Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:43:20.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rise of Shaykh al-Balad 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr: a study in the accuracy of the chronicle of al-Jabartī

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

John W. Livingston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The year in which 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr, Mamlūk ruler of Egypt (1760–72), first came to power as shaykh al-balad, the most important office in Egypt from the middle of the eighteenth century to Bonaparte's expedition, has been a matter of some disagreement. The Western contemporary accounts of Lusignan, Savary, and Volney give 1763, or the Muslim equivalent 1177. Later historians, Marcel, Cattaui, Combe, Heyworth-Dunne, Rossi, Mahmūd al-Sharqāwī, Wiet, and Shaw accept this date—though in another article Shaw changed his earlier date of 1177/1763 to 1171/1758 for the rise of 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr to the office of shaykh al-balad. Ahmad Haydar al-Shihābī and Masson also chose 1758. Other dates for this event have been given: 1757 by Dehérain, 1766 by 'Alī Pasha Mubārak and François Charles-Roux, and finally 1760 by the contemporary chronicler 'Abd al-Rahmān al-Jabartī. Muhammad Ramadān and P. M. Holt accept al-Jabartī's date. The object of this article is to show that al-Jabartī's dating and account of 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr's rise to power are accurate, and in so doing, to explain the sources of confusion in so many of the studies that have treated 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr's early history.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 283 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lusignan, S. K., A history of the revolt of Ali Bey, London, 1783, 76Google Scholar. Lusignan was a Greek merchant in Cairo during the rule of 'Alī Bey, whose close companion he claimed to be. His History cannot be considered a valuable historical document filled as it is with rather fanciful flights of the imagination.

2 Savary, C. S., Lettres sur l'Égypte, 3 vols., Paris, 1786Google Scholar; for 'Alī Bey see vol. II, letter 16. Savary was a traveller, as romantic and uncritical as Lusignan, and like him aimed to astonish and excite the reader with marvels of the Orient.

3 de Volney, C. F. C., Voyage en Syrīe et en Égypte pendant les années 1783, 1784, 1785, 2 vols., Paris, 1822Google Scholar; see I, 98. For relative accuracy and historical treatment Volney is greatly superior to these contemporaries, and he was fully aware of it (I, 106–7), although his caustic comments often ring more of contempt than critical observation. For a study of Volney see Carré, J. M., Voyageurs et écrivains français en Égypte, 2 vols., Cairo, 1932Google Scholar.

4 Marcel, J.-J., Histoire de l' Égypte depuis la conquête des Arabes jusqu'à l' expédition française, Paris, 1848, 230Google Scholar.

5 Cattaui, J., Coup d'œil sur la chronologie de la nation égyptienne, Paris, 1931, 331Google Scholar; Cattaui uniquely correlates 1177 to 1764 for the rise of 'Alī Bey.

6 Combe, É., L' Égypte ottomane de la conguête par Selim (1517) a l'arrivée de Bonaparte (1798) (Précis de l'Histoire de l'Égypte, III, pt. I), Paris, 1933, 44Google Scholar.

7 Heyworth-Dunne, J., ‘Arabic literature in Egypt in the eighteenth century’, BSOS, IX, 3, 1938, 675CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Rossi, E., ‘Storia de 'Ali Bey d'Egitto (1763–1773) in un manuscritto di J. M. Digeon’, Oriente Moderno, XXII, 2, 1943, 45Google Scholar.

9 Miṣr fī al-qarn al-thāmin 'ashar, 3 vols., Cairo, , 1955–1957Google Scholar; see II, 68.

10 Wiet, G. (ed. and tr.), Nicolas Turc: Chronique d'Égypte 1798–1804, Cairo, 1950Google Scholar; and G. Wiet, ‘'Ali Bey’, El, second ed.

11 Shaw, S. J., The financial and administrative organization and development of Ottoman Egypt, 1517–1798, Princeton, 1962, 7Google Scholar; idem, Ottoman Egypt in the eighteenth century, Cambridge, Mass., 1962, 7.

12 ‘The Ottoman archives as a source for Egyptian history’, JAOS, Lxxxiii, 4, 1963, 451Google Scholar. See also Holt, P. M. (ed.), Political and social change in Modern Egypt, London, 1968, p. 101, n. 1Google Scholar.

13 Lubnān fī ‘ahd al-umarā’ al-Shihābiyyīn, Cairo, 1900, 782Google Scholar.

14 Masson, P., Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1911, 305Google Scholar.

15 Hanotaux, G. (ed.), Histoire de la nation égyptienne, V. L'Égypte turc, par H. Dehérain, Paris, [1934], 123Google Scholar.

16 Al-Khitat al-Tawfīqiyyah al-jadīdah fī Miṣr al-Qāhirah, Cairo, 1887, I, pt. I, p. 58Google Scholar.

17 L'Angleterre, l'isthme de Suez et Égypte au XVIIIs siécle, Paris, 1922, 20Google Scholar.

18 'Ajā'ib al-āthār fī 'l-tarājim wa 'l-akhbār, Cairo, 1301/1883, I, 250Google Scholar.

19 Thawrat 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr, Cairo, 1950, 23Google Scholar.

20 Egypt and the Fertile Crescent, 1516–1922, London, 1966, 93Google Scholar.

21 The title of the work by Guémard, Gabriel, Les réformes en Égypte (d'Ali Bey el-Kébir à Méhémhmet-Ali) (1760–1848), Cairo, 1936Google Scholar, implies 1760, but nowhere in the text does the author state this as the initial date of 'Alí Bey's official power.

22 He was forced ou t of power in 1766 and fought his way back th e following year.

23 Holt, , op. cit., 93Google Scholar, referring t o al-Ghazzāwi, appears to be the only modern writer on Egypt who was aware that both 'Alī Beys were called ‘al-Kabīr’. See also his ‘The pattern of Egyptian political history from 1517 to 1798’, in Holt, P. M. (ed.), Political and social change in modern Egypt, London, 1968, 88Google Scholar.

24 Turkish for ‘he who catches clouds’, an honorific name given him for his daring and skill in overpowering the desert Bedouin who harassed th e pilgrimage in Arabia when he was amīr al-ḥajj, before rising to the leadership of Egypt.

25 Ibrāhīm was the first semi-independent Mamlūk ruler of Egypt (1744–54). His career forms one of the most critical points in the Mamluk resurgence in Ottoman Egypt.

26 I, 189, 192, 203.

27 I, 202, 203.

28 I, 207.

29 I, 206.

30 I, 207.

31 The Mamlūk house to which Ibrāhīm Katkhudā had belonged.

32 The Qāzdughlī house belonged to this faction.

33 The Qāzdughlī house had emerged triumphant over several Mamlūk houses that comprised the Faqāriyyah, and of the Qāzdughlī beys, it was Ibrāhīm Katkhudā who formed, so to speak, a house within a house that was to monopolize political power within the ranks of his beys.

34 I, 207–8.

35 I, 206.

36 1, 208.

37 The MS copy of the first volume of al-Jabarti's history in the Bayazit Public Library, Istanbul, MS Cevdet Paşa 79, also reads 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr.

38 ‘Ottoman archives’, 451.

39 I, 206.

40 I, 350, 413.

41 1, 206.

42 1, 250.

43 1, 250. For further mention of him see also I, 182, 191, 208–10, 317; II, 10–11, 14, 19–20, 150.

44 See also I, 317.

45 I, 252, 380.

46 I, 252, 380.

47 I, 250.

48 Financial and administrative organization, 244.

49 I, 250.

50 Al-Jabartī, writing at a later date than the consuls, also quite often failed to distinguish between several men who had the same name, such as the Ḥusayns, al-Ṣābūnjī and Kashkash; the Khalīls, al-Daftardār and al-Kabīr; and the case in point, the 'Alīs, al-Ghazzāwī and al-Kabīr, not to mention the two Jinn 'Alī Beys.

51 France, Archives Nationales, Correspondence Consulaire au Ministre des Affaires Étrangères, BI, 331, 29 December 1755.

In the Ottoman archives at the Citadel in Cairo there is an 'Alī Bey al-Ṣaghīr listed for the year 1165/1754–5 in a defter: Defter-i baqāyā-i ghalāl-i jamāat-i umanā'-i mültezimīn-i meẕkūrīn-i umarā'-i dīwān-i kushshāf, 1166–71/1753–8. In the same defter Ibrāhīm Katkhudā is referred to as merḥūm ‘deceased’, which agrees with al-Jabartī's statement that 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr did not become a bey until after the death of Ibrähīm (I, 206, 208, 380). However, there is no way of knowing for certain whether this is 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr Bulut Kapan. In succeeding years 'Alī Bey al-Ṣaghīr is no longer found in the defters.

52 Aff. Éit., BI, 331, 18 July 1756. 'Alī Bey al-Kabīr also took action against the Jewish merchants in Egypt in 1768–71.

53 Aff. Ēit., BI, 332, 27 January 1757. He was the enemy of the French because the French consul-general before de Jonville failed to give him the customary presents on the occasion of his marriage: Aff. Ēit., BI, 332, 22 November 1757.

64 Aff. Éit., BI, 332, 27 January 1757.

55 I, 250–1.

56 Aff. Éit., BI, 332, 14 April 1757. Compare with al-Jabartī, I, 207.

57 Aff. Éit., BI, 332, 22 November 1757.

58 Aff. Ét., BI, 332, 10 October and 25 November 1760.

59 Aff. Ét., BI, 332, 25 November 1760.

60 Aff. Ét., BI, 332, 27 January 1757.

61 Venice, , di Stato, Archivo, Lettere dei consoli veneti alle Cinque Savi alia Mercanzia, busta640, 20 04 1757Google Scholar.

62 Arch. St., 640, 2 June 1758.

63 Arch. St., 640, 14 August 1760.

64 Arch. St., 640, 13 September 1764.

65 Al-Jabartī, I, 189, 192, 203. Aff. Ét., BI, 331, 27 November 1754. An Ottoman defter in the Cairo archives also indicates that the year of Ibrāhīm's death was 1168/1754: Defter-i baqāyā-i ghalāl-i jamā'at-i umanā'-i mültezimīn-i meẕkūrīn-i umarā'-i dīwān-i kushshāf, 1171/1757. Al-Jabartī and de Jonville also agree in their evaluation of Ibrāhīm Katkhuda's rule. The former writes, ‘Egypt during this time was at peace, there were no civil wars nor evil deeds; Upper and Lower Egypt were safe and sound, and prices were low, the state of the country was pleasing’; the latter, ‘The population enjoyed a general well-being; Egypt was in this period flourishing with beauty’

66 Al-Jabartī, I, 207; Aff. Ét., BI, 332, 22 November 1757.

67 Arch. St., 640, 14 August 1760.

68 ‘Ottoman archives’, 451.

69 The only basis for doubting al- Jabartī's account of events for this period is found on p. 206 where he listed Ibrāhīm Katkhudā's mamlūks who became amīrs. He first listed those who became amīrs during Ibrāhīm's lifetime ('Uthmān Bey al-Jirjāwī, 'Alī Bey al-Ghāzzāwī, Ḥusayn Bey Kashkash), then those who became amīrs after his death (Ḥusayn Bey al-ṣābūnjī, 'Alī Bey Bulut Kapan, Khalīl Bey al-Kabīr), followed by those who became amīrs ‘with the help of 'Alī Bey Bulut Kapan when he became famous’ (Ismā'īl Bey al-Ākhar and 'Alī Bey al-Surūjī). By listing the amīrs in this way al-Jabartī gives the impression that 'Alī Bey Bulut Kapan became shaykh al-balad immediately after Ḥusayn Bey al-Ṣābūnji, since he completely neglects to mention the rule of 'Alī Bey al-Ghazzāwī and the Qāzdughlī amīrs he appointed during his two years of power. This point is clarified in the pages following.

70 Aff. Éit., BI, 322, 10 October 1760.

71 AI-Jabartī, I, 251, 253.

72 The Syrian historian Qara'lī also claimed that Rāghib Pasha waa 'Alī Bey's close friend and protector while he was grand vizier, and helped him to gain his position as shaykh al-balad. Qara'lī's sources are unmentioned but can reasonably be guessed. His history contains the same errors as Lusignan, , Savary, , Volney, , and Marcel, : al-Khūrī Būlus Qara'lī, al-Sūriyyūn fi Miṣr, I, 2 pts., Cairo, 1928–1933Google Scholar; see I, 86. The Venetian sources also hint at a strong Ottoman connexion. In April 1765 a messenger of the Porte arrived at Cairo with the news that the sultan had installed as grand vizier his nephew ‘who favours 'Alī Bey and gives him all the firmans he requests’, Arch. St., 641, 30 April 1765.

73 Arch. St., 640, 14 August 1760; 23 December 1760, and following.

74 Arch. St., 640, 13 September 1764.

75 Arch. St., 640, 7 October 1760.

76 Aff. Ét., BI, 332, 25 November 1760.

77 Arch. St., 641, 6 July 1764.

78 Arch. St., 641, 6 July 1764.

79 ‘II Consolo Veneto si e condatto per la via della violenza e della impurita e abuso della castita delle donne Turche a lutto cio e stato provato con testimoni Turchi e Cristiani e la colpa non e remissibile negli Stati Ottomani’, Arch. St., 641, 20 October 1764. Only the Italian translation is found in the Venetian archives.

80 The Venetian merchants in Cairo signed a long petition for the dismissal of the consul claiming he was too spirited for Egypt. He was relieved of his post a few months later and left Egypt, no doubt without regrets. Arch. St., 641, 20 March 1765.

81 Aff. Éit., BI, 333, 16 December 1763; 11 June 1764.

82 Al-Jabartī, I, 252; II, 5–8.

83 I, 253.

84 Volney, I, 109.