^{page 49 note 2} S.D. iv, 2;Google ScholarMaq. i, 165;Google ScholarSuyûṭî, , i, 78.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} Suyûṭî, , i, 78;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 2. In a recent work on the conquest, this statement is wrongly ascribed to Ibn Qutaibah. It is to be observed that it is distinct from the previous one of El though El Maqrîzî runs both together to form a single assertion, which he attributes to El Qudâ‘;î. The latter merely reproduces El tradition parenthetically.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Suyûṭî, , i, 78;Google ScholarMaq. i, 167, 296.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Maq. i, 296.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} S.D. iv, 125;Google ScholarMaq. i, 206.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} Maq. i, 206;Google ScholarSuyûṭî, , i, 81.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 5} El Ya‘qûbî gives a description of a vague kind. It contains a detail or two worth notice. It is referred to in the following.

^{page 51 note 1} These names are doubtful.

^{page 51 note 2} S.D. iv, 3;Google ScholarMaq. i, 297;Google ScholarSuyûṭî, , i, 79.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} Maq. ii, 246.Google Scholar Cf. (Murtadî), Paris, 1566, p. 244.

^{page 51 note 4} The end of April, 641.

^{page 52 note 1} October, 641.

^{page 52 note 2} September 14, 641.

^{page 52 note 3} November 8, 641.

^{page 52 note 4} September 17, 642.

^{page 54 note 1} See the full text, Maq. i, 206.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 1} p. 341.

^{page 56 note 1} This is illustrated by the story of Qaiṣabah b. the original owner of the site of the mosque of ‘Amr; see Maq. ii, 246.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} Individuals, Qaiṣabah and ‘Amr, ante; sections, El Rîyah, Wâ‘il, El Fârisîyîn, Maq. i, 298;Google Scholar Ahl er Râyah, Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} According to El Qâmûs.

^{page 57 note 2} See e.g. El p. 49.

^{page 58 note 1} See above.

^{page 58 note 2} Maq. i, 297, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} El Ya‘qûbî (Bib. Geo. Arab., vii, p. 331) says that each tribe had an ‘ ‘arîf’ appointed to it by ‘Amr. ‘ ‘Arîf’ here might be translated chief. He is speaking of the organisation of the town, which, like the other authorities, he describes as by tribes.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} Maq. i, 296;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} The old Nile bank can be traced by Qaṣr esh and certain convents once on the shore; also by the line of a former street called Es Sâḅil el Qadîm. See Journal R.A.S., 1903, p. 791.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} See S.D. iv, 116.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} Maq. ii, 177;Google Scholar cf. Maq. i, 286.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} S.D. iv, 109.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 4} The existence of the bridge of boats at the time of the investment of Babylon is attested by a tradition cited by Ibn ‘Abd el ḣakam. Suyûṭî, , i, 65;Google ScholarMaq. i, 290,Google Scholar omits the name of the authority; Maq. ii, 178;Google Scholar cf. Maq. ii, 170.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 5} Maq. ii, 178.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 6} Jabal is marked by the mosque of Ibn Ṭûlûn, v. Maq. ii, 265,1. 25. For Zain el ‘Abidîn and er Raṣad v.Google ScholarMaq. i, 125, l. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 7} er Raṣad was called sometimes es Sanad, ‘the cliff,’ Maq. i, 125, l. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} See Journal of the R.A.S. for 1903, p. 806.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} Maq. i, 286.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 3} Restored 106 A.H., Abû Ṣâlih, fol. 29b.

^{page 62 note 4} Mentioned 740 A.D. according to MrButler, , “Ancient Coptic Churches,” i, 136.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 5} Known also as Kanisât es Saiyidah, v. S.D. iv, 107.Google Scholar Very ancient, Maq. ii, 511, l. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 6} “May belong to the 7th or 8th century,” “Ancient Coptic Churches,” i, 257.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 7} “May belong to the 7th or 8th century,” “Ancient Coptic Churches,” i, 277.Google Scholar Called Santâdar, S.D. iv, 107.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 8} = Dair et Ṭîn, Maq. ii, 503. Mentioned by Esh Shabushti, Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 41a.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} Ibn Naṣr, the same doubtless as Abû Nafr of Murtadi, is given as an authority. It does not appear who he was. Maq. i, 32.Google Scholar El alludes to the statue, Maq. i, 344;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} 711 A.H. Maq. i, 122; ii, 177, etc.Google Scholar See Surrîyat, Darb es, S.D., iv, 21, 25, 49, 80.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 3} S.D. iv, 39, 105.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 4} This would seem to be the meaning of Zujâj in the first passage cited.

^{page 63 note 5} p. 245.

^{page 63 note 6} A writer whose date I do not know, quoted by Maq. i, 287.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 7} S.D. iv, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} Variously spelt Ḥisâ, , Ḥiṣâr, , Hiṣâd, Mahâsin, Abû el, i, 73;Google ScholarSuyûṭî, , i, 79;Google ScholarMaq. i, 296.Google Scholar Dâr el Ḥisâd was the same as Dâr Ibn Abî Razzâm, S.D. iv, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Suyûṭî, , i, 77.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Maq. i, 296;Google Scholar for the position see S.D. iv, 101.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 4} S.D. iv, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 5} S.D. iv, 64.Google Scholar This is perhaps the same spot as that referred to in Maq. ii, 249.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 6} v. S.D., index.

^{page 64 note 7} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 8} S.D. iv, 106.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 9} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 10} Maq. i, 290;Google ScholarSuyûṭî, , i, 65.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 11} Suyûṭî, , i, 77.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 12} S.D. iv, 105.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 1} J.R.A.S. 1903, p. 803.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 3} S.D. iv, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 4} S.D. iv, 33, 80, 82, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 5} Darbâ Zanîn: S.D. iv, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 6} S.D. iv, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 7} Saqîfat b. Suds: S.D. iv, 49.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 8} S.D. iv, 25, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 9} S.D. iv, 105.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 10} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 11} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 12} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} Maq. ii, 289.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} Maq. ii, 517.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 3} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} Maq. ii, 159.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Maq. ii, 517.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 6} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 7} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 8} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 9} Maq. i, 298;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 10} S.D. iv, 126.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 11} Maq. i, 125.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 67 note 2} The most probable derivation of this word seems to be from the meaning ‘foreigners’ attached to El Hamnâ See Qâmûs (Aḥmar), Balâḍuri, p. 372; Maq. i, 298;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 5, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} E.g. Maq. i, 299;Google Scholar cf. Maq. i, 304,Google Scholar and Maq. i, 343.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 4} Maq. i, 298;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 5} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 6} Maq. i, 298;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 7} Maq. i, 298;Google Scholar cf. S.D. iv, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 1} v. S.D., index; Journal R.A.S., 1903, pp. 800, 803. Darb Ibn Ma‘âaî and Darb Ma‘âaî were distinct streets. They do not seem to have been very far apart.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} Fol. 29b.

^{page 68 note 3} Maq. ii, 113, 146.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 4} Journal R.A.S., 1903, p. 799.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 5} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 6} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b. (This seems to be the correct translation.)

^{page 68 note 7} Maq. i, 298, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} v. Qâmûs, , iv, 274.Google Scholar The name is corrupted to Nabah, Yanad, etc., in the texts.

^{page 69 note 2} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 69 note 4} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b. Here it is stated that Fahm was in El Ḥamrâ, el ”Wusṭâ.

^{page 69 note 5} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 6} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 69 note} S.D. iv, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 8} S.D. iv, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 9} S.D. iv, 56.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} Maq. i, 343;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} Fol. 32b.

^{page 70 note 3} S.D. iv, 51. is a mistake in the textGoogle Scholar

^{page 70 note 4} Maq. ii, 436.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 5} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 6} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 70 note 7} S.D. iv, 86.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 8} S.D., index.

^{page 70 note 9} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 10} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32a.

^{page 70 note 11} S.D. iv, 31.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 12} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 13} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 14} S.D. iv, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 15} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} S.D. iv, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 2} Maq. ii, 289.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} R.A.S. Journal, 1903, p. 810.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 4} Maq. i, 298; cf. ii, 444.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 5} Maq. ii, 445.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} S.D. iv, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 2} Maq. ii, 289.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 3} Maq. ii, 451.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 4} Maq. ii, 289, 451, 453.Google Scholar Perhaps Akḥul, etc.

^{page 72 note 5} Maq. ii, 448.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 6} S.D. iv, 53;Google ScholarMaq. ii, 458.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 7} S.D. iv, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 8} S.D. iv, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 9} S.D. iv, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 10} Maq. ii, 454.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 11} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} S.D. iv, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 2} S.D. iv, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 3} Maq. ii, 282.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 4} Muqaddasî, p. 199.

^{page 73 note 5} Maq. i, 299.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 6} S.D. iv, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 7} S.D. iv, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 8} S.D. iv, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 9} S.D. iv, 53.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 10} S.D. iv, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 11} S.D. iv, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 12} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 13} S.D. iv, 84.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 14} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 15} Maq. i, 346.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 16} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Maq. i, 297.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 2} Maq. ii, 458.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 74 note 4} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 5} Maq. i, 125.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 6} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 7} Journal R.A.S., 1903, p. 814.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 8} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} Maq. ii, 406, 453.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} S.D. iv, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 3} En Nujûm, , i, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} Maq. ii, 454, 455.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} Maq. i, 298.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} Maq. ii, 152;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 55.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 3} Maq. ii, 451,Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 4} S.D. iv, 53. ‘Âbis b. Sa'îd, † 68 A.H.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 1} S.D. iv, 84.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} S.D. iv, 5, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} S.D. iv, 106.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 4} S.D. iv, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 5} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 77 note 6} S.D. iv, 86.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 7} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 33a.

^{page 77 note 8} S.D. iv, 106.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 9} Abû Ṣâliḥ, fol. 32b.

^{page 78 note 1} S.D. iv, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 2} S.D., index.

^{page 78 note 3} S.D. iv, 55. It would seem that El Ya‘qûbî is wrong in saying that the markets of Fusṭâṭ were grouped by ‘Amr round his mosque (p. 331).Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 4} Suyûṭî, , i, 81.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 5} ‘Amr’s two houses and that of Qaisabah, which was exchanged for the mosque, are examples. The larger house of ‘Amr seems to have been smaller than the mosque (S.D. iv, 62).Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 6} S.D. iv, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 7} S.D. iv, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 8} S.D. iv, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 9} Maq. ii, 246.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} El , Maq. ii, 458.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} Fol. 21b. Zarb=Zarîbah, and Daurat appears from S.D. to be a misreading.

^{page 79 note 3} This can be seen from S.D.

^{page 80 note 1} Other Maḥrases are Khuwâ'i b. Ḥuwâ'i; En Nakhl; El Hâris; Abû. Qirbah; El Huṣr; ‘Ammâr; Abû el Mahâjir.

^{page 80 note 2} p. 331.

^{page 80 note 3} Mentioned several times, e.g. S.D. iv, 105.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 4} S.D. iv, 32.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 5} S.D. iv, 106.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 6} Maq. ii, 246;Google ScholarS.D. iv, 62. Many masjids are described in S.D. as ‘;khiṭṭî.’Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 7} Maq. ii, 454.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 8} See S.D. iv, 59;Google ScholarMaq. ii, 246, for minute descriptions of the mosque.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 1} S.D. iv, 62.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} S.D. iv, 6. The context seems to require that should mean an upper chamber rather than a balcony.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 3} E.g. Balâḍurî, p. 349; Ṭabarî, , i, 2488.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 4} El Kindî, fol. 19a, gives the idea that Marwîn was the first to institute a governor's house. On the other hand, El Ya‘qûbî, p. 330, says that Dâr er Kami, which S.D. iv, 5, refers to also as having been used by the governors, was the Dâr el Imârah founded by ‘Amr.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Kûfah is described by Balâḍuri, pp. 275–289; Ṭabarî, , i, 2486–2491; Ya‘qû.bî, p. 310; Baṣrah by Balâḍurî, pp. 346–372.Google Scholar

page 83 note * Signifies that the not being included in the chapters of S.D. and Maq. referred to in the text, may be a minor division.