^{page 57 note 1} Basic material in Mamluk sources dealing with the various offices is found in: ṣubḥ, 4, pp. 16–22Google Scholar 5, pp. 461–2; 7, pp. 158–9. Ḍaw’ aṣ Ṣubḥ, pp. 245–9; p. 343. Zubda, pp. 114–15. Ḥusn al-Muḥādara, 2, pp. 111–13.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} Ibn Iyās, II, p. 127, II. 5–9. Zubda, p. 112, 2. 15–21.Google Scholar On his functions, see Khiṭaṭ 2, p. 215.Google ScholarṢubḥ, 4, pp. 16–22;Google Scholar xi, p. 134, II. 17–21.

^{page 57 note 3} Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍara, 2, p. 111,Google Scholar II. 8–12. Ṣubḥ, 4, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 454Google Scholar, 1. 5. Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍara, 2, p. 111,Google Scholar 1. 12. Ḍaw’ aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 273. For nā'ib as-salṭana, cf.: C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 60; p. 210; p. 211; p. 212; p. 215. La Syrie, pp. lv–vi. For an-nā'ib al-kāfil, kāfil al-mamālik, cf. C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 208; p. 215; p. 216; p. 227. Wiet, G., Syria, 1926, p. 155.Google Scholar Glossary to Nujūm, vol. 6, p. 46Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 2} Ibn Khaldūn, v, p. 443, II. 2–4. Ḥusn al-Muḥāṭara, 2, p. IllGoogle Scholar, 11. 8–9. The name of the last holder of this office is not mentioned in the sources.

^{page 58 note 3} Manhal, 8, fol. 366a, II. 8–14.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 4} Ibn Iyās, II, p. 127, 11. 5–9.

^{page 58 note 5} Zubda, p. 116, 2. 16–21.Google Scholar The nā'ib al-ghayba was the Mamluk amir who took the sultan's place while the latter was abroad, especially on military expeditions. For additional material on the nā'ib as-salṭana, see Sulūk, 1, p. 664Google Scholar, II. 6–8; p. 665; p. 715, n. 3. Ibn Kathīr, xiv, p. 76, II. 20–1; p. 140, II. 15–16. Nujūm (C), 8, p. 233Google Scholar, II. 11–12. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 92,Google Scholar 1. 13; p. 175, II. 8–9; p. 200, II. 3–4; p. 217; p. 223, 1. 6; vi, p. 294.

^{page 58 note 6} See, for instance, Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p. 148; n. 1. Sulūk, 1, p. 656,Google Scholar 1. 8; p. 657, 1. 7. For atābak cf. Quatremére, vol. I, pt. i, p. 2. C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 290; p. 396. La Syrie, p. xxvii; p. lvi. Heraldry, p. 56; p. 85; p. 88, etc. Feudalism, p. 1; p. 14. Wiet, G., ‘ Notes d'Épigraphie Syro-Musulmane ’, Syria, Paris, 1926, p. 155; p. 164.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 7} Nujūm (C), 8, p. 286Google Scholar, Ii. 6–7. Ibn al-Furat, vii, p. 148, n. 1. Nujūm (P), p. 165Google Scholar, II. 4–5. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 454, 1. 19, and many other passages. For mudabbir al-mamlaka (al-mamālik), cf. C.I.A., L'égypte, p. 420; p. 455. Heraldry, p. 65; p. 151; p. 177; p. 252f.

^{page 58 note 8} Zetterstéen, p. 29, 1. 10. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba fol. 52b, II. 6–7. Ḍaw’ aṣ-Ṣubḥ, p. 364, 1. 2.

^{page 58 note 9} Ta’rif, pp. 103–4. Ḍaw’ aṣ-Ṣubb, p. 318.

^{page 58 note 10} Ṣubḥ, 6, p. 5.Google Scholar Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 10, I. 27; (KM), iii, p. 17, 1. 1; p. 126, 1. 18; p. 363, 1. 8. Manhal, i, fol. 111a, 1. 7.

^{page 59 note 1} Ṣubḥ, 6, p. 6Google Scholar, 1. 1; cf. also Sulūk, I, p. 794, II. 7–8.

^{page 59 note 2} Zubda, p. 112, 1. 22.

^{page 59 note 3} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 149Google Scholar, II. 7–8.

^{page 59 note 4} Ṣubh, 7, p. 262Google Scholar, 11. 13–19.

^{page 59 note 5} Ibn Khaldūn, v, p. 485, 1. 6.

^{page 59 note 6} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 165Google Scholar, II. 10–12. Marihal, 3, fol. 154a, II. 10–11.Google ScholarTibr, p. 7, 1. 14. For amīr kabīr, cf. C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 276; p. 290; p. 452; p. 593. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. 5, p. 12Google Scholar; vol. vi, p. liv.

^{page 59 note 7} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 804Google Scholar, 1. 7; vii, p. 256, 1. 9.

^{page 59 note 8} Ibn Khaldūn, v, p. 458, 1. 24. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 175,Google Scholar II. 5–6; p. 209, II. 8–11; p. 210, II. 7–9.

^{page 59 note 9} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 319,Google ScholarII. 4–5; p. 447, II. 17–20; vi, p. 315, II. 6–7. For additional material on the atābak, see Abū al-Fidā ’, iv, p. 75, 1. 13. Sulūk, 1, p. 146Google Scholar, 1. 3; ii, p. 663, 1. 10. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 1Google Scholar, 1. 14; p. 54, II. 7–8; p. 124, 1. 15; p. 610, 1. 10; vi, p. 144, 11. 4–9; vii, p. 7, II. 1–3; p. 420, 1. 10. Manhal, 4, fol. 208b, 11. 19–23.Google Scholar Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 310, II. 4–5; p. 333, II. 9–10; iv, p. 8, II. 9–10; p. 485, 1. 7.

^{page 59 note 10} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 355.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 11} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 18.Google Scholar For amīr majlis, cf. Quatremère, vol. II, pt. i, p. 97. C.I.A., L'00C9;gypte, p. 274; p. 585. La Syrie, p. lvii. Heraldry, p. 69; p. 101, etc.

^{page 60 note 1} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 18.Google ScholarḤusn al-Muḥāญara, 2, p. 111.Google Scholar The amirs of the silāḥkāna were called az-zardkāshīya, and their chief was called az-zardkāsh al-kabīr (Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 18Google Scholar). of. p. 110, n. 6a.

^{page 60 note 2} This has already been dealt with in detail by Poliak, A. N. in Feudalism, p. 14Google Scholar, p. 15, p. 65, and in R.E.I., 1935, pp. 2/35–2/36. On the Yāsā, see p. 68 and n. 6 below.

^{page 60 note 3} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 19.Google Scholarḥusn al-Muḥāḍara, 2, p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 4} Ḥawādith, p. 504, 2. 7–9.Google Scholar It seems that judicial authority was at first vested in the ḥājib al-ḥujjāb exclusively, and that it was only.later conferred upon the ḥတjib thānī as well: Nujūm (P), 5, p. 5,Google Scholar 11. 18–21.

^{page 60 note 5} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 369Google Scholar, 11. 13–15; vii, p. 442, 11. 17–21. Ḍaw’, 3, p. 288Google Scholar, 1. 6.

^{page 60 note 6} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 308Google Scholar, 1. 7.

^{page 60 note 7} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 189Google Scholar, 1. 21. For ḥājib, cf. C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 567. La Syrie, pp. lviii–ix. Heraldry, p. 5; p. 18; p. 58; p. 97, p. 116; p. 135, etc. Feudalism, p. 14; p. 15; p. 65.

^{page 60 note 8} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 18Google Scholar; v, p. 455, 11. 10–15. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, pp. 162–3.

^{page 60 note 9} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 5Google Scholar, 1. 16. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 2, 1. 15. Toward the close of the Mamluk period, we find a ra's nawbat ‘uṣāt, an office whose nature is not clear (Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 450, 11. 1–2; p. 481, 1. 5).

^{page 61 note 1} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 295Google Scholar, 11. 7–8.

^{page 61 note 2} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 381, II. 22–3.

^{page 61 note 3} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 18.Google Scholar For ra's nawba, cf. Quatremère, vol. II, pt. i, p. 13. C.I.A., L'égypte, p. 241; p. 537. La Syrie, p. lvi. Z.D.M.G, 1935, p. 203.Google ScholarFeudalism, p. 38. Heraldry, p. 69; p. 84, n. 1; p. 91; p. 172, etc. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. 5, p. 36Google Scholar; vol. vi, p. lxiv.

^{page 61 note 4} The offices of wazīr, uātādār, muqaddam al-mamālik as-sulṭānīya, kātīb al-mamālīh, and qāḍī; al-‘askar are described here only in general outline since they were originally discussed in other chapters of the writer's work on the Mamluk army.

^{page 61 note 5} Sulūk, 1, p. 671.Google ScholarḤusn, 2, p. 168Google Scholar, 11. 1–2. Zetterstéen, p. 97, II. 1–19.

^{page 61 note 6} Ḥusn, 2, p. 169,Google Scholar11. 9–13.

^{page 61 note 7} Durar, 2, p. 252,Google Scholar 11. 11–12.

^{page 61 note 8} For the establishment and functions of the dīwān al-mufrad see Poliak, Feudalism, p. 4 and index; cf. also the office of the ustādār below.

^{page 61 note 9} cf. the office of ustādār below.

^{page 61 note 10} Khiṭaṭ, 2, pp. 222–3.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 11} Zubda, p. 97, II. 23–4. Nujūm (P), 7, pp. 801–2.Google ScholarḤawādith, pp.225, 1.21—226, 1.7. Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 200, 11.18–20.

^{page 61 note 12} cf. references in note 8.

^{page 62 note 1} Zubda, p. 107, 11. 15ߝ16. Ṣubḥ, 3, p. 457Google Scholar, 11. 2–7.

^{page 62 note 2} Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 300, 1. 7. Nujūm (P), 6, p. 577,Google Scholar II. 1–2. Ḥawādith, p. 232, II. 3–5.

^{page 62 note 3} Khiṭat, 2, p. 222.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 4} Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 533–4;Google Scholar vii, p. 216, II. 4–18; p. 520, 11. 14–16; Ḥawādith, p. 413, Ii. 15–16. In connexion with payments to the army the office of nāẓir al-khāṣ should be mentioned. His main duty was the distribution of clothes (kiswa) to the army (Ḥawādith, pp. 489–490, 491–2).

^{page 62 note 5} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 21Google Scholar, II. 4–6. cf. p. 110, n. 6a.

^{page 62 note 6} 1E62;ubḥ, 4, pp. 16–22.Google ScholarḤusn al-Muḥāญara, 2, p. 113,Google Scholar II. 19–22. One sometimes encounters the spelling dawāt dār (Abū al-Fidā ’, iv, p. 140, 1. 17) and a diminutive form duwaydār. In the latter, no diminutive or contemptuous connotation is intended; even the chief dawādār is called ad-duwaydār al-kabīr, without any belittling implication (Zetterstéen, p. 187, II. 2–3. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 363, 1. 21. Durar, 2, p. 230,Google Scholar 1. 7; iii, p. 109, 1. 30. Ḍaw’, 3, p. 10Google Scholar).

^{page 62 note 7} Nujūm (P), 4, p. 571,Google Scholar II. 17–19.

^{page 62 note 8} For example: Barsbāy (Ibn Iyās, II, p. 15, II. 8–27) and Ṭūmānbāy, the last Mamluk sultan.

^{page 62 note 9} Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 739–740.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} Ibn Iyās, II, p. 112, II. 26–7; (KM), iii, pp. 138–9; p. 191, II. 12–13; p. 196, II. 15–18; p. 274, II. 19–20; p. 400, II. 3–6; iv, p. 26, II. 4–5; p. 160, II. 5–7; p. 191, II. 12–15; p. 210, II 16–20; pp. 261, 1. 21—262, 1. 1; p. 264, II. 16–17; p. 280, II. 1–8; p. 298, II. 7–8; p. 388, II.17–19. Feudalism, pp. 45–6.

^{page 63 note 2} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 145, II. 3–6.

^{page 63 note 3} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 436, II. 8–11. In the last years of the Mamluk period, one finds an office called dawādār sakīn, with an apparently fairly large number of holders (Ibn Iyās [KM], iii, p. 429, II. 8–9; iv, p. 62, 1. 10; p. 133, 1. 3; p. 274, 1. 11; p. 304, II. 5–6; p. 301, 1. 19; p. 395, 1. 19; p. 485, 1. 21). The nature of this office is not clear. For interesting material on the amīr akhūr, see his letter of appointment in Ṣubḥ, 11, pp. 170–2.Google ScholarTa'rif, pp. 99–101. On the sultan's stables and the rikābkhāna, see Zubda, p. 124, II. 9–13; p. 125; p. 126, II. 1–8. cf. p. 110, n. 6a.

^{page 63 note 4} Ṣubḥ, 4, pp. 18–19.Google ScholarḤusn al-Muḥāḍara, 2, p. 113Google Scholar, II. 16–17.

^{page 63 note 5} Ibn Iyတs, II, p. 108, 1. 9; (KM) iii, p. 28, 1. 22.

^{page 63 note 6} Ḍaw’, 6, p. 236Google Scholar, 1. 6. For amīr akhūr, cf. Quatremere, vol. I, pt. i, p. 160. C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 301. La Syrie, p. lvii. Heraldry, p. 5; p. 25; p. 130; p. 172.

^{page 63 note 7} Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 147, 1. 9; p. 184, 1. 22.

^{page 63 note 8} Sulūk, 1, p. 133Google Scholar, 1. 4, 1.11. Nujūm (C), 6, p. 132Google Scholar, 1. 18. Ibn Kathīr, vi, p. 255, 1. 9.

^{page 63 note 9} Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍara, 2, pp. 111Google Scholar, 1. 25–112, 1. 1. Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 20Google Scholar, 11. 5–12.

^{page 64 note 1} Sulūk, 1, p. 359Google Scholar; cf. also p. 222, 1. 12; p. 134, 1. 16. Nujūm (C), 7, p. 37Google Scholar, II. 6–7. For developments and changes in the offices during the Mamluk period, see below.

^{page 64 note 2} Ḥawādith, p. 473, II. 3–10. For additional material on this office, see Sulūk, 2, p. 377Google Scholar, 1. 4. Nujūm (P), 7, p. 237Google Scholar, 1. 18. Ibn al-Furāt, viii, p. 156, 1. 23; p. 215, 1. 16; ix, p. 43, 1. 10; p. 48, 1. 4; p. 170, 1. 4; p. 406, 1. 19. Durar, 1, p. 387Google Scholar, 1. 18; p. 50, II. 19–20. Ṣubḥ, 3, p. 522.Google ScholarḌaw’ 3, p. 273Google Scholar, 1. 25. For jāndār and amīr jāndār, Quatrémere, cf., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 14.Google ScholarC.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 77; p. 78; p. 291; p. 390. La Syrie, p. lix; p. c. Heraldry, p. 58, p. 183.

^{page 64 note 3} Zetterstéen, p. 19, 1. 11. Abū al-Fidā ’, iv, p. 111, 1. 16. Sulūk, 1, p. 765Google Scholar, 1. 9. Ibn al-Furāt, viii, p. 132, II. 20–1. Ṣubḥ, 12, p. 453Google Scholar, 1. 14.

^{page 64 note 4} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 22Google Scholar; v, p. 456. Additional details in Ṣubḥ, 12, pp. 431Google Scholar, 1. 19–432, 1. 16; this is, however, written in flowery style, and the extent of its accuracy is difficult to gauge.

^{page 64 note 5} Ḥawādith, p. 29, II. 17–20; p. 519, II. 8–23. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 7, 1. 22.

^{page 64 note 6} Ḥaw–dith, p. 516, II. 10–11; p. 519, 11. 8–23. Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 124, 1. 19; p. 205, II. 18–25.

^{page 64 note 7} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 329, II. 1–5; iv, p. 13, II. 13–16.

^{page 64 note 8} Ibn Iyās, v, p. 15, II. 17–18.

^{page 64 note 9} Ibn al-Furāt, viii, p. 154.

^{page 64 note 10} Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 5, II. 18–21; p. 155, II. 16–17; pp. 365, 1. 26–366, 1. 3. For additional material on the naqīb al-jaysh, see Zetterstéen, p. 1, 1. 2; p. 24, II. 8–9; p. 43, II. 23–4; p. 57, 1. 16; pp. 168, 1. 23–169, 1. 1. Sulūk, 1, p. 800Google Scholar, 1. 4; p. 846, n. 2; p. 850, 1. 3; ii, p. 194, 1. 14; p. 199, 1. 11; p. 455, 1. 12; p. 480, 1. 15. Nujūm (P), 7, p. 195Google Scholar, 1. 3, 1. 7; p. 443, 1. 5; p. 448, 1. 3; p. 662, II. 4–7. Ḥawādith, p. 29, II. 17–20; p. 166, II. 1–6; p. 516, II. 10–11; p. 519, 1. 11. Ibn al-Furāt, viii, p. 54; ix, p. 17, 1. 22; p. 80, II. 10–11; p. 155, II. 9–11; p. 159, II. 9–10; p. 336, II. 2–3; pp. 365, 1. 26–366, 1. 3. Tibr, p. 183, 1. 3. Ibn Iyās, II, p. 69, II. 2–3; p. 23, II. 6–8; p. 150; p. 166, 1. 5; (KM), iii, p. 50, II. 4⤓6; iv, p. 13, II. 13–16; p. 124, 1. 19; p. 205, II. 18–21; p. 249, 1. 23; p. 256, 1. 6; p. 289, II. 14–16; p. 446, II. 14–15; p. 453, II. 19–21; v, p. 15, II. 17–18. Durar, 1, p. 81Google Scholar, 1. 4; ii, p. 176, 1. 16; p. 229, 1. 9. Khiṭaṭ, 1, p. 90Google Scholar, II. 18–19.

^{page 65 note 1} Ḥawādith, p. 456. cf. also Durar, 1, p. 425Google Scholar, 1. 16; ii, p. 197, 1. 20.

^{page 65 note 2} Manhal, 3, fol. 169b, II. 14–15.Google Scholar For naqīb al-juyūsh, cf. La Syrie, p. lxii. Heraldry, p. 50; p. 83; p. 213.

^{page 65 note 3} Durar, 1, pp. 350Google Scholar, 1. 20–351, 1. 1.

^{page 65 note 4} Sulūk, 2, p. 377Google Scholar, II. 1–2.

^{page 65 note 5} Zetterstéen, p. 150, II. 7–8; p. 178, II. 7–8; p. 188, II. 11–12; p. 195, II. 2–5.

^{page 65 note 6} Zetterstéen, p. 178, II. 7–8; p. 214, 11. 19–20. Nujūm (C), 8, p. 161Google Scholar, 1. 20; p. 204, II. 8–9. Sulūk, 1, p. 946Google Scholar, 1. 11; ii, p. 165, II. 1–2; p. 246, 1. 19; p. 353, 1. 17. Durar, 1, p. 430Google Scholar, II. 4–5; p. 498, II. 2–3; iii, p. 259, II. 6–7. Khiṭaṭ, 1, p. 250Google Scholar, 1. 15.

^{page 65 note 7} For a detailed description of this office and its bearer, cf. the author–s L'Esclavage du mamdouk, pp. 14–15.

^{page 65 note 8} Nujūm (P), 7, p. 218Google Scholar, II. 10–20. Ḥawādith, p. 113, II. 7–23. Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 291, II. 3–6; p. 307, II. 8–11; p. 353, II. 20–3; p. 413, II. 6–7; p. 416, II. 16–19; v, p. 19, II. 16–18; p. 78, II.5–8.

^{page 66 note 1} Khiṭaṭ, 2, p. 215Google Scholar, II. 24–6. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 32, II. 5–6. cf. also Feudalism, p. 26, and n. 1.

^{page 66 note 2} Ibn Iy–s, v, p. 58, 1. 15; p. 63, II. 1–4; pp. 199–200; p. 201, 1. 22; p. 205, 1. 10; p. 207, I. 20; p. 208, 1. 3, 1. 16; p. 217, 1. 4. cf. C.I.A., ‘ L'figypte’', p. 450. Wiet, G., Syria, 1926, p. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} This description of the dīwān al-jaysh is based on Poliak's Feudalism, pp. 20–1.

^{page 66 note 4} Ṣubḥ, 4, pp. 30–1Google Scholar; p. 33. On the mutawalli dīwān al-jaysh, see Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 74, 1. 23; (KM), iii, p. 129, 1. 17. On the kātib al–jaysh and the kuttāb al–jaysh, see Sulūk, 2, p. 433Google Scholar, 1. 13; p. 496, 1. 1. Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p.158, II. 11–18. On the mustawfi al-jaysh and the office of istifā’ al–jaysh, see Ḥawādith, p. 332, 1. 18. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 354, 1. 22; iv, p. 149, 1. 8; p. 181, II. 7–8. On ‘ āmil al-jaysh see Abū al-Fidā’', 4, p. 108Google Scholar, 1. 17. For nāẓir, ṣaḥib, and dīwān al–jaysh, cf. La Syrie, p. xxxiii; p. lxxii; p. lxxvi. Heraldry, p. 46; p. 121 f. Feudalism, p. 21; p. 30. C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 345. For mustawfi, Quatremére, cf., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 6} Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 32.Google Scholar cf. also Sulūk, 2, p. 438.Google ScholarNujūm (P), 5, p. 109Google Scholar, II. 9–10; p. 313. Ḥawādith, p. 189, II. 18–19.

^{page 67 note 1} For the muta'mmimūn, Quatremére, cf., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 245.Google ScholarC.I.A., L'Égypte, pp. 446–8.

^{page 67 note 2} Ṣubḥ, 11, p. 96Google Scholar, II. 5–12; pp. 204–7; xii, pp. 206, 1. 17–207, 1. 12; pp. 359–361. Ta'rif, pp. 123–4.

^{page 67 note 3} Ṣubḥ, 11, p. 204Google Scholar, II. 16–17.

^{page 67 note 4} See, for instance, Sulūk, 2, p. 391Google Scholar, 1. 16. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 533Google Scholar, 1. 3; p. 534, 1. 12; p. 537, 1. 14; p. 544, 1. 6; p. 545, II. 21–2; p. 549, 1. 6; vi, p. 29, II. 4–5; p. 30, II. 8–9; p. 168, 1. 7;p. 191, 1. 2; p. 195, II. 9–10; p. 232, 1. 22; p. 341, 1. 4; 1. 18; p. 378, 1. 19; p. 382, II. 17–18;p. 490, II. 9–11; vii, p. 545, 1. 2. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 132, 1. 6; p. 248, 1. 2; p. 249, 1. 9; p. 398, 1. 15. Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, fol. 59b, 1. 3. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 79, 1. 23; p. 338, 1. 2. Ḍaw’ 6, p. 202Google Scholar, II. 15–16. cf. also: C.I.A., L'Égypte, p. 221, p. 539.

^{page 67 note 5} Abū al-Fidā ’, iv, p. 25, 1. 25. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 63Google Scholar, 1. 4; vi, p. 151, II. 6–7; p. 205, 1. 6; p. 777, 1. 14. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 143, II. 23–4; p. 149, 1. 10; iv, p. 209, 1. 13. Ḍaw’ 3, p. 280Google Scholar, 1. 3; vi, p. 201, 1. 5; p. 227, 1. 28.

^{page 67 note 6} See pp. 63–64 and n. 1 on p. 64.

^{page 67 note 7} Sulūk, 1, p. 405Google Scholar, II. 8–12.

^{page 67 note 8} Sulūk, 1, 418Google Scholar, II. 8–11.

^{page 68 note 1} Sulūk, 1, p. 438Google Scholar, II. 3–9. Khiṭaṭ, 2, p. 301.Google Scholar When the Abbasid Caliph comes to Egypt and asks for Baybars’ help, the Mamluk sultan appoints the following office–holders in his service: khāzindar, dawādār, ustādar, wazīr (Sulūk, 1, pp. 452–9Google Scholar).

^{page 68 note 2} Sulūk, 1, p. 699Google Scholar, II. 4–11.

^{page 68 note 3} Zetterstéen, p. 24; p. 37; p. 43; p. 57; p. 81; p. 108; p. 130; p. 134.

^{page 68 note 4} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 349Google Scholar, II. 8–16. See similar list, pp. 367–8.

^{page 68 note 5} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), 7, p. 237Google Scholar; pp. 259–260; pp. 440–1. Ḥawādith, pp. 1–3; pp. 22–4; pp. 343–5; pp. 433–4; p. 544. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 218; p. 386; iv, p. 110; v, pp. 2–3; pp. 90–1.

^{page 68 note 6} Nujūm (C), 7, pp. 182–7.Google ScholarḤusn al-Muḥāḍara, 2, p. 113.Google Scholar The pages from an-Nujūm az–Zāhira cited above constitute the most important and most detailed testimony in all the published Mamluk literature on Baybars’ role in introducing the laws of the Yāsā into the kingdom. According to Ibn Taghrībirdī, yasaq is equivalent to tartīb. The origin of the word is si yāsā, a word composed of a Persian and a Mongolian element: si, in Persian ‘ three ’, and yāsā, in Mongolian ‘ tartib ’, and together, ‘ at-tarāttb ath-thalātha ’. This name emerged from Jinkiz Khān’s partition of his domains among his three sons, and his designating the yāsā as legal foundation for the three kingdoms (Nujūm (C), 7, pp. 182Google Scholar, I. 16–183, 1. 10). It is extremely doubtful whether this is the correct etymology, since Ibn Taghrībirdi himself elsewhere (Nujūm (C), 6, pp. 268–9Google Scholar) gives a different explanation of the term, and a third one in the biography of Jinkiz Khān in his al-Manhal aṣ-Ṣāfi.

^{page 69 note 1} Nujūm (C), 7, pp. 183–6.Google Scholar The creation of a new office, enterprise, or institution is referred to in the sources by the verb istajadda (Zetterstéen, p. 102, 1. 18; p. 160, II. 22–3.Nujūm (C), 6, p. 20Google Scholar, 1. 14; p. 180, II. 3–4; vii, p. 133, 1. 11. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 369Google Scholar, II. 15–20; p. 379, II. 11–13. Manhal, 3, fol. 64b, II. 14–15.Google ScholarSulūk, 1, p. 269Google Scholar, 1. 6. Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 94, 1. 1. Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 206, 1. 4. Ta’rif, p. 190, 1. 5). For the evolution and transformation of diverse Mamluk offices, see also Nujūm (P), 5, p. 311Google Scholar, II. 2–3; vi, pp. 26–7; p. 356, II. 6–12; vii, pp. 441, 1. 8–442, 1. 6; p. 442, II. 6–10, 11. 12–17; p. 443, II. 11–12. Ḥawādith, p. 282, 11. 1–2; p. 340, II. 7–10.

^{page 69 note 2} Zetterstéen, p. 128, II. 23–1; p. 210, 1. 19. An-Nahj as-Sadīd (in Patrologia Orientalis), . xx, p. 99, 1. 1. Sulūk, 2, p. 485Google Scholar, 1. 12; p. 497, n. 1; p. 522, II. 12–19. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 47.Google Scholar 1. 7;, p. 82, 1. 20; vi, p. 15, 1. 22; vii, p. 104, 1. 18, and notes. Manhal, 1, fol. 197a, II. 6–9.Google ScholarDurar, 1, p. 406Google Scholar, 1. 7; p. 483, II. 18–19; iv, p. 367, 1. 4. Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 54,Google Scholar 1. 16.

^{page 69 note 3} See the few references pertaining to the Circassian period in note 2 above, cf. also C.I.A., L’Égypte, p. 585. La Syrie, p. 54. Heraldry, p. 121 and n. 3.

^{page 70 note 1} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 221Google Scholar, II. 7–13; see also p. 191; p. 195; p. 209; p. 218; p. 222; p. 343; p. 364. Khiṭaṭ, 2, p. 399Google Scholar, 1. 23.

^{page 70 note 2} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 221Google Scholar; p. 230; pp. 294–5; p. 299; p. 309, II. 11–13; p. 324, II. 6–7; p. 344, 1. 20; p. 367, 1. 19; p. 456; p. 521, 1. 5; p. 546, II. 18–19; vi, p. 56; p. 201; p. 255 i p. 312. Manhal, 2, fol. 32a, II. 13–14Google Scholar; fol. 77a, II. 14–18. Ḍaw’, 2, p. 313Google Scholar, II. 15–16. Ibn Taghrībirdī’s explanation that aṭābak means ‘ amir–father’ while atābak means ‘ amirmother ’ is quite incomprehensible (Manhal, 2, fol. 42b, II. 6-14Google Scholar). cf. also Heraldry, p. 91; p. 123. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. 7, p. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 3} On the kharjīBya see Appendix B, p. 83 n. 7.

^{page 71 note 1} The difference between ‘ wulāt’ and ‘ wulāt al–aqālīm ’ is not clear.

^{page 71 note 2} Khiṭaṭ, 2, p. 217.Google Scholar Through what is clearly an accidental omission, the source mentions the iddiers and commanders of the ḥalqa but not the Royal Mamluks and their commanders; we JpSwi re-established the omitted words, rendered obvious by the context.

^{page 71 note 3} Khiṭaṭ, 2, p. 218Google Scholar, 1. 8.

^{page 71 note 4} Khitaṭ, 1, p. 95Google Scholar, 1. 11.

^{page 71 note 5} Khiṭaṭ, 1, p. 95Google Scholar, 1. 12.

^{page 72 note 1} Zubda, pp. 103, I. 22–106, 1. 8.

^{page 73 note 1} Geschichte des Osmanischen Seiches, 2nd ed., 1, p. 757.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} Ḥawādith, Glossary, art. ‘ qirnāṣ ’. Popper’s definition of the qarānīṣ is as follows: ‘ Those Mamluks of the sultan who have been long in service and are in line for promotion to the rank of amir ’. (Nujūm (P), vi, Glossary.) The second half of the definition is inaccurate, but this will be discussed below. The first half gives the original meaning of the term qarānīṣ but not the meaning which it later acquired and which, in our view, is much more frequently encountered in the sources. (See immediately below in the text.) In his Glossary to al–Ḥawādith (pp. xiix ff.) Popper mentions the later meaning (Li). M. Mostapha who, like von Hammer, writes qurṣān, alludes to it also (Z.D.M.G., 1935, p. 221Google Scholar). But no systematic description of the qarānīṣ, based on the bulk of the material supplied by the mamluk sources, has yet been attempted.

^{page 73 note 3} The plural is much more frequent than the sing, qirnāṣ.

^{page 73 note 4} The term qarānīṣ is found, in the published Mamluk sources, only in the Circassian period.

^{page 73 note 5} The writer’s elucidation of the term qarānīṣ is based solely on its use in Mamluk sources. Its etymology is unknown to him, and he can express no opinion as to whether the etymology suggested by Popper is accurate.

^{page 74 note 1} R.E.I., 1935, p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} The term Turks is synonymous here with Mamluks.

^{page 75 note 3} B.E.I., 1935, pp. 243–4.

^{page 75 note 1} Feudalism, p. 2. The references on which Poliak bases his description of the qarānīṣ have not been included in the passages quoted, in order to avoid confusion in the numbering of footnotes. All references of any importance are, however, dealt with below in our critique of his statements.

^{page 75 note 2} Feudalism, pp. 28–9.

^{page 75 note 3} Zubda, p. 115, ii. 18–19.

^{page 75 note 4} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), 7, p. 13Google Scholar, II. 10–20. Ibn Iyās, II, p. 169, II. 17–20; (KM), iii, p. 120, II. 11–14; p. 241, II. 7–10; iv, p. 60, 1. 11; p. 107, II. 11–20; p. 281, 1. 9, II. 12–13; p. 285, II. 17–20; p. 324, II. 14–15; p. 358, 1. 17; p. 359, II. 8–10; p. 427, II. 21–2; p. 428, II.14–22; pp. 443, 1. 21–441, 1. 2; p. 444, II. 18–20; p. 479, 1. 22; v, p. 12, II. 8–12; p. 23, II. 7–8, 1. 23; p. 28, II. 23–9; p. 43, II. 3–6. These are only scattered examples; see references in following notes.

^{page 75 note 5} See, for instance, Nujūm (P), 6, p. 16Google Scholar, II. 10–11; p. 768, II. 7–9; vii, p. 39, II. 15–17. Ḥawādith, p. 175, II. 10–12. cf. also Ibn Iy–s, iv, p. 383, II. 2–5, with p. 432, 1. 5; v, p. 43, II. 3–4.

^{page 75 note 6} See all notes in which the qarānīṣ are mentioned below, as well as n. 4 above.

^{page 76 note 1} For qarāniṣa as distinct from julbān, see Nujūm (P), 6, p. 768Google Scholar, II. 7–9; vii, p. 458, II. 1–2, Ḥawādith, pp. 4–5; pp. 250–1; pp. 334–6. Tibr, p. 41, II. 7–25. Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 231, II. 12–16; p. 258, II. 18–21; pp. 256, 1. 11–257, 1. 2; p. 286, n. 2; iv, p. 285, II. 17–20; p. 358. II. 16–23. For qarāniṣa as distinct from julbān and sayfīya, see Ibn Iyās, II, p. 169, II. 17–19; p. 120, II. 11–14; p. 241, II. 7–10; p. 312, n. 2; i, v, pp. 242, 1. 18–243, 1. 1. See also references in following notes, especially in the section dealing with the injustices suffered by the qarānīṣ in campaigns, payments, and allotment of fiefs.

^{page 76 note 2} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 768Google Scholar, II. 8–9.

^{page 76 note 3} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 769Google Scholar, II. 13–15.

^{page 76 note 4} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 286, n. 2.

^{page 76 note 5} Ibn Iyās, v, p. 27, II. 6–7.

^{page 76 note 6} Ibn Iyās, v, p. 43, II. 3–6.

^{page 76 note 7} The omission of the sayfīya’s name in the campaign of Marj Dābiq can be easily explained by the insignificance of this unit. It is hardly ever mentioned in any other campaign (note the interesting exception in connexion with the plague of 903, mentioned above). As for the participation of amirs’ mamluks in the campaign of DƑbiq, the source mentions them separately and gives the number of mamluks under the command of each important amir. The total of these was 944 (Ibn Iyās, v, pp. 42–3). See below, p. 77, n. 1, for participation of amirs’ mamluks in pay parades.

^{page 77 note 1} See below, on the curtailments of the pay of the qarānīṣ. The term ḥalqa is no longer frequent in the later Mamluk period, as already mentioned. The amirs’ mamluks received their pay from the amirs, not together with the Royal Mamluks and the awlād an–nās; it is, therefore, natural that they are not mentioned in pay parades.

^{page 77 note 2} Nujūm (P), 7, p. 450Google Scholar; p. 852, II. 13–16. Ḥaiādith, p. 678, II. 7–15; pp. 681, 1. 22– 682, 1. 3; p. 682, II. 12–14. Ibn Iyās, iii (KM), p. 20, II. 22–23; p. 21, II. 1–5, II. 4–9; p. 31, II. 13–17, p. 271, II. 12–14; p. 323, II. 3–5; iv, p. 22; p. 25, 11. 6–15; pp. 65–66.

^{page 77 note 3} Manhal, ii, fols. 192a, 1. 12—192b, 1. 3.

^{page 78 note 1} Manhal, 8, fol. 451a, II. 7–11.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 2} The same conclusion is to be reached from Nujūm (P), 7, pp. 13–25Google Scholar; cf. especially pp. 13, 1. 10—17, 1. 7. cf. also Popper, Glossary to Ḥawādith, p. Li. The splitting up of the julbān into factions, one of them allying itself with the qarānīṣ, as happened after the death of al-Ashraf Barsbāy, is a very rare phenomenon in the history of the Mamluk kingdom.

^{page 78 note 3} Ibn ‘Arabshāh, at-ta’lif aṭ-ṭāhir fi shiyam al-malik aẓ-ẓāhir al-qā’im bi-nuṣrat al-ḥaqq Abī Sa’īd Jaqmaq. Br. Mus. MS., Or. 3026, fol. 116a, II. 3–10.

^{page 78 note 4} Ibn Zunbul, pp. 13, 1. 24—14, 1. 2.

^{page 78 note 5} R.E.I., 1935, pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 6} ibid.

^{page 79 note 1} True, Poliak is of the opinion {R.E.I., 1935, pp. 243–4) that the unit spoken of by aẓ-ẓāhiri (Zubda, p. 115, II. 17–20) formed only part of the qarānīṣ. The words of the original, however, do not warrant the conclusion that this was the Mamluk historian’s meaning. Aẓ-Ẓāhirī mentions the qarānīṣ once throughout his work, viz. when he describes the general composition of the Mamluk army. It would be quite as justifiable to claim that the other units mentioned by aẓ-Ẓāhirī in the above description constituted part of larger units. There is, incidentally, an obvious contradiction between Poliak’s definition of the qarānīṣ in R.E.I., 1935, pp. 243–4Google Scholar, and that given by the same author in Feudalism, p. 2.

^{page 79 note 2} Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 12–18.Google Scholar cf. especially p. 12, II. 1–3, with pp. 15, II. 5–8; 16, II. 10–11; 17, II. 1–3; and with p. 18, II. 1–4.

^{page 79 note 3} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 324, II. 14–15.

^{page 79 note 4} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 383, II. 2–5.

^{page 79 note 5} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 448, II. 4–8; p. 453, II. 13–19; p. 479, II. 15–23; p. 480, II. 10–21; v, p. 23, II. l–8; pp. 28, 1. 23—29, 1. 2; p. 45, II. 15–22.

^{page 79 note 6} Ibn Iyās, v, pp. 28, 1. 23—29, 1. 2.

^{page 79 note 7} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 480, II. 10–21.

^{page 79 note 8} R.E.I., 1935, pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} See references already listed above, and also otKers below.

^{page 80 note 2} The wazīr was responsible, inter alia, for the distribution of meat to the Mamluks.

^{page 80 note 3} Ḥawādith, pp. 250, 1. 19—251, 1. 6.

^{page 80 note 4} Ḥawādith, Glossary, art. qarānīṣ, p. Li. The present writer recognized this distortion before the Glossary of Ḥawādith was made available to him. In a footnote on the same page of the quoted passage {Ḥawādith, p. 250), we find that according to another MS. of the above-mentioned source is to be inserted between ‘ a'nī’ and ‘ al-julbān ’, clearly a distortion of .

^{page 81 note 1} See L'Esclavage du mamdouk, pp. 31–4.

^{page 81 note 2} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 588Google Scholar, II. 1–3; vii, p. 392, II. 5–13. Durar, 2, p. 171Google Scholar, II. 6–8.

^{page 81 note 3} Nujūm (C), 8, p. 42Google Scholar, 1. 3. Ibn Kathīr, xvi, p. 40, 1. 27. Sulūk, 1, p. 867Google Scholar, II. 12–13; ii, p. 19, II. 4–5; p. 20, 1. 5. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 140Google Scholar, II. 16–22; p. 300, II. 9–10; pp. 355, 1. 21—356, 1. 7; p. 613, II. 4–6; vi, p. 543, II. 20–1. Mantel, 2, fol. 94b, II. 2–5Google Scholar; fol. 191a, 1. 1; iv, fol. 210b, II. 1–2. Ta'rilch Bayrūt, p. 54, 1. 1. Durar, 1, p. 515Google Scholar, II. 8–11. cf. also Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, under qadīm hijra.

^{page 81 note 4} Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 176, II. 8–10.

^{page 81 note 5} Zetterstéen, p. 222, II. 15–17.

^{page 81 note 6} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 543.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 7} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 349Google Scholar, II. 15–16.

^{page 81 note 8} Zubdat al-Fikra, fol. 98b, 2. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Nujūm (C), 9, p. 264Google Scholar, II. 3–6. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 140Google Scholar; p. 148, II. 16–22. Manhal, 1, fol. 6a, II. 9–13Google Scholar; fol. 94b, II. 2–5.

^{page 82 note 2} Manhal, v, fol. 50a, 1.3.

^{page 82 note 3} Nujūm (P), 5, p. 300Google Scholar, II. 9–10; p. 307, 1. 21; vi, p. 40, II. 11–12. Khiḍaḍ, 2, p. 308Google Scholar, II. 30–1; p. 309, II. 10–11; p. 310, II. 28–9.

^{page 82 note 4} Khiṭaṭ, 2, p. 200Google Scholar, II. 3–4; p. 209, II. 6–7. Ṣubḥ, 4, p. 44Google Scholar, II. 14–15; p. 54, II. 18–19. Ḍaw’ as-Ṣubḥ, p. 254, II. 21–2; p. 261, 1. 21.

^{page 82 note 5} Ibn al-Furāt, ix, p. 58, II. 14–15.

^{page 82 note 6} Tibr, p. 408, 1. 9.

^{page 82 note 7} Ṣubḥ, 14, p. 156Google Scholar, II. 7–8.

^{page 82 note 8} See some of the references given in n. 4 above.

^{page 82 note 9} Nujūm (P), 5, pp. 355Google Scholar, 1. 21—356, 1. 7.

^{page 82 note 10} For additional material on the term akābir al-umarā’, see Sulūk, 1, pp. 761–2Google Scholar; p. 788, 1. 14; II, p. 45, II. 20–1; pp. 313–314; p. 523, 1. 3. Abū al-Fidā, iv, p. 94, II. 25–6. Zetterstéen, p. 52, II. 12–16; p. 53, 1. 18; p. 147, 1. 5; p. 176, 1. 4; p. 177, II. 20–1; p. 182, II. 19–20; p. 213, II. 21–2; p. 220, 1. 4; p. 224, II. 7–9. Ibn Kathīr, viii, p. 293, II. 5–6. Nujūm (P), 5, p. 208Google Scholar, 1. 20; p. 209, 1. 5; p. 323, II. 10–12; p. 359, 1. 22; p. 360, 1. 7; p. 413, II. 1–5; p. 541, 1. 23; vi, p. 33, II. 6–7; p. 93, II. 11 if.; p. 166, 1. 8. Manhal, ii, fol. 18b, 1. 18. Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p. 96, 1. 22; p. 97, 1. 5, 1. 9; viii, p. 58, II. 17–18; p. 222, II. 13–14; ix, p. 277, II. 4–5. Ḍaw’ 2, p. 316Google Scholar, II. 14–15.

^{page 83 note 1} R.E.I., 1935, pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} Popper gives, in hia critique of Poliak (Ḥaw–dith, Glossary, p. L), a correct though partial explanation of the misunderstanding which arose in connexion with Ṭaṭar during the pass-out and liberation parade.

^{page 83 note 3} The text reads , but the correct reading is perhaps .

^{page 83 note 4} The correct reading is undoubtedly , as in the second copy of the manuscript of Nujūm, and not , as in the first. This can be inferred from the context of the very same line, as well as from the fact that it was customary to give the kuttābī his horse immediately upon liberation. (See Esclavage du mamelouk, p. 17.) The word ‘ khayr ’ is devoid of any meaning in the context.

^{page 83 note 5} Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 509–510.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 6} The elements of Islam and the arts of war were the two principal subjects taught to the young mamluk in the military school.

^{page 83 note 7} It should be noted that Mamluk sources often speak of al-umarā’ al-aṣāgḥir as opposed to al-umarā’ al-akābir or to al-umarā’ al-mashāyikh. While the latter are generally mamluks of former sultans, the first are mamluks of the ruling sultan, whose careers as amirs are but of recent date. The umarā’ al-aṣāghir are also called al-umarā’ al-khāṣṣakīya, because they were generally chosen from among the khāṣṣakīya of the preceding sultan (Nujūm (C), 7, pp. 265–7.Google ScholarNujūm (P), 5, p. 30Google Scholar, II. 3–5; vi, pp. 12 ff.; p. 35; p. 144, II. 7–9; p. 772, 1. 4; vii, p. 44, II. 4–5; p. 235, 1.10. Manhal, ii, fol. 9a, 1. 18; vii, fol. 35b, II. 4–5. Abū al-Fidā ’, vi, p. 11, II. 4–5. Ibn Kathlr, viii, p. 280; p. 290, II. 3–7. An-Nahj as-Sadīd (in Patrologia Orientalis), xiv, pp. 466, 1. 2— 467, 1. 1. Zetterstéen, p. 165, II. 17–18; p. 201, 1. 3; p. 203, 1. 12. Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p. 96, II. 6–17; p. 117, II. 9–10; pp. 140 ff.; viii, p. 169, II. 9–10; p. 171, 1.16; ix, p. 404, II. 11–17. Iyās, v, p. 126, II. 1–2. Khiṭaṭ, 1, p. 91Google Scholar, 1. 9; ii, p. 113, 1. 1. Ḍaw’, 7, p. 150Google Scholar, 1. 7). The sources also speak of umarā’ khāṣṣakīya as opposed to umarā’ kharjīya or barrānīya, and as superior to them in prestige. Much material has been gathered by the writer in this connexion (see, for example, Ṣulūk, 1, p. 686Google Scholar, II. 7–17 and the note; ii, p. 313, II. 9–10. Ibn al-Furāt, vii, p. 207, II. 5–6; ix, pp. 162, 1. 23—163, 1. 1; p. 163, 1. 6. Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 6–7.Google ScholarManhal, 8, fol. 437b, II. 7–10.Google ScholarKhiṭaṭ, II, P 200Google Scholar, II. 16–17; pp. 217–19; p. 305, 1. 26. Ṣubḥ, 3, p. 376Google Scholar, 1. 10; iv, p. 48( 1. 9; p. 56, II. 7–9. of. Glossary to Nujūm, vol. 5, pp. 17–18Google Scholar; vol. vi, p. xiii) but, since no conclusions have as yet been reached, treatment of the question has been omitted from this paper.

^{page 84 note 1} Al-Maqrīzī estimates that Ṭaṭar was brought to Egypt in 801, and completed his military schooling and received his liberation certificate in 808, that is, in the days of Sultan Faraj, the son of Barqūq. Ibn Taghrībirdiī on the other hand, claims that Ṭaṭar was already liberated under Barqūq, viz. in 801 at the latest, Barqūq having died in that year.

^{page 84 note 2} Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 510–511.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 3} Zubda, p. 115, II. 17–20.

^{page 84 note 4} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 60, II. 9–13.

^{page 84 note 5} See above, sections on the mamluks of former sultans and on mamluks of the ruling sultan.

^{page 85 note 1} After Barsbāy's death, the qarānīṣ still appeared as a force of considerable weight in the struggle against the mushtarawāt, and were even termed ‘ notables’ (a'yān) (Nujūm (P), 6, pp. 12 ff.Google ScholarManhal, ii, fols. 112a, 192a, 1. 12—192b, 1. 3; viii, fol. 451a, II. 7–11), but from then their resistance grew weaker.

^{page 85 note 2} Ḥawādith, p. 627, II. 6–8. Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 50, II. 6–18; pp. 50, 1. 15—51, 1. 27; pp. 67, I. 29—68, 1. 1; p. 92, II. 24–5; pp. 94, 1. 29—95, 1. 2; p. 195, II. 19–22; (KM), iii, p. 6, II. 6–7; p. 9, II. 14–15; p. II, 1. 5; p. 26, 11. 1–6; p. 152, II. 17–21; p. 153, II. 12–16; p. 154, II. 4–5, II. 17–20; p. 155, II. 7–8; p. 161, II. 20–3; iv, p. 19, II. 3–7.

^{page 85 note 3} Ibn Iyās, ii, p. 92, II. 4–5; (KM), iii, p. 6, II. 6–7. Ḍaw’, 3, p. 207Google Scholar, II. 6–9. Durar, 1, p. 477.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 4} Ibn Iyās, ii, pp. 67, 1. 29–68, 1. 1. Nujūm (P), 7, pp. 660Google Scholar, 1. 12—661, 1. 6.

^{page 85 note 5} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 383, II. 2–5.

^{page 85 note 6} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 700Google Scholar, 9–13.

^{page 85 note 7} Nujūm (P), 7, p. 677Google Scholar, II. 7–8; p. 678, II. 2–5.

^{page 86 note 1} Ibn Iyās, v, p. 67, II. 20–1; p. 68, II. 2–i; p. 70, II. 8–10. It is interesting to note that the historian here applies to the julbān the words of the Qur'ān concerning the hypocrites, al-munāfiqūn, at the battle of Uḥud. cf. also Ibn Iyās, ibid., p. 124, 1. 8, II. 13–15; p. 127, II. 15–16, and Ibn Zunbul, pp. 13, 1. 23—14, 1. 5; pp. 15, 1. 21—16, 1. 11.

^{page 86 note 2} cf., for instance, Nujūm (P), 7, p. 14Google Scholar, II. 1–4, II. 20–2; p. 411, II. 5–12. Ḥawādith, p. 171; p. 553, II. 10–13. Ibn Iyās, v, p. 22, II. 10–23; p. 23, II. 7–8.

^{page 86 note 3} Nujūm (P), 6, p. 641Google Scholar, 11. 2–5. cf. also errata on p. iii of same volume.

^{page 86 note 4} Ḥawādith, pp. 174, 1. 16—175, 1. 2; p. 175, II. 10–12.

^{page 86 note 5} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 231, 1. 12.

^{page 86 note 6} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 131, 1. 12.

^{page 86 note 7} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, pp. 256, 1. 11–257, 1.2.

^{page 86 note 8} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 258, II. 18–21.

^{page 86 note 9} Ibn Iyās (KM), iii, p. 312, n. 2; p. 313, n. 1. Most of the oppressive measures were, of course, taken against the new qarāniṣa, viz. yesterday's ajlāb, who had been displaced by the mamluks of the reigning sultan.

^{page 86 note 10} Ibn Iyās, iv, pp. 242, I. 18—243, 1. 3.

^{page 86 note 11} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 285, II. 17–20.

^{page 86 note 12} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 359, II. 8–10.

^{page 86 note 13} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 401, Ii. 14–23; p. 404, II 11–16.

^{page 86 note 14} Ibn Iyās, iv, pp. 430, 1. 22—31, 1. 17.

^{page 86 note 15} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 434, II. 9–14.

^{page 87 note 1} Soldiers of the ṭabaqa al-khāmisa were the arquebusiers of the Mamluk army and held a very inferior status.

^{page 87 note 2} Ibn Iyās, iv, pp. 443, 1. 21—44, 1. 3.

^{page 87 note 3} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 446, II. 2–4.

^{page 87 note 4} Ibn Iy–s, iv, p. 448, II. 4–8.

^{page 87 note 5} Ibn Iyās, v, p. 12, II. 9–12.

^{page 87 note 6} Ibn Iyās, v, p. 61, II. 8–15.

^{page 87 note 7} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 281, II. 8–13. It is important to note that it was sometimes required of the qarāniṣa to pay the badīl, the payment for exemption from military service, in the same manner as the awlād an-nās (Ibn Iyās, II, p. 232, II. 21–2; (KM), iii, p. 214, II. 21–2; pp. 256, 1. 11—257, 1. 2). Such treatment of the qarānīṣ is infrequent, it is true, but in connexion with the julbān it is totally unheard of. On account of their higher age, there were among the qarānīṣ a greaterproportion of men unfit for military service, and that is probably the reason why some of them were sometimes required to pay a sum of money instead of going forth to battle. This fact in no way contradicts the sources’ claim that the military competence of the qarānīṣ was higher than that of julbān.

^{page 87 note 8} From Manhal, 3, fol. 186a, II. 18–23Google Scholar (more correctly fol. 185b), on which Poliak bases his claim that the qarānīṣ had the right of priority to fiefs (Feudalism, p. 29 and n. 1), precisely the opposite is to be inferred. Ibn Taghrībirdi does not mention the qarānīṣ at all in that passage, hut he complains bitterly of the fact that the affairs of the kingdom were turned upside down and its good old usages were totally transformed, as may be seen from the preference of the Circassians over the other races, and of the ajlāb over the veteran mamluks. It was the ajlāb who received the larger fiefs, and it was this granting of precedence to the ṣaghīr over the kabīr which, in the historian's view, was one of the main causes of the decline of the Mamluk kingdom. (See my‘ The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom ’, J.A.O.8., 1949, p. 140Google Scholar). Poliak calls the qarānīṣ ‘ Caucasian nobility ’ or ‘ Caucasian noblemen ’ (Feudalism, p. 2; cf. also p. 29, top, with the references given in n. 1 and n. 2 on the same page).

^{page 88 note 1} Ḥawādith, pp. 334–6.

^{page 88 note 2} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 207, 11. 11–20.

^{page 88 note 3} Ibn Iyās, iv, p. 358, II. 16–23. Some of Poliak's secondary conclusions must also be contested. The arguments he adduces from Amir Khushqadam as-Sayfi and from the private soldier Lājīn bear no relation whatever to the qarānīs. If Khushqadam lacked prestige among the members of his own race in spite of his bravery (Manhal, 3, fol. 48a, II. 9–10Google Scholar), it was probably because he was a sayfī. Lājīn was admired by the Circassians, but not for being a qirnāṣ (cf.‘ The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom ’, J.A.O.S., 1949, pp. 143–4Google Scholar). As for the unpretentious dress worn by Sūdūn az-Zāhirī, according to the custom of the former qarānīṣ (‘alā qā‘idat as-salaf min al-qarānīṣ) (Manhal, 3, fol. 135b, II. 9–17Google Scholar), it simply teaches us that ‘ predecessor ’ or ‘ veteran ’ is synonymous with ‘ qirnāṣ ’ and that in Ibn Taghribirdi's opinion the Mamluks of former times were of modest bearing in comparison to his own contemporaries. The historians of the time clung tenaciously to the view that the Mamluks of bygone days in all respects excelled those of later times. The qarāniṣa mentioned by al-Jabartī (i, p. 412, 1. 31; ii, p. 150, 1. 30) in no way support Poliak's thesis.