^{page 785 note 1} This MS. is in a more formal hand than Or. 5,803; it contains 138 folios of ten short lines a side; it commences at 255 a.h. (fol. 103a of Or. 5,803), proceeds through 130 folios to 543 a.h., when there occurs a gap of a year (fols. 173–4 of Or. 5,803), and then extends to 548 a.h. (fol. 178a of Or. 5,803). There is also a gap at fol. 25b, line 3, which is covered by the matter on fols. 121–125 of Or. 5,803, being the period between the revolt at Mayyāfāriqīn against the Dailamite garrison of Ṣamṣām al-Daula the Buwaihid and the seizure of Amid by Ibn Damnah early in the reign of Mumahhid al-Daula the Marwānid. And the contents from fol. 88b, line 5, to fol. 90b, line 6, are out of place, and should follow on fol. 92a, line 9, owing, no doubt, to the copyist's original having been out of order. Being generally unpointed, this MS. forms a useful exercise in reading, with Or. 5,803 as a key.

^{page 786 note 1} The name Abu Muḥammad given to Ibn al-Azraq by Wüstenfeld, (Gesch. No. 256) is erroneous. The person referred to is a Zābid and miracle-worker. (See the passage cited, Abu'l-Fidā, iii, 624.)

^{page 786 note 2} The authorship of Marsh 333 is not settled (see Nicoll's note, Bodl. Cat., ii, p. 602), but the manuscript may now, I think, be safely regarded as the second volume of al-A'lāq al-Khaṭīra fi Dhikr Umarā, al-Shām wa'l-Jazīra, by the Kātib 'Izz al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād of Ḥalab (Brockelmann, Gesch., i, p. 482), for on fol. 36b of the MS. the author mentions as his work the Sīrat al-Sulṭān al-Malek al-Ẓāhir, i.e. Baibars, and of this work 'Izz al-Dīn was the author. (See Ḥāji Khalīfa, No. 7,330, and also Ṣafadi, list of Authorities to his Wāfi bil-Wafayāt, Vienna, No. 1,163, i, 18b.) The MS. would, indeed, have beeṇ identified as the above work by Nicoll, but for the error of Ḥāji Khalīfa (No. 935) in attributing al-A'lāq to Bahā al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād, who died in 632 a.h. (Brockelmann, Gesch., i, p. 316), whilst the author of Marsh 333 was writing in 679 a.h. Ḥāji Khalīfa does, in fact, attribute al-A'lāq to 'Izz al-Dīn, but under the name of al-Durrat al-Khaṭīra (No. 4,934). Further, the Ḥāfiẓ Zain al-Dīn, who is suggested by Nicoll as a possible author of the MS., is mentioned therein as an actor in the narrative. It is noticeable that Ibn Shaddād's account of Bād the Kurd, the founder of the Marwānid line (fol. 79b), is given on the authority of Ibn al-Athīr (ix, 125) on the ground that he is not mentioned by Ibn al-Azraq. This is untrue of Or. 5,803 (see fol. 121a), but is true of the other MS. as it stands, owing to the gap in the text at fol. 25b, and there are many indications that the version used by Ibn Shaddād must have been more akin to this one than to Or. 5,803. More about the Bodleian MS. follows infra. I am indebted to the Librarian of the Bodleian, Mr. E. W. Nicholson, for the advantage of having been able to compare it with the History of Ibn al-Azraq.

^{page 788 note 1} ”Abu'l-'Izz Ṭāhir b. Muhammad al Barūjirdi,” forced on Sultan Mas'ūd as vizier by Qarā Sunqur in 533 in place of Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusain the treasurer (Ibn al-Athīr, xi, 42, sub 532, and al-Bundāri's abridgment of Imād al-Dīn al-Kātib al-Iṣfahani, ”Recueil de textes relatifs à l'histoire des Seldjoucides,” by Houtsma, vol. ii, at p. 187, where the treasurer is named Muḥammad b. 'Ali, and he is called, too, al-Manāzi in the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, B.M. Stowe, Or. 7, 62a).

^{page 788 note 2} Her father, Sultan Muḥammad, had given her mother to his Mamlūk Qarājā al-Sāqi before 508 a.h., when she entered Mayyāfāriqīn as his wife (fol. 159b; as corrected by earlier version, fol. 99b). Fāṭima, her daughter, had been espoused to the Caliph three years before (Ibn Khallikān, SI. Eng., ii, 234). The Halls (Ḥujra) were added to the palace by Mustarshid (Yāqūt, i, 144), and in one of these Fāṭima lived until her death in 542. (See “Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate,” Oxford, 1900, by Le Strange, G., p. 273Google Scholar.)

^{page 788 note 3} This account accords in substance with that given by Ibn al-Athīr (xi, 14–17, and Atābeks, 87–98), but Ibn al-Azraq's informant, who was an eye-witness of, and actor in, the proceedings, adds many interesting particulars. He relates how Mustarshid started on the campaign against Mas'ūd in opposition to the advice both of himself and of the Vizier al-Zainabi, who instanced the fatal move of al-Ḥusain from Mecca to 'Irāq, to all of which the Caliph's reply was that, if death was inevitable, a coward's death was a poor one to choose:

He said, too, that the Caliph's assassination whilst a prisoner in Mas'ūd's camp was by many attributed to Mas'ūd, acting perhaps on the advice of his uncle, the Sultan Sinjār: and by some to the instigation of the Mazyadid Dubays b. Ṣadaqa, the Caliph's bitter enemy. That the people of Baghdād believed both Sultans to be guilty is shown by the recollection of 'Imād al-Dīn al-Kātib al-Iṣfahāni, who was there in 549 a.h. (see al-Bundāri, op. cit., p. 178), and the killing of Dubays by Mas'ūd is regarded by Ibn Khallikān (SI. Eng., i, 506) as a device for laying the deed to his charge. Neither of these theories has the support of Ibn al-Athīr. On the contrary, he suggests that Dubays' death was due to Mas'ūd having no longer occasion to play him off against the Caliph (vol. xi, p. 19). Al-Anbāri went on to say how he, and the other advisers of the late Caliph, were now summoned by Mas'ūd from the fortress of Sarjahān, where they had been imprisoned since their defeat—a place which the historian mentions he saw when at al-Rayy in 549 a.h.—and were consulted as to what was to be done about the Caliphate. The Sultan held very Erastian views as to the position of the Caliph towards the Saljūq power. When the vizier said that the office hadpassed to the designated successor, Rāshid, who had received homage on that occasion and again lately, he replied that he would never confirm his appointment. Rāshid, he said, meant to revolt, like his father, Mustarshid, who had attacked his brother Maḥmūd twice and himself once, with the result that, till the end of time, they would have to bear the odium of a Caliph's death, after having restored the dignity to his house—an allusion, no doubt, to the suppression of the revolt of al-Basāsīri and the restoration of the Caliph Qāim by his ancestor, Tughril Beg, in 450 (Ibn al-Athīr, ix, 445). His wish was to have someone appointed who would not interfere in matters outside the faith, and not put himself at the head of a party hostile to him and his dynasty. An Abbasid of some years should he chosen—there were plenty to select from—a man of sense and judgment, who must bind himself to be duly obedient and to keep at home, and he told them not to leave out of sight Hārūn (the words are , see the same form used with in the sense of turning the attention to taking another's territory, Ibn al-Athīr, viii, 520, 1. 19), Hārūn being a son of the Caliph Muqtadi, for he was an elderly man and would not be inclined to rebellion; he was, moreover, recommended to him by his uncle Sinjār. The historian then enumerates the descendants of Muqtadi, Mustaẓhir, Mustarshid, and of Rāshid, who had over twenty children, the eldest born to him when he was 9 years of age only, and the historian dwells on this instance of precocity and cites other cases (fol. 166a). Then, resuming the narrative, he tells us that Mas'ūd, whilst recommending Hārūn, added that, in pursuance of the advice of his uncle Sinjār, a guarantee for the behaviour of the person appointed would be required from the vizier, the treasurer, and Ibn al-Anbāri, whereupon the vizier said that, having regard to this liability, it was for them to select, and that their choice fell on the most fit of them all, namely, Mustaẓhir's son, Abu 'Abd Allah, for whose acts they would go surety. (He was, in fact, the vizier's son-in-law, having married his daughter when his father was Caliph and hers Chief Naqīb.) The Sultan assented, and advised secrecy, lest the nominee Bhould be murdered in Baghdād. Later they proceeded there with Mas'ūd. Then follows (fol. 166b) an account of the doings of Rāshid, and his offer to Zangi to procure the Sultanate for Alp Arslān, son of Mas'ūd's brother Maḥmūd, and then under Zangi's charge, and that Zangi should be Atābek (guardian) to both Sultan and Caliph. Zangi advanced to Baghdād, but had to retire before Mas'ūd, and Rāshid, seeing that his fall was inevitable, assembled all the members of the house of 'Abbās in an underground chamber, which he ordered should be closed. And the historian was told by a chamberlain that Rāshid had handed him a sword, saying he was to help him in killing them all, and so leave no one eligible for the Caliphate, as the enemy might substitute one of them for himself; and that he then ordered the chamber to be opened. Just then came the news of Zangi's flight to Mosul after pillaging the Ḥarīm of Ṭāhir, and the Sultan's arrival at Nahrawẓn, whereupon they both threw away their swords, and, seizing some valuables, started off with the Chief Qāḍial-Zainabi, and the lately appointed vizier Ibn Ṣadaqa, to join Zangi at Mosul.

[Ibn al-Athīr attributes the pillage to the criminal class, and Zangi's withdrawal, not flight, to discord among the allies and to the irresolution () of the Caliph (Atābeks, p. 94). He is always favourable to the Mosul dynasty.[ Al-Anbāri went on to say that on reaching Baghdād in 530 a.h. he and the rest gave the required guarantee, and afterwards waited on Abu 'Abd Allah, when the Vizier stipulated that he should abide by the conditions imposed, and informed him that they had already guaranteed this. (It appears from al-Bundāri, op. cit., p. 235, and from the Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, 71b, that one condition was not to keep any Turkish mamluks, which the Caliph evaded by hiring Armenians and Greeks. Ibn al-Athīr records that a similar condition was submitted to by Rāshid, vol. xi, p. 62.) Abu 'Abd Allah assented, and they informed the Sultan, who fixed the day following for the ceremony of homage. On that day (fol. 167a) they first removed from the palace various instruments of music and other improper objects, and then took the evidence of its inmates that Rāshid was given to fermented beverage, whereupon his deposition was pronounced by Abu Ṭāhir Aḥmad b. al-Karkhi, the Chief Qāḍi of the Shafeite sect (in the absence of al-Zainabi at Mosul, Ibn al-Athīr, xi, p. 27). Next they presented the new Caliph with a list of titles, which included ‘Muqtafi,’ ‘Mustaḍi,’ and ‘Mustanjid’ — in the earlier version (115a) ‘Mustajīr.’ He left the choice to them (Ibn al-Athīr, xi, p. 28, attributes the choice to a dream), and al-Anbāri, being asked for his opinion, chose Muqtafi. The Caliph said, ”May it be blessed,” whereupon the Vizier and the rest of them kissed the Caliph's hand and did homage in these terms:—

whilst al-Anbāri substituted, after the titles, the words— for he had done homage to Mustazhir as AVakll al-Dār in 490 and to Mustarshid when in the Dīwān al-Inshā' in 507, and also to Rāshid, presumably on his designation as successor. (Earlier in the MS., on fol. 135a, is given the form used on the accession of al-Qāim in 422 a.h. The Ḥājib asked each person in turn— to which the person replied “Yes,” and kissed the Caliph's hand.)

^{page 790 note 1} “Al-Muẓaffar b. Ardashīr.” He had come to Baghdād in 541 on a mission from Sultan Sinjār to the Caliph, when his sermons were largely attended; he died in the year 546 in Khūzistān, whilst on a mission from the Caliph to the Saljūq Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, and was buried in Baghdād (Ibn al-Athīr, xi, 78 and 103).

^{page 791 note 1} This passage ia quoted by Ibn Khallikān in his life of Mas'ūd (SI. Eng., iii, 357).

^{page 791 note 2} Imprisoned by order of the Caliph Manṣūr in Mecca in 158 a.h. with members of the Alide family; died in 161 (Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 23 and 38).

^{page 792 note 1} After the city had been taken by assault and pillaged for three days David promised the inhabitants protection and fair treatment. He remitted various taxes during that year; at the request of the Moslems he provided that no swine should be allowed to be slaughtered in their quarter of the city; he issued coin bearing on one side the names of the Caliph and Sultan, and on the other the names of Allah and of the Prophet, with his own name on the border (and some of these coins are in existence, see “Suites Monétaires de la Georgie,” V. Langlois, p. 45; Paris, 1870); he made proclamation that he would refuse to protect anyone injuring a Moslem; that these should have the right of calling to prayer, and of praying and reading openly, and of pronouncing the Khuṭba from the pulpit on Friday for the Caliph and the Sultan, but for these only; that no Georgian, Armenian, or Jew should enter the baths of Ismā'il at Tiflīs; and he fixed the yearly payment due to himself, for Georgians at five, for Jews at four, and for Moslems at three dinars (fol. 162a). This statement by a Moslem historian is strong evidence of David's toleration. Moslem practice was otherwise. 'Amid al-Mulk, governor of Mayyāfāriqīn in 580, hearing the call to prayer () sounding from a Nestorian monastery on a hill near, exclaimed, “This is sounded on Moslem hill-tops, whilst we need authorization () at Constantinople!” and being told the edifice was once a mosque, he had it reconverted (fol. 150a, earlier version 74a). Both these episodes are told by Sibṭ ibn al-Jauzi in the Mir'āt al-Zamān (Paris, 1506, 306a and 202b), and are doubtless taken from this history, and the former is given also by al-'Aini (Brock., ii, 52) in his history; Petersb. As. Mus. Rosen, 177 (see Brosset's Hist. Gèorgie, vol. i, Add. 240–1). Ibn al-Athīr (x, 399) mentions only the pillage, not the toleration. In his account of the recapture of Tiflīs by the Moslems under Jalāl al-Dīn Khwārizm Shāh in 623 (xii, 293–6) he draws attention to the strength of the Georgians in holding the city so long against all Moslem attacks.

^{page 792 note 2} I.e. of the Dānishmand family. See Lane-Poole's, “Mohammedan Dynasties,” p. 156Google Scholar. Both forms of the name occur in the MS., fols. 186a, 197a, and 200a. In the list of this dynasty given in Jannābi's History (Bodl., Pocock 177 and Laud 238) this Yāghi Siyān appears as the third ruler, being son to Muḥammad al-Ghāzi, whom he succeeded in 537. He died in 562. He is mentioned again in the MS. under 570 a.h. (fol. 200a) as having been at some date deprived of his territory by the Sultan (of Rūm).

^{page 793 note 1} His life is given by Ibn Khallikān, SI. Eng., ii, 590.

^{page 793 note 2} For this route see Iṣṭakhri, p. 194.

^{page 793 note 3} The departure ia mentioned by Ibn al-Athīr (see Atābeks, p. 258, and Ibn Khallikān, SI. Eng., iv, 497).

^{page 794 note 1} He mentions that a bridge at Aqrāmān, over the Sātīdamā river, gave way in 539 (fol. 171a); that an attempt to rebuild it in 541 failed owing to the foundations being undermined by a flood; that the person charged with the work was saddled with the cost; and that his successor did his work excellently, the bridge being completed in 548 (fol. 171b). He states its height as over sixty cubits “bi'l-Najjār” (i.e. one larger by a sixth than the ordinary cubit; see Ibn Ḥauqal, 112 (c), and Gloss Geogr. sub “Najar”). He says, too, that it was the first bridge to be built in Diyar Bakr; and proceeds to instance other bridges of later date (fol. 179b), one of these being that over the Yāryār river between Fanak and Jazīrat ibn 'Omar, built by Jamāl al-Dīn al-Iṣbahāni, the vizier at Mosul, who contemplated another over the Tigris at Bāfatā below Jazīra, but did not live to complete it (ib. and 185b). On fol. 195b he records, too, that in 570 Banafsah, a slave girl belonging to the Caliph, made a second bridge of boats (Jisr) over the Tigris for which the chain, which cost 1,500 dinars, was procured from Ḥāni (where there were iron-mines, Yāqūt, ii, 188); that it was moored below the Tāj palace, the old bridge being removed to near the entrance of Darb Zakhi near the college of Muwaffaq; and that the new bridge proved of great use. (The building by Banafsah of a bridge near the Shūnīziyya quarter, probably the ‘Thorn bridge,’ is mentioned in “Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate,” by Le Strange, G., p. 79Google Scholar, on the authority of the Ta'rīkh-i-Guzīdah of Ḥamd-Allah. Perhaps the bridge was misdescribed by Ḥamd-Allah.)

^{page 795 note 1} This author must not be confused with 'Ali b. Muḥammad al-Shimshāṭi, a poet at the Court of Sail.al-Daula; see fol. 113b of this'MS., Yāqūt, iii, 320, and Ibn Khallikān (SI. Eng., ii, 335). Dhahabi (Or. 48, 2b) quotes a History by 'Ali b. Muḥammad al-Shimshāṭi for warfare between Saif al-Daula and the Greeks in 351 a.h.

^{page 795 note 2} I have found but one subsequent reference in the MS. to the Kitāb Baghdād—at fol. 95a, where it is quoted as fixing the death of the Imām Mālik in 199 a.h. at the age of 85 years. Ibn al-Azraq there says that he had already given the date otherwise and as he then believed it to be, and that he now gave this different date. And he had in fact stated (fol. 92a–b) that the Imām died in 179 a.h., aged 84 years, or, according to al-Wāqidi, aged 90 years. Ibn Khallikān's life of the Imām (SI. Eng., ii, p. 547) contains a similar statement. Ibn al-Azraq was evidently struck by the discrepancy between the two dates. That given by Ibn Ṭaifūr unfortunately does not fall within the period covered by the fragment of his work (B.M. Add. 23,318) relating to the reign of Ma'mūn, which begins at 204 a.h. Ibn al-Azraq relates the foundation of Baghdād at fol. 89, bat does not quote the Kitāb Baghdād.

^{page 796 note 1} Some of the variants in the two texts are noticeable. The original name of Mayyāfāriqīn—‘City of Martyrs’—in Yāqūt, 705, is, on fol. 9b, (see Assemani, B.O. i, 174). In the list of the city towers, Yāqūt's is and is In the list of gates Yāqūt's , and are, respectively, and (though on fol. 140a the second of these appears twice as ). The meadow where the conquerors stuck up their spears (Yāqūt, 707), is, on fol. 6a, Further, the date of the Seleucid era, corresponding with 300 a.d. (the foundation of the city), given in Yāqūt as 623, is, on fol. 10b, erroneously 923, but the words which follow in Yāqūt, 706, 1. 21, are, more probably, i.e. the Bishop James, d. a.d. 338. (See Assemani, B.O. i, 17.)

^{page 797 note 1} Among the expeditions of Saif al-Daula, one against Armenia in 328 a.h. (940 a.d.), mentioned on fol. 111b, contains some interesting names. It runs thus:—

The names Gagic, Dèranic, Ashot, and Grigor seem to be those of princes of the house of Ardzrouni (see their history in “Collection d'historiens Arméniens,” by Brosset, M., vol. i, 248 and 263Google Scholar; St. Petersburg, 1874). The title ‘Marzpau’ (Marzubān) of Armenia occurs, ib. 210. The Baṭrīq al-Baṭāriqa is probably the ‘Ishkhān’ or central king. The Sunāsuna, who are mentioned elsewhere in the MS. as hostile neighbours, were an Armenian tribe (Ibn al-Athīr, ix, 306). For ‘al-Ṭaiṭawāna,’ see Yāqūt, iii, 570, and for ‘Barkari’, Iṣṭakhri, 194. The latter is marked as ‘Pergri’ on Kiepert's map of Turkey in Asia, and as situate on the stream at the north-east corner of Lake Van, with Arjīsh, Dhāt al-Jauz, and Akhlāṭ lying along the north shore in succession westwards, Dhāt al-Jauz being “Ardzgë or 'Ādeldjiwāz,” and on fol. 160a it occurs again as . I am informed by Mr. A. G. Ellis that the word should more properly be ‘Artskē,’ the Armenian having probably been transliterated according to Constantinople pronunciation; further, that Lucas Injijian, in his Universal Geography, Venice, 1806, vol. i (Armenia) of the first part of the work (Asia), at p. 165 gives the modern name of the place as ‘Aljavaz’ or ‘Atiljewaz.’ ‘Sibalwark’ is the modern Turkish ‘Sévérek.’ ‘Qalb’ is included in the list of the towns and fortresses of Diyārbakr, given by Ibn Shaddād (Bodl., Marsh 333, 65a), which, he says, passed from one ruler to another as if they were pledges or chessmen.

^{page 801 note 1} The date of the composition of both volumes is given in the B.M. Catalogue, No. 1,324, as 674 a.h. But it appears from the former (Add. 23,334, 92a) that it was composed after the accession of Qalaun, in 678; and as regards the latter volume (Add. 23,335, on fol. 76a) the date 675 appears. As to this volume see concluding Note infra.

^{page 802 note 1} The name is written ‘Mankoberti’ by Houdas in his translation of the life of Jalāl al-Dīn by al-Nasawi, Paris, 1895; see preface and note on p. 3. But it is written ‘Mankburni’ in the thirteenth-century MS. of the same work (B.M. Or. 5,662) and elsewhere. Ṣafadi, in his notice of Jalāl al-Dīn in the Wāft bil-Wafayāt (B.M. Add. 23,359, 23a), spells the nanfe ‘Mankūburni’

^{page 803 note 1} The words are meaning, apparently, orders for payment to the merchants of money due from the various rulers to the Tatars. The Turkish, word means a royal order; see Zenker, Diet. Turk., ii, 949.

^{page 803 note 2} This is the person suggested by Nicoll (Bodl. Cat., ii, 603) as the possible author of the MS. He is mentioned on fol. 56b, under the name of Zain al-Dīn, as having given advice owing to which succour sent from Damascus to support al-Lu'lu's son, al-Muẓaffar, in Sinjār against the Tatars was by them intercepted and the place taken. A notice of this Zain al-Dln Sulaimān al-Ḥāfizi is given by Ibn Abi Uṣaibi'a (Brock., i, 325) in his “'Uyūn al-Anbā,” Cairo, 1299, ii, 189, from which it appears that he was first in the service of al-Ḥāfiẓ Arslān Shāh, the son of al-'Ādil, ruler of Qal'at Ja'bar, and contributed to bring about its transfer to al-Nāṣir of Ḥalab (in 638, see fol. 35b of the MS.). He then went to Ḥalab, where he gained influence and wealth, and on al-Nāṣir acquiring Damascus (in 648) he accompanied him there. When the Tatars began pressing their demands on al-Nāṣir, he was sent as envoy to Hūlāgū, when he was completely gained over to the cause of the Tatars, and used his position to push their pretensions and to inspire al-Nāṣir, who was averse to warfare, with apprehension by exaggerating their resources as compared with his own. When Damascus submitted to the Tatars, Zain al-Dīn obtained a great position there under the Nā'ib, but when the Tatars were defeated by the Mamlūk Sultan Quṭuz, and Syria was restored to the Moslems, the Nā'ib fled, and with him Zain al-Dīn, afraid of the treatment he would receive at Moslem hands. His fears were misplaced. Ṣafadi, in the Wāfi bil-Wafayāt, Bodl., i, No. 668 (Seld. Arch. A. 23), records him under the name of Sulaimān b. 'Ali Zain al-Dīn Abu al-Muayyad Khaṭīb 'Uqbarā al-Ḥāfiẓi, and, after quoting the above statements of Ibn Abi Uṣaibi'a, says that he was accused by Hūlāgū of corresponding with the ruler of Egypt, and was put to death with his children and relatives, to the number of fifty persons. Safadi adds that the ruler in question was al-Ẓāhir, i.e. Baibars, and the date 662 a.h.

^{page 805 note 1} In order to assist the Tatar besiegers. Al-Kāmil's disobedience to the order was one of the four acts alleged against him by Hūlāgū when he put him to death on the taking of Mayyāfāriqīn in 658 (fol. 120a).

^{page 806 note 1} The phrase is It is used again on fol. 135a.

^{page 805 note 2} and .