library (Landberg MS No. 3). Stanford J. Shaw called my attention to it and kindly provided me with a microfilm copy. A systematic comparison between al-Jabartī's and Chelebi's chronicles is much needed. Dr. P. M. Holt, who is working now on the Arabic chronicles of Ottoman Egypt, informs me that there are some indications that al-Jabartī used other Egyptian historical works beside that of Ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī. Al-Jabartī's wording by no means excludes such a possibility. It is, however, rather peculiar that he mentions only the ‘pamphlets’ written by soldiers and overlooks the chronicles written by ‘ulamā’. Our author was undoubtedly acquainted with al-Isḥ¯qī's (died 1060/1650) famous chronicle of Ottoman Egypt (Akhbār al-uwal) which he cites once in his book in connexion with Sultan Selim's conquest of Egypt (I, p. 21, 11. 11–27). As al-Isḥ¯qī's chronicle ends in the year 1033/1623–4, it could hardly be of much use to al-Jabartī.

¹ When al-Jabartī ends his narrative of the years 1100–42/1688–1728 and starts the biographies for that period, he again complains of the extraordinary difficulties he encountered in collecting the material for these biographies (dhikr man māta fī hādhihi al-sinīn min al-‘ulamā’ wal-a'āẓim ‘alā sabīl al-ijmāl bi-ḥasab al-imkān fa-innī lam a'thur ‘alā shay’ min tarājim al-mutaqaddimīn min ahl hādhā al-qarn wa-lam ajid shay'an mudawwanan fī dhālika illā mā ḥaṣṣaltuhu min wafayātihim faqaṭ wa-mā wa'aytuhu fī dhihnī wa-istanbaṭtuhu min ba'ḍ asānīdihim wa-ijāzāt ashyākhihim ‘alā ḥasab al-ṭāqa wa-dhālika min awwal al-qarn ilā ākhir sanat ithnatayn wa-arba'īn wa-mi'a wa-alf, I, pp. 64, 1. 31–65, 1. 2.Google Scholar See also ibid., p. 90, 11. 5–10). Since, in my opinion, the key to the whole structure and internal relations of Mamluk society is to be found in that part of our chronicle which covers the period specified above (see below), al-Jabartī's achievement in the reconstruction of the history of this period, in spite of the dearth of material, becomes all the more remarkable.

² I, p. 203, 11. 10–11; cf. also I, p. 392, 1. 5 with 1. 14, which says that in A.H. 1182 he was 14 years old. On al-Jabartī's mother, see II, p. 100, 11. 30–31. On his marriage and wife, see I, p. 361, 1. 26; II, p. 96, 11. 19–20.

³ I, p. 6, 11. 14–31. On the compilation of our chronicle, see also I, p. 1,11. 6–15.

⁴ I, p. 6, 1. 19.

⁵ Already on p. 178, 11. 5–6, of the first volume, al-Jabartī says that the date of the compilation of the book ‘at the present time’ is the year 1220 (ilā al-āna min ta'rīkh jam'i hādhā al-kitāb a'nī sanai ‘ishrīn wa-mi'atayn wa-alf). Near the end of the same volume he refers again to the year 1220 as ‘the present time’ (wa-huwa al-āna bi-ta'rīkh kitābat hādhā al-majmū’ sanat ‘ishrīn wa-mi'atayn qāṭin bihā, i, p. 374, 1. 12)Google Scholar. At the beginning of the second volume, he refers to the ‘present date’ as the end of the year 1220 (hādhā al-ta'rīkh alladhī naḥnu fīhi li-ghāyat sanat alf uxi-mi'atayn wa-‘ishrīn, II, p. 7, 11. 30–32)Google Scholar. At the end of the third volume he says: ‘This third volume has been completed… up to the year 1220… we shall write down, by God's will, the events which will take place from the beginning of the year 1221, which is the present year, if we live long and our hopes are fulfilled’ (khutima hādhā al-juz’ al-thālith… li-ghāyat sanat ‘ishrīn wa-mi’ atayn wa-alf… wa-sa-nuqayyid in shā'a Allāh ta'ālā mā yatajaddad ba'dahā min al-ḥawādith min ibtidā,’ sanat iḥdā wa-‘ishrīn allatī naḥnu bih¯ al-āna in imtadda al-ajal wa-as'afa al-amal, III, p. 357, 11. 3–7).Google Scholar

¹ See Gibb, H. A. R., ‘al-Murādī’, in EIGoogle Scholar, supplement volume, and the bibliography mentioned there. See also his biography in II, pp. 233, 1. 15–236, 1. 24.

² Published in Būlāq, A.H. 1291.

³ II, p. 234, 11. 3–4.

⁴ See GAL, II, pp. 287–8Google Scholar. See also al-Murtaḍā's biography in II, pp. 196, 1. 9–210, 1. 7.

⁵ II, p. 209, II. 10–11.

⁶ II, p. 234, 11. 13–14.

⁷ All these details are mentioned here in order to show al-Jabartī's negative opinion of his master's biographical dictionary.

¹ II, p. 234, 11. 25–26.

² II, p. 236, 11. 22–23.

³ II, p. 234, 11. 26–30.

⁴ Namely, the numerous biographical dictionaries, as well as the huge number of biographies included in the Mamluk chronicles.

¹ From the available data it cannot be ascertained, even approximately, when al-Jabartī started working for al-Murtaḍā and al-Murādī. As for al-Murtaḍā, he seems to have accepted the Syrian scholar's offer quite a long time before his death, for al-Jabartī found among his master's papers a letter from al-Murādī dated the end of Rabī’ II, 1200/February 1785 (II, p. 236, 1. 20), in which he urges his master to send him the part he had already prepared (II, pp. 235, 1. 20–236, 1. 7). It is quite doubtful whether al-Murādī had ever received any part of the historical material which al-Murtaḍī had collected for him.

² II, p. 233, 11. 20–21; p. 236, 11. 20–21.

³ Brockelmann, (GAL, II, 294)Google Scholar made the erroneous statement that al-Jabartī translated al-Murādī,'s Silk al-durar from Turkish into Arabic. The error was due to Brockelmann's misunderstanding of a note by the editor of al-Murādī's book, who wrote at the end of the second volume that al-Jabartī tarjama al-Murādī, which means, of course, that he wrote a biography of him. D. B. Macdonald repeated the error (EI, art. ‘al-Ḏjabartī’). The first to correct it was Gibb, H. A. R. in EIGoogle Scholar (supplement volume), art. ‘al-Murādi’. See also Shaybūb, p. 60, n. 1; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmud, I, p. 33.Google Scholar

⁴ See the numerous references to him by means of G. Wiet's index to al-Jabartī's chronicle, p. 190.

¹ II, p. 200, 11. 6 ff.

² II, p. 205, 1. 14; GAL, II, pp. 287–8Google Scholar; Suppl., II, p. 399Google Scholar, nos. 18, 26.

³ Our author tells us, in fact, that on delivering part of his finished work to al-Murtaḍā, he had a lively discussion with his master on its contents (II, p. 234, 11. 6–8).

⁴ The harsh and derogatory comments which al- Jabartī makes on the biographical dictionary of al-Murtaḍā, a person of whom he otherwise speaks with the highest esteem, are remarkable. Possibly he wanted to demonstrate that he owed nothing in the compilation of his chronicle to such an unworthy collection. But this is mere conjecture.

⁵ It should be noted that al-Murādī planned to dedicate a special volume to living persons (II, p. 236, 11. 9–11). As a matter of fact, his book does include biographies of such persons. These, however, are not assembled in a special section, but scattered all over the book. The inclusion of living persons in Muslim biographical collections, though extremely rare, is by no means non-existent. Al-Sakhāwī's al-Ḍaw' al-lāmi' contains a number of such biographies. Al-Murādī's claim in his letter to al-Murtaḍā that the decline in the study of history was a general phenomenon in the period under discussion seems to be considerably exaggerated (thumma jarā dhikr al-ta'rīkh wa-fuqdānuhu fī hādhā al-waqt wa-'adam al-raghba ilayhi min abnā' al-dahr ma'a annahu huwa al-mādda al-'uẓmā fī al-funūn kullihā, II, p. 235, 11. 26–27)Google Scholar. His story about his meeting and conversation with the high Ottoman official (11, pp. 235, 1. 25–236, 1. 2) is not convincing.

⁶ Al-Jabartī's connexions with al-Murtaḍā and al-Murādī are mentioned in the preface to the French translation of his chronicle (Vol. I, pp. viii–ix), but in a very distorted form. The translation of al-Murādī's biography (Vol. v, pp. 169–75) is much better, but is also replete with inaccuracies and serious omissions. Shaybūb (pp. 48–52, 55–60, 67, 95) and al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd (I, pp. 25, 86–92)Google Scholar also represent the connexions between these three personalities inaccurately. On al-Murtaḍā, see also Heyworth-Dunne, , Introduction, 34, 72.Google Scholar

¹ For a third short version which does not agree either with the first or with the second version, see I, p. 2, II. 6–18.

² Macdonald, D. B. (EIGoogle Scholar, art. ‘al-Ḏjabartī’) justly remarks that our historian must have been a really precocious child if he could recollect things of historical importance which happened in A.H. 1170, i.e. when he was four years old!

³ iv, p. 320, 11. 15–19.

⁴ The word in Arabic is ba'ḍ (see the reference in the next note).

⁵ TV, p. 320, 11. 22–30. It would appear that the MS copy of A.H. 1289 in Cairo, which was copied from the autograph, contains a similar or identical passage (al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, op. cit., I, p. 33)Google Scholar. The French translation of the end of the passage: ‘II [al-Jabartī] a mourut à cette date' (Merveilles, ix, p. 335)Google Scholar is, of course, inaccurate.

⁶ Shaybūb, , p. 115.Google Scholar

¹ The, thousand and one nights, London, 1889, Vol. I, p. 61Google Scholar, n. 28; p. 209, n. 85.

² On the spacious house which al-Jabartī built for himself in 1191/1777 in al-Ṣanādiqīya near al-Azhar, see III, pp. 215–16. According to Cardin, , Journal d'Abdurrahman, p. 1Google Scholar (on this book see below), al-Jabartī owned property in al-Abyār. See also Shaybūb, , pp. 36, 43–5Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

³ There exist in Cairo two copies of al-Jabartī's abridgement of Dā'ūd al-Anṭākī's Tadhkira: one copied by Aḥmad al-Samännūdī in the year 1229/1814 (Catalogue of al-Maktaba al-Azharīya, vol. vi, p. 130), and the other copied by Hilāl b. Muḥammad b. Hilāl, and finished in Jumādā I, 1236/February 1821 (Catalogue of al-Miṣrīya, Dār al-Kutub, vol. vi, p. 39Google Scholar; GAL, II, p. 364Google Scholar. Shaybūb, , p. 66, n. 1)Google Scholar. On the existence of a manuscript of Muẓhir al-taqdīs, copied in 1216/1801–2, i.e. the very year in which our author finished its writing, see below. A copy in the library of Muḥammad Bak Āṣif in Cairo of 'Ajā'ib al-āthār was finished by Aḥmad b. Ḥasan al-Rashīdī in 1237/1821–2 and was checked and approved by al-Jabartī on 14 Rābī' I, 1240/6 November 1824 (Zaydān, Jurjī, Ta'rīkh ādāb al-lugha al-'Arabīya, iv, p. 283)Google Scholar. A thorough check and comparison of the numerous copies of the ‘Ajā'ib, scattered all over the world, will undoubtedly yield important results. On the extant copies in the Cairo libraries, see al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, I, pp. 33–5Google Scholar. The recent discovery of the autograph manuscript of the ‘Ajā’ib in the Iraq Museum Library is mentioned in Revue de l'Institut des Manuscrits Arabes (Ligue des États Arabes, Le Caire), I, 1955, 45Google Scholar. Also Maḥmūd al-Sharqāwī, II, p.d. Al-Sharqāwī also speaks of a copy of the ‘Ajā’ib in Cambridge University Library containing comments in al-Jabartī's handwriting (ibid., II, p. h). Cl. Huart mentions the existence of an autograph copy of the Muẓhir in Cambridge (Littérature arabe, p. 415).Google Scholar

¹ Aegypten, II, 326Google Scholar. Zaydān, (Ta'rīkh ādāb al-lugha al-‘Arabīya, iv, p. 284)Google Scholar also speaks of an edition of the ‘Ajā'ib prior to the A.H. 1297 edition (see immediately below), which was confiscated and destroyed by the government. I could not ascertain whether Zaydān's statement was independent of that of von Kremer or not. See also Macdonald, D. B., EIGoogle Scholar, art. ‘al-Ḏjabartī’.

² Sarkīs, I, col. 676. al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, p. 32.Google Scholar

³ I, p. 2 of the preface, 11. 2–3.

⁴ In 1302/1884–5, the chronicle was published again in al-Maṭba'a al-Azharīya in the margins of al-Kāmil of Ibn al-Athīr. In 1322/1904–5, it was published as an independent book in al-Maṭba'a al-Ashrafīya, Cairo (Merveilles, i, p. ixGoogle Scholar; Sarkīs, i, col. 676; Catalogue of al-Miṣrīya, Dār al-Kutub, V, pp. 262–3, 301Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , p. 31Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, p. 31).Google Scholar

⁵ Ta'rīkh ādāb al-lugha al-‘Arabīya, iv, p. 284.Google Scholar

⁶ See also al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, p. 31Google Scholar, and note.

⁷ The translators (Chefik Mansour Bey, Abdul Aziz Kalil Bey, Gabriel Nicolas Kalil Bey, and Iskender Ammoun Effendi), in their preface, express their thanks to Nūbār Pāshā, the president of the Council of Ministers, who inspired them with the idea of the translation, to the Egyptian Ministry of Education which adopted the project, and particularly to Ya'qūb Artīn Pāshā, Under-Secretary of State, for his constant encouragement and advice. See also Sarkīs, I, col. 676; Shaybūb, , p. 112Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

⁸ The writing of the history of a country like Egypt under the Ottomans gives the historian, no doubt, a much wider scope than the writing of the histories of Damascus or Baghdad under the same rulers, not only because Egypt was then, as it is now, the most important of the Arabic-speaking countries, but also because it had enjoyed a far greater autonomy, mainly as a result of the survival of Mamluk society. To what degree Egypt had been Ottomanized is a matter which has still to be established.

¹ The objectivity with which he narrates the history of the French occupation can serve as a model to any modern European historian. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that he was a product of his time and environment. Therefore, there is little point in criticizing, for example, his unsympathetic stand towards the non-Muslim minorities, or his favourable view of the English invasion of Egypt in 1807, or his failure to see anything positive in Muḥammad ‘Alī's reforms. As for his collaboration with the French, it is hard to establish its scope. Besides, the fact of collaboration with the French was something he had in common with a very large section of the Egyptian ‘ulamā’. On his attempt, immediately after the French evacuation, to curry favour with the Ottomans by presenting them with a revised history of the French period of occupation (Muẓhir al-taqdīs), see below. Still, his claim that in the compilation of his chronicle he did not intend to serve any powerful person or flatter any government (I, p. 6, 11. 31–33) is, on the whole, right. His uncompromising denunciation of such a strong man as Muḥammad ‘Alī, who crushed his opponents without mercy, serves as a striking proof of his personal courage.

² As for al-Jabartī's language, there is no doubt that in numerous cases he ignores the grammatical rules of Arabic and uses not only colloquial, but also slang words (see his own apology in I, p. 7, II. 4–7, and the remarks of Shaybūb, , p. 101Google Scholar, and al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, pp. 27–8, 83–4)Google Scholar. But it should be noted that in this respect al-Jabartī followed numerous earlier Egyptian historians, who, mainly from the Mamluk period onwards, showed a growing inclination to use a living literary language which was more tolerant of colloquialisms in grammar and vocabulary than the literary Arabic of other branches of learning. Our author's language has still to be compared with that of the other chroniclers of Ottoman Egypt. For lexicographers, al-Jabartī's chronicle is a mine of information. It is to be regretted that, with the exception of G. Wiet's glossary to Nicolas Turc, pp. 289–314, there has been no serious attempt to collect and study al- Jabartī's vocabulary since the beginnings made by von Kremer, A. in his Beiträge zur arabischen Lexikographie, Wien, 1883–1884.Google Scholar

¹ iv, p. 124, 11. 20–25. On finishing his narrative of the events of A.H. 1217, our historian stresses again that he writes only about things of a general character, and explains why he does so (III, p. 236, 11. 30–33). The fact that we find here and there in the book some details which may seem rather trivial to us should not serve as a proof to the contrary. Our historian's conscientiousness and accuracy are demonstrated, inter alia, by his reproduction of the numerous documents in his book without any editing of his own. In spite of his being shocked time and again by the horrible Arabic of many of the decrees and announcements of the French authorities of occupation, he reproduces them in his chronicle verbatim.

² I, p. 90, 11. 5–10.

³ I used the British Museum manuscript (Or. 1073, 1074).

⁴ I have not yet compared systematically al-Jabartī's chronicle with that of Muṣṭafā b. Ibrāhīm al-Maddāḥ al-Qīnālī, also an eyewitness, who wrote the history of Egypt in the years 1100–52/1688–1739, or with that of Ibn ‘Abd al-Ghanī (see above, p. 222, n. 3).

¹ For some of the passages, out of many, in which the authors of the Histoire scientifique do mention al-Jabartī, see Vol. iv, p. 90; Vol. viii, pp. 412, 442; Vol. viii, pp. 242–3. I am indebted to my students H. Harari, S. Magen, and D. Farhi for helping me in tracing al-Jabartī's immense influence on the Histoire scientifique. I am also indebted to my student, S. Moreh, for calling my attention to several passages regarding al-Jabartī's writing. The only other important Arabic source on the French occupation, written by Nicolas Turc and published by Wiet, G. (Chronique d'Égypte, 1798–1804, Cairo, 1950Google Scholar), corroborates, on the whole, al-Jabartī's chronicle and supplements it. A systematic comparison of the two chronicles will undoubtedly shed additional light on our author's historical writing. A noteworthy step in this direction has already been made by G. Wiet in his notes to his French translation of Nicolas Turc's chronicle. Costa's unpublished history (in Arabic) of the French expedition (Wiet, , op. cit., p. ix)Google Scholar is not known to me.

¹ It should be noted in this connexion that some very important European contemporaries held quite negative opinions about Muḥammad ‘Alī's reforms and rule. See, for example, Lane, , Manners and customs (Everyman's Library), pp. 25, 113, 132–5, 228, n. 1, 562–1Google Scholar. Lane's view of Muḥammad ‘Alī became more favourable after the Egyptian evacuation of Syria, for Lane believed that he would then use his talents in the development of Egypt instead of wasting them on expansion. See also the opinion of Campbell, the British Consul-General in Egypt from 1833 (Sabry, , L'empire égyptien sous Mohamed-Ali, Paris, 1930, 115–16Google Scholar), and especially the opinion of the authors of Histoire scientifique et militaire de l'expédition française en Égypte in their description of Egypt's situation in 1834 (Vol. x, pp. 477–90). A considerable number of the European consular representatives in Egypt and in Syria were also critical of Muḥammad ‘All's reign.

¹ A very considerable part of almost any biography of an ‘ālim is dedicated to the enumeration of the names of his teachers, the theological books and subjects which he studied, the treatises which he compiled, etc. Very little can be done with these stereotyped lists. This defect is not characteristic of al- Jabartī alone, but is common to numerous Muslim historians, a fact which renders the study of this most important class in Muslim society extremely difficult.

² Some aspects, however, of this class, such as the Azhar institution, the relations of the ‘ulamā’ with the secular authorities, Sufism and the Dervish orders, are extremely well described by al-Jabartī. Heyworth-Dunne rightly says that ‘The learned devoted much time and energy to the reading of sūfī literature and by far the greatest proportion of the literary output was of this kind of writing and of sūfī poetry’ (Introduction, 10). This fact is strongly reflected in our chronicle. See also Heyworth-Dunne, , Introduction, 1–101Google Scholar, and Gibb, and Bowen, , Islamic society and the West, Vol. I, Part II, ch. viii–xiii.Google Scholar

³ Here, again, the Ottoman archives can greatly change the picture. Most of those parts of the Description de l'Égypte which deal with Egypt as the French army of occupation had found it, are of a very high quality. On the other hand, the sections dealing with the history of Egypt under the Ottomans are very poor.

¹ One of these persons, Shaykh al-Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, had to be dealt with in an earlier part of this paper, because he was closely connected with the compilation of the ‘Ajāi'b. Al-Jabartī refers quite frequently to the existence of relations or contact between himself and this or that person about whom he speaks in his chronicle. There is a great need for the compilation of a systematic collection of these references. Such a collection will greatly help in establishing the sources from which he obtained a very considerable part of his information, as well as in reconstructing the internal and familial relations of great sections of Cairene society. Here are a few references, out of many, to persons from whom he obtained information which he incorporated in his chronicle: II, p. 27, 1. 13; p. 228, 1. 14; III, p. 219, 11. 20–21, p. 221, 11. 6–8; iv, p. 218, 11. 22–28; p. 236, 1. 28. Al-Jabartī tells us that the famous ‘ālim, Aḥmad al-Dimurdāshī Shaykh al-Azhar, a great friend of his father's, who died on 10 Rajab 1192/August 1778, was the last of the older generation whom he knew (kāna ākhir man adraknā min al-mutaqaddimīn, II, p. 27, 1. 18)Google Scholar. On Maḥmūd al-Kurdī, one of our author's most venerated teachers, see II, p. 169, 1. 4; iv, p. 160, 11. 5, 14, and Wiet, G.'s Index de Djabarti, p. 205Google Scholar, col. (b). On some of al-Jabartī's friends, see II, p. 169, 11. 12–33; p. 212, 11. 9–26; III, p. 114, 11. 1–28. This is, of course, only a very haphazard collection. On his father's teachers, friends, and students, see below, especially p. 238, n. 10–11. See also Shaybūb, pp. 7, 8–9, 22, 25, 31, 38, 41–3, 45–6, 47, 51, 52, 63, 100–2, Maḥmūd al-Sharqāwī, i, pp. 22, 23–4; and various parts of vols, II and III.

² For a definition similar to that of our author on Jabart, see Lane, , Manners and customs, p. 222Google Scholar. For a different definition, see Mittwoch, EI, art. ‘Ḏjabart’. See also Trimingham, J. S., Islam in Ethiopia, O.U.P., 1952, pp. 150–3Google Scholar, and also index (Jabarta and Jabartī). The Muslims of al-Jabart trace back their origin, according to our historian, to Aslam b. ‘Uqayl b. Abī Ṭālib (i, p. 385, 1. 28). The members of al-Jabartī's family bore, therefore, the nisba al-'Uqaylī (ibid., 1. 25). See also ‘Alī Mubārak, al-Khiṭaṭ al-jadīda, vol. iv, p. 23Google Scholar; vol. viii, pp. 7–13.

¹ Al-Jabartī stresses that this ‘Abd al-Raḥmān is the earliest member of his family known to him (i, p. 388, 11. 8–9).

² i, p. 388, 1. 12.

³ See especially I, p. 385, 11. 19–23, where he calls him, inter alia, ‘the mainstay of mankind and the philosopher of Islam’ (‘umdat al-ānām wa-faylasūf ai-Islām).

⁴ i, p. 305, 11. 12, 19; p. 405, 1. 7.

⁵ i, p. 391, 1. 1.

⁶ i, p. 376, 11. 14–21.

⁷ i, p. 391, 11. 6–9.

⁸ i, p. 391, 11. 6–15.

⁹ i, p. 391,11. 1–4.

¹⁰ i, p. 67, 11. 14–33; p. 70, 11. 28–31, 31–33; p. 75, 11. 5–8; p. 85, 1. 17; p. 156, 11. 31–33; pp. 159, 1. 3–160, 1. 15; p. 162, 11. 4–25, 31–33; pp. 159, 1. 3–165,1. 15; p. 162, 11. 4, 25; p. 163, 1. 3; pp. 253, 1. 31–254, 1. 15; p. 261,1. 4; p. 352,11. 1–3; pp. 361, 1. 26–362, 1. 1; pp. 389–90; p. 416, 11. 7–10; II, p. 27,11. 13–16; p. 52, 11. 16–25; p. 60, 11. 14–16; p. 228, 11. 17–20; p. 230, I. 1; p. 243, 1. 26.

¹¹ I, p. 364, 1. 25; p. 374, 11. 28–29; II, p. 4, 11. 19–23; p. 35; p. 77, 11. 12–13; p. 79, 11. 1–2; p. 99, 11. 8–10; p. 101, 11. 14–21; pp. 180, 1. 31–181, 1. 26; pp. 224, 1. 28–225, 1. 3; p. 252, II. 22–24; p. 263, 11. 25–26; iii, p. 164, 11. 18–19. On some of our author's teachers, certain of whom had contacts with his father, see I, p. 375, 11. 18–19; II, pp. 125, 1. 33–126, 1. 5; p. 198, 11. 5–9; p. 227, 11. 19–20; p. 228, 1. 19; p. 263, 11. 5–6.

¹ I, p. 392, 11. 18–20. Muḥammad Afandī b. Ismā'īl al-Skandarī, the greatest munshi' of his time in Egypt, and a great authority in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, who was of Jewish origin (i, pp. 339,1. 13–343,1. 9), used to visit Ḥasan (i, p. 339,1. 19). In the present state of our knowledge, it cannot be established with any degree of certainty whether our historian, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, knew either Turkish or Persian.

² i, pp. 396, 1. 11–397, 1. 4; p. 397, 1. 29; p. 398, 11. 14–15.

³ i, p. 404, 11. 16–24.

⁴ i, p. 396, 11. 31–32.

⁵ i, p. 395, 11. 25–31.

⁶ i, pp. 186, 1. 30–188, 1. 7.

⁷ i, pp. 383, 1. 31–384, 1. 4.

⁸ I, pp. 383, 1. 31–384, 1. 4; p. 397, 11. 17–18.

¹ i, p. 309, 11. 8–14.

² i, p. 179, 11. 17–24; pp. 395, I. 33–396, 1. 2. It is interesting to note that two maternal uncles of Hasan were also the companions (julasā') of ‘Uthmān Bak Dhū al-Faqār (i, p. 219, 11. 13–18).

³ i, p. 381, 11. 14–15.

⁴ i, pp. 395, 1. 33–396, 1. 5. See also p. 395, 11. 25–31.

⁵ i, p. 368, 11. 5–6. For additional references to Ḥasan al-Jabartī's connexions with the members of the military ruling class and for our author's easy access to this class, see II, p. 98, 1. 22; p. 168, 1. 33; p. 188, 11. 20–27; iii, p. 64, 11. 23–27.

⁶ I, p. 384, 11. 2–4. On al-fiqh al-ḥanafī, see also I, p. 285, 11. 1–2; p. 368, 1. 30; p. 396,1. 27; II, p. 98, 1. 16.

⁷ i, p. 395, 11. 20–25, 1. 32; p. 404, 11. 24–31; p. 412, 11. 9–20.

⁸ I, pp. 389–90.

⁹ I, p. 398, 11. 19–30. Al-Jabartī's statement about his father's writings is confirmed by the numerous manuscripts of them which still exist. Brockelmann lists 16 extant treatises from Hasan's pen, none of which deals with history. Sauvaire translated into French Ḥasan's treatise on weights (see GAL, II, p. 359Google Scholar; Suppl., II, p. 487).Google Scholar

¹ i, p. 397, 11. 4–5. The library contained rare books as well (II, p. 52, 1. 21).

² Ḥasan's lending library did not contain historical works (i, p. 397, 11. 6–11). He received as a gift books dealing with the history of Persia (i, p. 397, 11. 18–19). According to Cardin, (Journal d'Abdurrahman Gabarti, p. 1)Google Scholar, who claims to have received his information from al-Jabartī's family, our author inherited his father's library, where he found rich scientific material. He also adopted his father's methods in his teaching of his students.

³ iv, p. 241, 11. 25–26.

⁴ IV, p. 238, 11. 14–18.

⁵ iv, p. 238, 11. 19–22.

¹ iv, p. 238, 11. 27–28.

² iii, p. 137, 11. 28–29; p. 154, 11. 17–18.

³ iv, pp. 238, 1. 26–239, 1. 2. For other activities of al-Khashshāb in the service of the French, see III, p. 55, 11. 5–9; p. 138, 11. 14–15; p. 154, 11. 17–18.

⁴ I could not establish which voyage is meant here.

⁵ iv, p. 239, 1. 5. Al-Jabartī's close friendship with al-Khashshāb and al-‘Aṭṭār is repeatedly stressed in his book. See, for example, II, p. 84, 11. 14–20; p. 44, 11. 4–7; p. 193, 11. 27–31; iv, p. 238, 11. 9–10.

⁶ iv, p. 239, 1. 9.

⁷ iv, p. 239, 11. 12–15. In the opening of al-Khashshāb's obituary, our author calls him nādirat al-zamān wa-farīd al-awān (IV, p. 238, 11. 9–10)Google Scholar. Al-'Aṭṭār collected and circulated al-Khashshāb's verses in a small booklet, which became very popular among Egypt's men of letters (ibid., 11. 20–21; see also the references, p. 243, n. 4, below).

⁸ III, p. 193, 11. 27–31; p. 205, 11. 17–18; iv, p. 56, 11. 25–26.

¹ Al-Khashshāb is mentioned in the ‘Ajā’ib for the first time, and as al-Jabartī's friend, as early as the year 1198/1783–4 (II, p. 84, 11. 14–20). This would mean that their friendship lasted for at least 32 years. Both of them were members of the third Dīwān, constituted by the French (III, p. 137, 11. 23–30).Google Scholar

² See p. 242, n. 2. Al-Khashshāb also wrote a short chronicle of Egypt under the Ottomans entitled Tadhkira li-ahl al-baṣā'ir wal-abṣār ma'a wajh al-ikhtiṣar (MS Paris, Arabe, 1858, 26 fols.).Google Scholar

³ On the other hand, al-Jabartī included in his chronicle far fewer verses from al-Khashshab's (iv, pp. 240–1) than from al-‘Aṭṭr's pen (see below). For additional information on al-Khashshāb and on his Dīwān (published in 1300/1882–3), see Zaydān, , iv, pp. 62–3, 233Google Scholar; Sarkīs, I, col. 822, 823; Cheikho, , I, p. 20Google Scholar. Shaybūb, , pp. 52–4, 84Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, I, pp. 17, 140, n. 1Google Scholar; Heyworth-Dunne, , Introduction, index.Google Scholar

⁴ Lane, who met al-‘Aṭṭār during his stay in Cairo, says that in theology and jurisprudence he was not as deeply versed as some of his contemporaries, but that he was eminently accomplished in polite literature (‘ilm al-ādāb) and in the epistolary style (inshā') (Manners and customs, 222)Google Scholar. Rasā'il al-Skaykh al-'Aṭṭār, published in Cairo in 1304/1886–7, at al-Matba'a al-‘Uthmānīya, includes on p. 3 a dedication by the author to Muḥammad ‘Alī. About al-‘Aṭṭār, see also iv, p. 316, 11. 27–28.

⁵ III, p. 44, 11. 4–7; p. 97, 11. 10–33; p. 114, 11. 10–26; pp. 306, 1. 32–308, 1. 6; iv, p. 28, 11. 20–25; p. 195,11. 15–17; p. 232, 11. 10–13.

⁶ III, pp. 163, 1. 24–164, 1. 9.

⁷ On al-‘Aṭṭār, see also H. Gibb, A. R., art. ‘al-'Aṭṭār’ in EI (new edition)Google Scholar; von Kremer, A., Aegypten, II, p. 324Google Scholar; ‘Alī Mubārak, al-Khiṭaṭ al-Tawfīqīya, iv, p. 38Google Scholar; Zaydān, , iv, p. 257Google Scholar; Sarkīs, II, col. 1335–7; Cheikho, , I, pp. 51–3Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , pp. 63–6Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, pp. 23, 48–54.Google Scholar

¹ Sarkīs, i, col. 676; Sharqāwī, , i, pp. 36, 43Google Scholar. Huart states that there is an autograph manuscript of the book in Cambridge (Littérature arabe, p. 415)Google Scholar. In a library in Rampur, India, there is a copy of A.H. 1216, the year in which al- Jabartī finished writing his book. The possibility of its being an autograph was mentioned (Sharqāwī, , i, p. 44, n. 1)Google Scholar. For the MSS of the book in the libraries of Egypt, see the Catalogue of al-Miṣrīya, Dār al-Kutub, v, pp. 349–50Google Scholar; Fihris al-Maktaba al-Azharīya, 1949, vol. v, pp. 493–4Google Scholar; Fihris al-makhṭūṭāt al-muṣawawara of the Arab League, vol. II, 1956, p. 251Google Scholar; Sharqāwī, , pp. 36, 43.Google Scholar

² Shaybūb, , p. 86Google Scholar; Sharqāwī, , i, pp. 15, 43.Google Scholar

³ By Muḥammad ‘Aṭā, who changed the chronicle's title to Yawmīyāt al-Jabartī (two small volumes, nos. 59 and 60 in the series ikhtarnā laka, Dār al-Ma'ārif, Cairo, no date).

⁴ When the Grand Vizīr Yūsuf Bāshā returned from Egypt to Istanbul, he presented the Muẓhir to Sultan Selim III, who ordered his chief physician, Muṣṭafā Bahjat, to translate it into Turkish. Bahjat finished the translation in 1222/1807 (or 1217/1802?). It was translated again into the same language by Aḥmad Efendi ‘Āṣim in 1810 (GAL, II, p. 480Google Scholar; Babinger, , Geschichtsschreiber, p. 340Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , p. 89Google Scholar; Sharqāwī, , i, pp. 15, 32)Google Scholar. See also Cardin, , p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵ The dragoman of the French Consulate-General in Alexandria, Alexandre Cardin, published a French translation of the Muẓhir which appeared in 1835 in Alexandria and in 1838 in Paris under the title Journal d'Abdurrahman Gabarti pendant l'occupation française en Egypte. The translation is followed by a summary in French of Nicolas Turc's chronicle (see p. 231, n. 2, and p. 234, n. 1). See also Sarkīs, i, col. 676; Shaybūb, , p. 112Google Scholar; Sharqāwī, , I, p. 32Google Scholar. Zaydān, (iv, p. 284)Google Scholar was mistaken in stating that the Arabic original of the Muẓhir was printed in Egypt.

⁶ Yawmīyāt al-Jabartī, vol. I, p. 21Google Scholar. See also Zaydān, , iv, p. 252Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , p. 88Google Scholar; Sharqāwī, , i, p. 36.Google Scholar

⁷ One major task will be to prove beyond doubt which of the two was compiled first. For conflicting views on this subject, see Shaybūb, , p. 98Google Scholar, and Sharqāwī, , i, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar

⁸ Shaybūb, , pp. 86–90, 98Google Scholar; Sharqāwī, , i, pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar

⁹ See also Muḥammad ‘Aṭā's remark in Yawmīyāt al-Jabartī (i, p. 173 and n. 1)Google Scholar. An article on the Muẓhir by Muḥammad Anīs, published in Majallat Kulliyat al-Ādāb, xviii, 1, 1956Google Scholar, and mentioned by Muḥammad ‘Aṭā (ibid., i, p. 6, n. 1) was not available to me. The historical introduction to the Muẓhir (ibid., I, pp. 22–31) is very different from that of the ‘Ajā'ib. In his foreword (ibid., i, pp. 10–21) al-Jabartī ignores completely the share of the English in the expulsion of the French from Egypt. Cardin, in his translation of the Muẓhir, omitted many of al-Jabartī's derogatory remarks on the French and on Bonaparte (von Kremer, A., Aegypten, II, p. 326).Google Scholar

¹ See Lane's translation of the Thousand and one nights, London, Chatto and Windus, 1889, Vol. IGoogle Scholar, note to ch. i, p. 66. See also D. B. Macdonald, art. ‘al-Ḏjabartī’ in EI.

² This book was translated into French by Marcel, J. J. under the name Contes du Cheikh El-MohdyGoogle Scholar (Huart, , Littérature arabe, pp. 416–17Google Scholar; Cheikho, , i, p. 31Google Scholar; Zaydān, , iv, p. 233).Google Scholar

³ iv, pp. 233–7. Among the common people of Egypt, the ‘Arabian nights’, in spite of their overwhelming Egyptian background, were not popular at all. J. Heyworth-Dunne states that of all the popular romances they were the least recited (Introduction, p. 13 and n. 5)Google Scholar. Lane does not mention them at all in his detailed description of ‘Public recitations of romances” (Manners and customs, pp. 397–430)Google Scholar. Neither does Clot-Bey in the corresponding part of his Aperçu général sur l'Égypte. Lane's belief, therefore, which he backs by the sole proof of al-Jabartī's interest in the ‘Arabian nights’, that ‘now that the origin of the present work is printed, and to be purchased at a moderate price, it will probably soon, in a great measure, supersede the romances of Aboo Zeyd Ez-Ẓāhir and ‘Antar’ (Lane, 's translation of the ‘Arabian nights’, op. cit., i, p. 66)Google Scholar, was rather optimistic and was by no means fully confirmed by subsequent history.

¹ One in al-Miṣrīya, Dār al-Kutub (Catalogue, vol. vi, p. 39Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , p. 66, n. 1)Google Scholar and one in al-Azharīya, al-Maktaba (Catalogue, vol. vi, p. 130)Google Scholar; GAL, II, p. 364Google Scholar. Cardin, (op. cit., p. 2, n. 1)Google Scholar mentions additional works by al-Jabartī: on jurisprudence (one vol.), on arithmetic and astronomy (one vol.), on the epistolary style (one vol.), and a commentary on his father's treatise on weights and measures (one vol.).

² Merveilles, i, p. ix.Google Scholar

³ Giornale delle osservazioni fatte ne’ viaggi in Egitto, nella Siria e nella, Nubia, 5 vols.Google Scholar, Bassano, , Roberti, A., 1841–1843, Vol. i, p. 151Google Scholar (the voyage took place during the years 1822–6). Shaybūb (pp. 113–15) was the first to mention this source as containing information on our author. Cardin, (op. cit., p. 2)Google Scholar says that al-Jabartī lost his sight as a result of his grief over the murder of his son.

⁴ Ta'rīkh ādāb al-lugha al-‘Arabīya, iv, p. 283.Google Scholar

⁵ Manners and customs, Everyman's Library, p. 222.Google Scholar

⁶ See S. L. Poole's biography of Lane in the introduction to Vol. vi of the Arabic-English lexicon, p. viii.Google Scholar

⁷ Sharqāwī, , I, p. 16, n. 2.Google Scholar

⁸ p. 116.

¹ Merveilles, ix, p. 335.Google Scholar

² This mistaken date was copied repeatedly, e.g. D. B. Macdonald, EI, art. ‘al-Ḏjabartī’, the Catalogue of al-Miṣrīya, Dār al-Kutub (1930, vol. v, pp. 262–3)Google Scholar, and Cheikho, who criticizes Huart, C. (Littérature arabe, Paris, 1902, p. 416)Google Scholar for mentioning the year 1825 as the date of al-Jabarti's death (al-Ādāb al-‘Arabīya fī al-qarn al-tāsi’ ‘ashar, Beirut, 1924, vol. I, p. 21)Google Scholar. Brockel-mann gave different dates in different parts of GAL (II, pp. 364, 480Google Scholar; Suppl., II, p. 730)Google Scholar. For a mention of the correct or approximately correct date, see von Kremer, A., Aegypten, II, p. 325Google Scholar; Zaydān, , iv, pp. 283–4Google Scholar; Sarkīs, , Mu'jam al-maṭbū'āt al-'Arabīya wal-mu'arraba. Cairo, 1346/1928, cols. 675–6Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , pp. 110–18Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, I, p. 16 and n. 2.Google Scholar

³ Cardin, , op. cit., p. 2Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , p. 113.Google Scholar

⁴ Cheikho, , op. cit., p. 21Google Scholar; Shaybūb, , p. 115Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, pp. 15–16Google Scholar. The French translators of the ‘Aja'ib claim that al-Jabartī's son died a few years after his father, and that a daughter of our author still lived in Cairo in 1888 in complete oblivion (Merveilles, i, p. x)Google Scholar. Khalīl was his son by his second wife, the daughter of ‘Alī b. ‘Abdallāh Darwīsh Aghā al-Rūmī (‘Ajā'ib al-āthār, II, p. 96, 11. 1–27)Google Scholar. Incidentally, this is the only time that Khalīl is mentioned throughout the chronicle (ibid., 11. 19–20). On al-Jabartī's wives and children, see also Shaybūb, , pp. 26, 45–46, 61, 108, 115Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, p. 14Google Scholar. On his character and appearance see A. Cardin, op. cit., p. 1.

⁵ iv, p. 163, 11. 18–19.

⁶ It was published eight (!) times—five as a separate book (for the first time in 1281/1864) and three in the margins of the chronicles of other authors (GAL, II, p. 480Google Scholar; Suppl., II, p. 729)Google Scholar. See also Sarkīs, I, cols. 1115, 1116; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, p. 54 and n. 1.Google Scholar

¹ The book was never published, but a manuscript of it exists in Cairo and another in Berlin (GAL, II, p. 480)Google Scholar. For additional details on it see the Catalogue of al-Miṣrīya, Dār al-Kutub, first edition, Cairo, 1930, vol. v, p. 129Google Scholar. See also Zaydān, , iv, pp. 282–3Google Scholar; Sarkīs, I, cols. 1115, 1116.

² iv, p. 160, 11. 5–6.

³ iv, pp. 159, 1. 31–165, 1. 7.

⁴ iv, p. 159, 11. 31–33.

⁵ iv, p. 160, 11. 7–12. Some of these works are still in use and are highly valued by the people of al-Azhar (al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, i, p. 57).Google Scholar

⁶ iv, p. 163, 11. 11–18.

⁷ It was only due to the prominence of its author that the Tuḥfat al-nāẓirin was published so many times and became so well known. More than half of this tiny book is devoted to the Prophet, his companions, the caliphs, and the Ottoman sultans. The rest consists of hardly more than a bare list of Egypt's rulers in the Muslim period. About his own times the author keeps almost complete silence. The claim that al-Sharqāwī wrote the book at the request of Yūsuf Bāshā, the Grand Vizīr (Heyworth-Dunne, , Introduction, 76Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, I, p. 54)Google Scholar is inaccurate. Neither is al-Jabartī right in stating that he had dedicated the book to the Grand Vizīr, (iv, p. 163, 11. 15–16)Google Scholar. What al-Sharqāwī does say in his book is that after the El-Arish treaty of evacuation (Ramaḍān 1214/January 1800) between the French and the Ottomans, he went to Bilbays, together with some other ‘ulamā’, to meet the above-mentioned Yūsuf Bāshā. There a member of the Vizīr's retinue (ba'd al-ikhwān min atbā' dhālika al-Ṣadr al-A'ẓam) asked him to write the book (Tuḥfat al-nāẓirīn, in the margins of al-Wāqidī, 's Futūḥ, al-Shām, second edition, Cairo, 1934, vol. I, pp. 3–4)Google Scholar. The fact that al-Sharqāwī does not bother to give the name of the person who had made that request to him arouses grave doubts as to the veracity of his whole story. These doubts are confirmed by a chance remark of his. Speaking, well in the second half of the book, on Baybars' big mosque, he says: ‘and it is now, i.e. the year 1213, a fortress of the French’ (wa-huwa al-āna a'nī sanat thalāth ‘ashrata ba'da al-mi'a qal'a lil-Ifranj) (ibid., p. 136). This proves that the bulk of the book had already been written before al-Sharqāwī visited the Vizir's camp in Bilbays. In all probability he invented the story about his being invited to write the book in order to give it an official character. On ‘Abdallāh al-Sharqāwī, see also Cheikho, , I, p. 8Google Scholar; al-Sharqāwī, Maḥmūd, I, pp. 54–7Google Scholar; II, pp. 143–5, 164.