^{page 123 note 1} Ibn al-Athīr writes the name Bādh, and suggests, on the authority of a Kurdish informant, that his name was Abu Shujā, and that Abu 'Abd Allah al-Ḥusain was his brother (vol. ix, 26). A brother, Abu'l-Fawāris al-ḥusain, is mentioned by Ibn al-Azraq as appointed by Bād in 374 Governor of Mayyāfāriqīn (fol. 121a). He predeceased Bād, being killed in battle against the troops of Bahā al-Daula, the Buwaihid, near Naṣībīn fol. 122a). The name Ḥārbukhti occurs again on fol. 122b. There was a Kurdish tribe called Bukhti in Diyār Bakr; see “Chéref Nàmeh,” Charmoy, F. B., St. Petersburg, 1868, vol. i, pt. 1, pp. 58 and 61 (No. 39)Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 2} Evidence of Bād's success is afforded by a letter written in the name of Ṣamṣām al-Daula in 375 a.h. to the Chief Ḥājib at Naṣībīn enjoining him to assist in withstanding Bād, and also to forward to the capital

presumably the document denning his rights and liabilities. The letter is one of a batch contained in the MS. Paris, 3,314 (at fol. 214a) which purport to be from the pen of Ibrāhīm al-Ṣābi. But at this date Ibrāhīm's political life was over, though he lived until 384 a.h.

^{page 124 note 1} Bād's dominions extended also into Diyār Rabī'a, as he held Naṣbīn, Jazīrat ibn 'Omar, and, later, Ṭūr 'Abdīn (fols. 121a–b).

^{page 124 note 3} The historian says that the rulera of Mayyāfāriqīn were in general benevolent, especially the Ḥamdānid Saif al-Daula. Only the Dailamites under 'Aḍud al-Daula and his successors were cruel, and this was the cause of their being massacred by the inhabitants in the time of Ṣamṣām al-Daula (fol. 120b).

^{page 125 note 1} His words are—

^{page 125 note 2} The phrase is—

Compare Dozy, Supp., sub .

^{page 125 note 3} Ibn Nubāta was one of the literary Court of Saif al-Daula. Discourses delivered by him between 348 and 353 a.h. are mentioned on fols. 114b and 115a, and he is described on fol. 113b as unapproachable in his art. On fol. 121a, in the notice of his death in 374, aged 39 years, it is stated that he claimed to have seen Ṣāliḥ b. al-Muthanna and Ṣāliḥ b. abi'l-Ḥujja, and that he handed down traditions from the latter. Ibn al-Azraq adds that the interval between Ibn Nubāta's birth (335 a.h.) and the entrance of al-Ḥujja (the twelfth Imam who disappeared) into the cistern was 60 years on the assumption that that event occurred in 275, but that some put it in 262, which would make the interval between the two events 73 years. Ibn Khallikān, in his life of Ibn Nubāta (Sl. Eng., ii, 110), quotes Ibn al-Azraq's history for the dates of his birth and death, and again in his life of Muḥammad al-Ḥujja (ib., p. 581) for the alternative dates of his birth and disappearance. The latter passage occurs in Or. 5,803, 103b, with some curious traditions relating to al-Ḥujja. For Ibn Nubāta, see Brockelm., Gesch. Arab. Lit., i, 92. The family was of great importance at Mayyāfāriqīn, and members of it are frequently mentioned in the MS. as holders of office there.

^{page 126 note 1} Ibn Shaddād makes this episode, in error, to be part of the murder of the Dailamite garrison at Mayyāfāriqīn under Ṣamṣām al-Daula, and the person killed to be Abu 'Ali al-Ḥasan b. 'Ali al-Tamīmi, appointed governor in 369 by 'Aḍud al-Daula. And he makes the accession of Mumahhid al-Daula the consequence of Abu 'Ali's expulsion of the inhabitants of Mayyāfāriqīn (fols. 80a and 81b of Bodl. Marsh 333, as to which see J.R.A.S., 1902, p. 786, n. 2).

^{page 127 note 1} By the probable omission of some words in Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 51) it is made to appear that the Khuṭba and Sikka were the only rights retained by the Amīr in Mayyāfāriqīn.

^{page 127 note 2} The words are—

^{page 127 note 3} Ἁli b. Muḥhammad al-Tihāmi, died 416. See his life by Ibn Khallikān (Sl. Eng., ii, 316) and Brock., Gesch. Arab. Lit., i, 92.

^{page 127 note 4} (op. cit., 65b).

^{page 128 note 1} Ibn Shaddād (op. cit., 81a) quotes this statement, and adds that, according to Ibn al-Athīr, he had ruled twenty-three years, but this does not appear in Tornberg's edition, where the only mention of Ibn Damna occurs vol. ix, p. 52.

^{page 128 note 2} A contemporary Baghdad historian, Hilāl al-Ṣābi, mentions Mayyāfāriqīn under 392 a.h. (B.M. Add. 19,360, 100a). 'Amīd al-Juyūsh being then engaged in repressing the chronic rioting of the hostile sects, an Alide ringleader fled to Mayyāfāriqīn. Anyone murdering him was promised 100 dinars, guaranteed by the sum being paid down to a trader at Baghdād, and by a bill drawn on him for the amount, , being sent off to Mayyāfāriqīn. But news came of the Alide's death, whereupon 'Amīd al-Juyūsh laughingly said that, as they had gained their object gratis, the sum would serve to rid them of some other evildoer. Of the score of lines which Sibṭ b. al-Jauzi, in the Mir'āt al-Zamān, devotes to the year 392 (B.M. Or. 4,619, 192b), four are given to this incident, so it may fittingly find place here. It shows that regular business relations existed between the capital and the frontier city.

^{page 129 note 1}

^{page 132 note 1} The bridge is mentioned only in Or. 6,310, 42b—the earlier version of Ibn al-Azraq's history.

^{page 132 note 2} The MS. Or. 5,803 puts his death in 410 a.h. (last line of fol. 134b), but this must be an error for 415 a.h., for in Or. 6,310, 42b, the event is made to happen on the return of the Amīr from his journey to take possession of Amid.

^{page 133 note 1} Three generations of the Maghribi family attained the rank of vizier. The grandfather, Abu'l-Qāsim al-Ḥusain, is mentioned (fol. 116a) as assisting in 355 to negotiate a trace between Saif al-Daula and the Greeks, “with whom he was then residing.” Why he was there is explained by Ibn al-Adīm in the Zubdat al-Ḥalab (Paris, 1,666, 38b), namely, that in 354, when Saif al-Daula ransomed and continued to serve his successor, Sa'd al-Daula (ib., 46a). He next served the Fatimide al-'Azīz, but for how long a time is uncertain, for Ibn al-Azraq has told us (fol. 121a) that in 377 he was in command of troops sent by Ṣamṣām al-Daula against Bād, and he now says (134b) that be served al-Ḥākim, whose reign began only in 386. And his further statement that, whilst his post in Egypt was filled by his son Abu'l-Qāsim, he served first Qirwāsh and then, during ten months, the Buwaihid Sharaf al-Daula, is true, not of him, but of his son; see Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 233–5), who dates the Buwaihid service in 414 a.h. The account in Or. 6,310, 43a, is equally confusing. Again, both Ibn al-Athīr (loc. cit.), Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (B.M. Or. 4,619, 216a), and Ibn Khallikān (SI. Eng., i, 450) say that Abu'l-Qāsim's father was put to death by al-Ḥākim, and on this De Slane refers us to De Sacy's “Exposé de la religion des Druzes,” i, cccl. But the father is not there mentioned among those put to death, and he is mentioned (ib., p. ccxcix) as in the service of al-'Azīz as late as 384, i.e. after the campaign against Bād.

^{page 133 note 2} Ibn al-Athīr's story (loc. cit.) is that on their arrest Sulaimān pleaded poverty in answer to Qirwāsh's demand of money, and was therefore put to death; and that al-Maghribi fraudulently evaded payment and got away, and he quotes some poetry on the subject. His estimate of the vizier's character is unfavourable.

^{page 134 note 1} By Ibn Shaddād (op. cit., 88a) the_vizier is credited with a bequest of books to the Mosques of Mayyāfāriqīn and Āmid, but this is probably an error on his part, for in both the MSS. (Or. 5,803, 134b–135a, and Or. 6,310, 44a) the bequest is attributed to Al - Shaikh Abu Nasr al - Manāzi (Aḥhmad b. Yūsuf al-Sulaiki), a learned and accomplished state secretary who was employed on missions to Constantinople. His life is given by Ibn Khallikān (SI. Eng., i, 126), where the story of the bequest seems to be copied from this history.

^{page 134 note 2} All the later historians, excepting Ibn Shaddād (loc. cit.), put his death in 418 a.h. Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Or. 4,619, 217a) and Ibn Khallikān (SI. Eng., i, 454) give the alternative date, 428, the latter saying that 418 was the more correct. This is not the view of Ibn al-Azraq, for in Or. 6,310, 46b, he deals expressly with the point, saying that he had come across many works which gave 428, and a single work which gave 418, which was an error on the scribe's part, inasmuch as from the year 420 to about 425 or 426 it was beyond doubt that the vizier was in Mayyāfāriqīn. This passage does not appear in Or. 5,803, but the date 428 is repeated therein more than once. And it is rendered probable by other dates. According to Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 236) the vizier entered the service of Naṭr al-Daula in 415, which was the year of the death of Abu'l-Qāsim, whom he succeeded. According to both Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506, 78b) and Dhahabi (B.M. Or. 50, 44b) he served two terms of office, for which three years scarcely suffice. His successor, Ibn Jahīr, was appointed only in 430 a.h. (Or. 5,803,. 137b), and although there was an interval, the office can scarcely have remained vacant for so long a space as twelve years.

^{page 134 note 3} The vizier's scheme is related by Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 255), who probably derived the story from the “Muntaẓam” of Ibn al-Jauzi, for Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi relates the same in the Mir'āt al-Zamān (Or. 4,619, 216b) on that authority, and in similar terms, and then gives the story of the purse on the authority of the; “History of Mayyāfāriqīn.”

^{page 135 note 1} , the Persian See Dozy, Supp., sub

^{page 135 note 2} The MS. mentions al-Tihāmi (supra, p. 127, n. 3), Abu'1-Riḍa b. al-Ṭarīf, Ibn al-Sūdāwi, and Ibn al-Ghaḍiri (the earlier version, 45b, has Ibn al-Maḍīri). Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 52) mentions also Abu 'Abd Allah al-Kāzarūni, through whom the Shafeite doctrine was spread throughout Diyār Bakr. (Muḥammad b. Bayān b. Muḥammad, died 455 a.h., see Dhahabi, Ta'rīkh al-Islam, B.M. Or. 50, 53b.)

^{page 136 note 1} Near Malaḍīyya (Yāqūt, ii, 423).

^{page 137 note 1} The words are (Or. 5,803, 138a, corrected by Or. 6,310, 49b); These terms imply a vizier ‘of delegation’ as distinct from the more restricted vizier ‘of execution.’ See “Al-Aḥkam al-Sulḍāniyya” by al-Māwardi, transl. Ostrorog, Paris, 1901, i, 197.

^{page 137 note 2} Ibn al-Athīr (x, 121) makes this happen later. He says that Ibn Jahīr was in the service of a concubine of Qirwāsh, and that after the latter's deposition (i.e. in 442) his brother Baraka employed him as envoy to the Greeks, when he successfully claimed precedence over the Marwānid envoy; that later he fled to avoid arrest, and entered the service of the Mirdāsid ruler of Ḥalab; that from there he went to Malaṭīyya, and then entered the Amīr's service. Ibn al-'Adīm (op. cit., 73b) says that he came to Ḥalab as vizier in 445, and that in 446 he resigned and entered the Amīr's service. Dhahabi, in the Ta'rīkh al-Islām, Or. 50, 188a, puts the event in 440, “towards the close of the Amir's reign,” on the authority of a quotation by Ibn al-Najjār from the History of Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Malik al-Hamadhāni, who died in 521, i.e. thirty-eight years after Ibn Jahīr.

^{page 137 note 3} Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi says of the Amīr (Paris, 1,506, 78b) that he was in the habit of warding off hostile attacks by money payments. See also Ibn al-Athīr, ix, 411 and 433.

^{page 138 note 1} The tribe was attacked by Saif al - Daula the Ḥamdānid in 328 a.h. (J.R.A.S., 1902, p. 797). The Amīr Abu ‘Ali was married to a daughter of Sankhārīb, their ruler (fol. 125a), who is probably the Sénékérim-Iohannes of the Armenian house of Ardzrouni; see Collect. d'Hist. Arméniens by M. Brosset, St. Petersburg, 1874, vol. i, p. 248. Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 306), in relating how Nāṣr al - Daula had to check the tribe's attacks on the pilgrims from Ādharbījān, says they were Armenians who lived in the neighbourhood of Akhlāṭ, and that they held their strongholds under treaty until 580 a.h., after which they fell gradually to the Moslems. The tribe were evidently regarded as dangerous neighbours (see post, p. 149), and under al-Ruzbaki, the Saljuq governor at Mayyāfāriqīn, 509–512 a.h., whose weak rule led to the appointment of Īl Ghāzi, the first of the Ortoqid dynasty, the tribe was said to have annexed as many as thirty villages in the neighbourhood of ‘Ādiljiwāz (fol. 160a).

^{page 139 note 1} Ibn Shaddād (op. oit., 85b)makes the broker son of the victim of the unjust fine. Ibn al-Azraq's narrative does not confirm this; but, if true, the man's evident expectation of being deprived of his gain may have been based rather on family experience than on general usage.

^{page 139 note 2} This Faḍlūn is mentioned as Amīr of Janzah (Gandza) under the Bagratid Gagīc, who reigned 989–1020 a.d. (Brosset, , “Histoire de la Géorgie,” i, 299Google Scholar, who gives a pedigree of the family taken from Fraehn, ib., p. 344). In 496 A.H. Manūchihr, brother of Faḍlūn al-Raw$adi, was ruler of Āna (Ibn al-Athīr, x, 247a), and a later Faḍlūn is connected with the grandfather of Saladin. On fol. 181b, in reference to the revolt of the priests at Āna in 550 a.h., when Faḍlūn was substituted as Amīr for his brother Shaddād—an event mentioned also by Ibn al-Athīr, xi, 133—we are told that the latter went to Syria and joined Saladin's uncle, Asad al-Dīn Shīrkūh, whose father, Shādhi, had been a retainer of Faḍlūn's family, which had been long established in the district under the name of Bait ibn abi'l-Asāwir b. Manūchihr as owners of Arrān, Janzah, and its neighbourhood. Later, Shaddād took service under the Ortoqid Najm al-Dīn Īl Ghāzi of Māridīn, who granted him the castle which Naṣr al-Daula had built on the Sunāsuna frontier. Ibn al-Azraq says that when on his way to Tiflīs in 548 he met him at Mayyāfāriqīn and at Āna.

^{page 140 note 1} The historian records a presentment on the part of a sister of Saif al-Daula, who, surveying the Maidān with some 20,000 horsemen thereon from one of the city towers, exclaimed that it might Well happen that the race of Ḥamdān would pass away:

And within sixty or seventy years there was not one of the race remaining (fol. 116b). A prediction of misfortune to come was also made to the Amīr's successor, see infra, p. 145, n. 2.

^{page 141 note 1} I can find no mention of this son in the MSS.

^{page 141 note 2} In Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 372) the name is written , and in one MS. . An account of this Saljuq invasion of Armenia under Ibrāhīm in 1048 a.d. will be found in Brosset's, “Histoire de la Géorgie,” vol. i, add. pp. 222–226Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 3} Died 384 a.h. (Brock., Gesch. Arab. Lit., i, 155, and Ibn Khallikān, Sl. Eng., ii, 564). There is a MS. of this work in Paris, No. 3,482, but I was unable to find this story therein.

^{page 142 note 1} The story of Ibycus is told by Ælian in his “Various History,” where the birds appealed to are said to have been crows. See Encycl. Metrop., 1845, Hist, and Biogr., i, 260. There is also a Persian version (see the forty-sixth story in the Kitāb-i-Sad Ḥikāyāt, Bombay, 1881), where the victim is a Ḥākim named Inkash (qy. Ibkush, i.e. Ibykus) under Firdaus, king of Greece, and the birds are vultures.

^{page 142 note 2} What follows of the story has got transposed in Or. 5,803 to fol. 145a. It should follow on here, as it does in Or. 6,310, 59b.

^{page 143 note 1} The episode breaks off here in Or. 1,583, 145b; the continuation is supplied from the earlier version, fols. 60a–b5, and from Bodl. Marsh 333, 90a.

^{page 143 note 2} Sa'īd died in 455 (Ibn al-Athīr, x, 19). Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506, 89B) says that on his death the people at Amid wished his infant son to succeed, and the Qādi Ibn al-Baghl (who had lately ceased to be Qāḍi of Mayyāfāriqīn, Or. 5,803, 143b) sought the aid of the Ghuzz against the Amīr. But the latter gained the day by offering marriage to the infant's mother, and the Qāḍi was arrested and fined.

^{page 143 note 3} All the other accounts describe Ibn Jahīr's promotion as due to his own efforts, and his departure as effected by stealth, and in concert with the Caliph's envoy, whom he affected to be speeding homewards: see Bundari's Abridgment of 'Imād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahāni, ed. Houtsma, ii, 24; Ibn al-Athīr, x, 14; Ibn Khallikān, Sl. Eng., iii, 280; and Dhahabi, Or. 50, 188a-b. Their accounts are possibly all derived from al-Hamadhani's history (see note ante, p. 137, n. 2). Dhahabi suggests that his departure was brought about by hostility between the Amīr and his brothers Sa'Id and Abu'l-Fawāris. As to the latter, the MS. mentions no brother of this name. One, named Ibrāhīm, had a son named Abu'l-Fawāris (fol. 155b).

^{page 143 note 4} This must be an error, as Tughril Beg died in 455, but the MS. gives 459 as the date of his death (144a). The dates of the Saljuq Sultans as given by Ibn al-Azraq often differ from those given elsewhere, as is pointed out more than once by Ibn Khallikān. Moreover, in Or. 5,803, the attack by Sallār is inserted before the death of Abu'1-Faḍl al-Anbāri, whereas in Or. 6,310, 61b, it is made to occur when his son Abu Ṭāhir was already vizier.

^{page 144 note 1} This incident anticipates the story of Mazeppa.

^{page 144 note 2} In Or. 5,803, 144b, Sa'īd is made to accompany the Sultan, who hesitates to give effect to his vizier's promises because of his word given to Sa'īd. The vizier said that if the Sultan would go out hunting he would arrange matters. Sa'īd was arrested, and on his resisting was bound with a chain and carried on a mule to al-Hattākh. As above stated, the narrative of Sa'īd's death follows later, and is not brought to a conclusion. The MS. adds that the Amir was in great straits for money until supplied by his sister Zubaida. Sibt ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506, 126b) mentions the Amīr's fear at the Sultan's arrival, and his gifts which he had wrung from his subjects, and which the Sultan returned, saying “he did not want the peasants' money.” See also Ibn al-Athīr, x, 43. Dhahabi, in the Ta'rīkh al-Islām (B.M. Or. 50, 98a), mentions the Sultan's visit in 463, and the Amīr's gift of 100,000 dinars, on the authority of a certain “'Abd al- Wāḥid b. al-Ḥuṣain” (sic).

^{page 145 note 1} The following anecdote I have not met elsewhere. Ibn Mahlabān, who had come as envoy from the Sultan, being asked by the Greek Emperor which was the pleasanter of Iṣfahān or Hamadhān, answered the former, as Hamadhān was very cold. Then, said the Emperor, we shall winter ourselves at Isfahān and our beasts at Hamadhān. The envoy replied that the beasts would indeed do this, but as for them he felt less certain. The mission of Ibn Mahlabān is mentioned by Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506, 129b). He says the Emperor had distributed among the patricians, in anticipation of victory, fiefs situate in Egypt, Syria, Khurāsān, and 'Irāq, reserving Baghdād for himself, and that he meant to pass the Winter in 'Irāq and the Summer in 'Ajam. His account of the battle is very full, covering four folios, and is based in part on the history of Abu Ya'la ibn al- Qalānisi (al-'Amīd Hamza b. Asad), author of a continuation of the history of Damascus, of which an imperfect copy at Oxford—Bodl. Hunt. 125—covering 362–555 a.h., gives a brief account of the battle, and also of a General History in continuation of that by Hilal al-Ṣābi, i.e. from 447 a.h. onwards (see Ibn Khallikān, SI. Eng., iv, 484).

^{page 145 note 2} This astrologer, Ibn ‘Ayshūn, was ten years in the Amīr's service. One moonlight night, as they were admiring the prospect of the city and its gardens, he predicted that after the Marwānid dynasty had passed away it would be desolate and oppressed for over eighty years; and this happened, for it was taken by the Turks, passed from one governor to another, and was greatly oppressed. To this day, says the historian (572 a.h.), it is not what it was under Nizām al-Dīn (fols. 147a-b).

^{page 146 note 1} On Ms way Ortoq had attacked the Oqailid Muslim (whose aid Nāṣir al-Daula had purchased by the cession of Āmid), and had defeated his Arab force near that town (Ibn al-Athīr, x, 86). Two passages in Or. 5,803 (fol. 145, 466 a.h., and 146b, 472 a.h.) seem to refer to this event, hut the Oqailid is there wrongly called Qirwāsh. Muslim's defeat is mentioned by Ibn al-'Adīm (Paris, 1,666, 106a) and by Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506, 183b), who says that Ibn Jahīr and Ortoq quarrelled over the latter's treatment of Muslim; as to which see also Ibn al-Athīr, loc, cit.

^{page 147 note 1} The letter also urged on the Amīr not to give up to Diyār Rabī'a the fortress of (Or. 6,310, 69b, ), which Nasr al-Daula had always refused to give up to Qirwāsh, saying it was the bar between Diyar Bakr and Diyār Rabī'a. It were preferable to surrender the fortress of Bālūsa, which lay on their boundary at the head of the Hirmās river (which flowed past Naṣībīn). These two fortresses do not seem to be noticed by the Arab geographers.

^{page 147 note 2} This name is variously spelt in the two MSS., and in Bodl. Marsh 333, but Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506,189a) calls him Sa'd al-Daula, and he is therefore probably identical with Kūharā'īn, the officer whose slave captured the Emperor in the victory of 463 (Ibn al-Athīr, x, 44) and who died in 493 (ib., 200). This spelling of the name is confirmed by the fine fourteenth-century MS. of Saljuq history, the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, B.M. Stowe Or. 7, fol. 30a, and by Bundāri, op. cit.

^{page 147 note 3} Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi (Paris, 1,506, 188b) attributes the surrender of Āmid to the Christians having forced up the price of grain during the siege, whereupon the Moslems rose and admitted the besiegers. As regards Mayyāfāriqīn (ib., 189a), he says that the siege dragged owing to a certain chamberlain, who was with Ibn Jahīr as resident agent (Shiḥna) of the district, taking bribes from the inhabitants. On his death this was discovered, whereupon the besiegers attacked resolutely and the place fell.

^{page 147 note 4} In 489 Jabuq was in the service of Tutush, who compelled his sister to surrender Abu Ṭāhir al-Anbāri, who had fled to Khartapirt, by threatening to kill her brother (fol. 153a). Jabuq must have died before 500, for in that year his son Muḥhammad is called by Ibn al-Athīr the owner of the town. He says that it belonged to a Greek named Apollidoras , who after the invasion of Ibn Jahīr was unable to hold it, and it was taken by Jabuq. And he tells a story how Jabuq and the Greek lord of a neighbouring stronghold aided each other in highway robbery. This begat mutual confidence, and Jabuq sent to ask some of his friend's men to meet him; these he bound and conveyed to the stronghold, where he threatened to kill them unless it and its master were surrendered to him. Those within yielded and opened the gates. Jabuq then flayed his friend and seized his goods (x, 296). Jabuq's successors were deprived of Khartapirt by Nūr al-Daula Būlak b. Bahrām b. Ortoq, who held it against the Franks' attack in 517 a.h. (ib., p. 433). He was ousted by his cousin Shams al-Daula Sulaimān b. Īl Ghāzi during his rule at Mayyāfāriqīn, 516–518 a.h., and on his death it passed to the Ortoqid Da'ūd Ḥuṣn Kayfā. In Ibn al-Azraq's time it was still the abode of many of Jabuq's descendants (Or. 5,803, 162b and 177a).

^{page 149 note 1} See note ante, p. 136.

^{page 149 note 2} In 479 (Ibn al-Athīr, x, 105).

^{page 149 note 3} . This third form is not given in the dictionaries.

^{page 149 note 4} See J.R.A.S., 1902, p. 792, n. 1, where the date 580 should be read 480.

^{page 150 note 1} I take this to mean “he procured them means of livelihood and industries.”

^{page 150 note 2} It would be interesting to know, not so much whether this was in fact so, but whether it was regarded as probable, and whether in the unchangeable East it would still be so regarded. A late Viceroy of India was preceded in that office, at a generation's interval, by his father. And a friend in practice at the Madras Bar has told me that the people there readily explained the presence of the German Emperor at the funeral of Her late Majesty for reasons based on the descent, amongst themselves, of property through the female line, equally with the male.

^{page 151 note 1} The historian says he saw him at Baghdād in 534, and that he was tall and dark-complexioned with a thin heard, and showed signs of age.

^{page 152 note 1} The words are (fol. 152b):

Sukman al-Quṭbi, of Akhlāt, also remitted taxes when he acquired Mayyāfāriqīn in 502 a.h. The terms used are similar, with the addition (fol. 158b):

Or. 6,310 has (fol. 97b) . And the Ortoqid Najm al-Dīn Īl Ghāzi acted likewise in 512 a.h. (fol. 161a):

i.e. the quartering of troops, in Or. 6,310, fol. 101b, .

^{page 152 note 2} The first of the line of Atābegs of Damascus; died in 522 (Ibn al-Athīr, x, 459).

^{page 152 note 3} In Or. 6,310, 95b, which is followed by Ibn Shaddād (op. cit., 121b), Āmid is said to have passed, on the death of Tutush, to the Amīr Ṣādar, then to his brother Yanāl, then to Fakhr al-Daula Ibrāhīm, then to his son Sa'd al-Daula Īldari (died 536), and then to his son Jamāl al-Dīn Maḥmūd, who was still reigning in 560 a.h., the date of the work. Ibn al-Athīr (x, 296) says that Āmid was granted to Ibrāhīm by Tutush when he seized Diyār Bakr.

^{page 153 note 1} Whilst giving due weight to this phenomenon, it is permissible to remember that it was by the advice of this vizier, Ibn al-Anbāri, that Niẓām al-Dīn entrapped his enemy, at the cost of the life of his brothers who had gone hostage for his word. See ante, p. 144.

^{page 153 note 2} See “Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate,” by Strange, G. Le, p. 160Google Scholar.

^{page 153 note 3} In the text Tutush is reported as saying to his prisoners: “I have done you no injury: I had Damascus, and you two had al-Ruhā and Ḥalab.” In Ibn al-Athīr, as also in the biography of Āq Sunqur given by Ibn al-'Adīm in the Bughyat al-Talab (Recueil Hist. Crois. Or., iii, 709), the dialogue is between Tutush and Āq Sunqur only; the latter admits he would if victorious have killed his adversary, and is told that he has pronounced his own doom. And Tutush is said to have been killed by a mamlūk of Āq Sunqur (see vol. x, 151, 157, 166–7).

^{page 154 note 1} Ibn al-Athīr says that he had been seized by Jaqarmish, the ruler of Jazīra ibn 'Omar, and that he died there in the house of a Jew. He says, too, that Manṣūr was noted for his avarice (vol. x, 174).

^{page 154 note 2} Ibn al-Athīr mentions a son of his as accompanying the Turkoman Mūsa from ḤHuṣn Kayfā to Mosul in 495 (vol. x, 235).

^{page 154 note 3} One of them, Ahmad b. Niẓām al-Dīn, was, he says, skilled in horses, and the composer of well-known Maqāmāt. Whilst serving the Sultan Muḥammad at Mosul he fell a prisoner to the Pranks. During his captivity he had a son born to him, Muḥammad al-Afrangi. On regaining his liberty he became ruler of Ṭanzah, and later of al-Hattākh, which he seized during the weak government of al-Ruzbaki at Mayyāfāriqīn, 516–518 a.h. (fol. 160a), and had other sons born to him. One day arrived his son Muhammad with a token of identity which his mother had given him, on attaining manhood, telling him who his father was. Later, an outburst of anger on the part of Ahmad caused Muḥhammad to wander away outside the place, and he was no more heard of. He had two sons who in the author's time were in the service of the Ortoqid ruler of Māridīn. Of Aḥhmad's other sons, Bahrām, in 528, managed to oust his father, who then went and took service under Ḥusām al-Dīn Timurtāsh, the Ortoqid ruler of Māridīn. In 529 Bahrām was supplanted by a brother, 'Isa, whereupon Aḥmad claimed to have al-Hattākh restored to himself, and on 'Īsa refusing, he made it over to Ḥusām al-Dīn, who, in 530, attacked and took it. 'Īsa removed to Āmid and entered the service of the Ortoqid of Ḥuṣn Kayfā, where he was still living in 572 (fols. 154b–155a). The capture of al-Hattākh is recorded also on fol. 168a, under 530. Ibn al-Athīr (xi, 43) mentions its capture in 532 as marking the disappearance of the last vestige of Marwānid rule.