Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T12:18:26.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ibn al-Azraq, his Ta'rīkh Mayyāfāriqīn, and early Islam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Chase F. Robinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars have known of Ibn al-Azraq and his Ta'rikh Mayyāfāriqin since at least 1882, with the publication of F. Wiistenfeld's Die Geschichtschreiber der Araber und ihre Werke, but it seems that the history received its first thorough reading in 1902, when Amedroz published a summary of the recently acquired British Museum (now British Library) manuscript. Amedroz concentrated only on the latter folios of the MS, particularly those that cover the Marwanid dynasty, and in his interest in the second half of the work he has been followed by B. A. L. Awad, who edited the section on the Marwaīnids, C. Hillenbrand, who edited and translated the 18-odd folios that concern the early Artuqids, and A. Savran, who made some brief comments on the two MSS of the history. It is of course natural that the later sections of Ibn al-Azraq's work have attracted historians' attention, since it is here that our author, who was born in 510/III6–7, and who probably died sometime during the last quarter of the sixth century, has important things to say about northern Mesopotamia in his day. For this reason his history was used by later authors;8 as Hillenbrand has noted,9 here he fills a gap in the historical record.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , April 1996 , pp. 7 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1996

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 Göttingen, 1882, p. 89 (n. 256), (with the incorrect kunya of Abū; Muḥammad). The Oriental Institute Library at Oxford is fortunate to own D. Margoliouth's personal copy of the work; and on Ibn al-Azraq, as well as on many other figures, Margoliouth's marginalia - many of which are drawn from sources that were still in manuscript - correct and supplement Wiistenfeld's work substantially.

2 A note at the beginning of the MS states that it was “Bought from Major Raverty July 18 1900”. Raverty served in India from 1843 until 1863, and was assistant commissioner in the Punjab from 1852 until 1859. Where, when, and why he took an interest in a local history of a northern Mesopotamian town written in Arabic are unclear; one can only speculate that he came upon the manuscript on his way to, or from, India. (I am indebted to J. Gurney for information on Raverty). For Amedroz's reading, see “Three Arabic MSS. on the history of the city of Mayyafariqin,” JRAS, (1902), pp. 785–812Google Scholar.

3 In his words, he only “fully read" the latter half of the MS; see his “Three Arabic MSS.,” 795; and idem., “The Marwanid dynasty at Mayyafariqin in the tenth and eleventh centuries,” JRAS, (1903), pp. 123–54Google Scholar.

4 (folios 121b–160b), as Tārikh al-Fāriqi (Cairo, 1959)Google Scholar.

5 (folios 160b–178b), as A Muslim Principality in Crusader Times (Istanbul, 1990)Google Scholar. See also eadem, “Some medieval Islamic approaches to source material,” Oriens, XXVII/XXVIII (1981), pp. 231ffGoogle Scholar.

6 “General information on two manuscripts of Tārikh Mayyāfāriqin wa Āmid,” Doğu Dilleri ii, 3 (1977), pp. 245–56Google Scholar.

7 Awad, , Ta'rikh, p. 284Google Scholar.

8 E.g. Ibn Shaddād (Amedroz, , “Three Arabic MSS.,” p. 799Google Scholar; Cahen, C. (“La Djazira au milieu du treizième siecle d'après 'Izz ad-Din Ibn Chaddad,” Revue des Ètudes Islamiques, VIII [1934], p. 110)Google Scholar; Ibn Wāsil, Sibt b. al-Jawzī, and Ibn Khallikān (Amedroz, , “Three Arabic MSS.,” p. 800Google Scholar; Hillenbrand, , “Approaches”)Google Scholar; Yāqūt andn al-Qazwīnī (El2 s.v. “Mayyāiāriḳīn” [Minorsky]); and Qalānisī, Ibn, (Dhayl ta'rikh Dimashq [Leiden, 1908], p. 8Google Scholar and index s.v. “al-Fāriqī, Aḥmad b. Yūsuf”). On the matter of sources, see also al-Khalīl, I.D., al-Imārāt alartuqiyya (Beirut, 1980), p. 27.Google Scholar

9 Principality, pp. 7f. For a brief discussion of Ibn al-Azraq and his work, see also Väth, G., Die Geschichte der artuqidischen Fürstentümer in Syrien und der Ĝazira'l-Furātiya (Berlin, 1987), p. IIGoogle Scholar (a typo has crept into Ibn al-Azraq's, death date on p. 19Google Scholar).

10 Hillenbrand prefers to call the work the Ta'rikh Mayyāfāriqīn wa-Āmid; Awad opts for Ta'rikh al-Fāriqī; and many of the medieval authorities appear to abbreviate the former to Ta'rikh Mayyāfāriqin.

11 See, for examples, Khallikān, Ibn, Wafayāt al-a'yān (Beirut, 1977)Google Scholar, index s.v. “Ibn al-Azraq al-Fāriqī”; and Khalīfa, Hajjī, Kashf al-ẓunūn (Leiden, 1835–1858), ii, pp. 99 and 154Google Scholar.

12 al-A'lāq al-khaṭīra fi dhikr umarā al-Shām wa'l-Jazira, iiiI (Damascus, 1978), pp. 278f. and 332Google Scholar (perhaps first noted by Margoliouth in his commentary on Wüstenfeld, , Geschichtschreiber, p. 89Google Scholar, where he added “Aḥmad b.Yūsuf b. 'Alī”; this note may, however, come from a different hand).

13 Who credits an account concerning Malikshāh to Aḥmad [b.] Yūsuf b. 'Alī al-Azraq, said to be the author of a Ta'rikh Mayyāfāriqīn; see now al-'Adīm, Ibn, Bughyat al-ṭalabfi ta'rikh Ḥalab (Damascus, 1988), p. 2301Google Scholar.

14 al-Ilān bi'l-tawbīkh, trans, by Rosenthal, F. in A History of Muslim Historiography (Leiden, 1952), p. 405Google Scholar.

15 Kaḥḥāla, U., Mu'jam al-mu'allifin (Beirut, 1993), ii, p. 286Google Scholar; Ziriklī, K. D., al-A'lām (Beirut [?], 1954), iv, pp. 268f.Google Scholar

16 Hidayat al-'ārifin (Istanbul, 1951), i, p. 458Google Scholar; and Idem, Īḍāḥ al-maknūn fi al-dhayl 'alā kashf al-ẓunūn (Istanbul, 1945), i, p. 212Google Scholar. But cf. the Istanbul edition of the Kashf (1941), i, p. 307Google Scholar.

17 See, for example, Hilāl al-Ṣābī's Kitāb al-wuzarā' ed. by Amedroz, as The Historical Remains of Hilâl al-Sâbî (Beirut, 1904)Google Scholar, s.v. “al-Tanūkhī, Aḥmad b. Yūsuf b. al-Azraq”.

18 See al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ta'rikh Baghdād (Cairo, 1931), viii, p. 122Google Scholar; al-Dhahabī, , Siyar a'lām al-nubalā' (Beirut, 1988), xiv, pp. 319 and 323; and xv, pp. 97 and 289Google Scholar; and for a brief biography, Massignon, L., La passion de Husayn Ibn Mansûr Hallâj (2nd ed., Paris, 1975), ii, pp. I34fGoogle Scholar.; and ‘Umarī, A. D., Mawārid al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (Beirut, 1975), p. 248Google Scholar.

19 From Amedroz on, the date of the work's composition has been put in S72, and this has served as the terminus post quem for the author's death; see Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der arabischen Literatur Supplementband I (Leiden, 1937; hereafter GAL SI), pp. 569fGoogle Scholar; Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 405 note 3Google Scholar; and Hillenbrand, , Principality, pp. 5f.Google Scholar (who adds more evidence and precision). Awad, adducing a note written by the author on a MS of Ghazālī's lḥyā', pushes it to 577 (see the introduction to his edition, Ta'rikh, p. 22Google Scholar). The best summary of Ibn al-Azraq's life remains Amedroz's (“Three Arabic MSS.,” pp. 787ff.Google Scholar).

20 For a description of BL OR 5803, see Hillenbrand, , Principality, pp. 15ff.Google Scholar, Awad, Ta'rikh, introduction, and Savran, , “General information.”Google Scholar

21 Dahhan's, S. comment (“The origin and development of the local histories of Syria,”Google Scholar Historians of the Middle East, ed. Lewis, B. and Holt, P. M. [London, 1962], p. 115Google Scholar) that “there were not many historians of the jazīra and those known to us through sources are very few” is not only curious, but incorrect. Of several (now lost) histories of Ḥarrānian provenance, at least two relatively early works addressed Jazīran learning in general:

I. The Ta'rikh al-Jazira (or Ta'rikh al-Jazarīyyīn) of Abū 'Arūba al-Husayn/al-Ḥasan b. Abī Ma'shar al-Ḥarrānī, d. 318; see Wüstenfeld, , Geschichteschreiber, p. 33 (n. 100)Google Scholar; Yāqūt, , Mu'jam al-buldān (Leipzig, 1866–1870), ii, p. 232Google Scholar; al-Sam'ānī, Kitāb al-ansāb (Hyderabad, 1964), iv, p. 107Google Scholar; al-Dhahabī, , Siyar, xiv, pp. 510ff.Google Scholar; Khalīfa, Hajjī, Kashf, ii, p. 106Google Scholar; Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 389Google Scholar; Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der arabischen Literatur (Weimar, 1898), p. 138Google Scholar, stated that this history was not a rijāl work, and although Ibn al-Nadīm suggests some confusion about his work in general (Kitab al-Fihrist [Leipzig, 1872], p. 230Google Scholar: wa-kāna yuṣannif ḥadīth al-shuyūkh wa-lā kitāb la-hu ghayr hādhā), al-Mizzī's material (Tahdhīb al-kamāl fi asmā' al-rijāl [Beirut, 1992], xx, p. 364, xxviii, p. 360, and xxix, p. 212Google Scholar) reflects a rijāl work, perhaps of the ṭabaqāt variety. Al-Dhahabī (Siyar, xiv, p. 511Google Scholar) knew of two of his books: a kitāb al-tabaqāt and a kitāb ta'rīkh al-Jazira.

2. The Ta'rikh al-Jazira of'Alīb. ‘Allān al-Ḥarrānī, who transmitted ḥadīths from Abū 'Arūba (see Yāqūt, , Mu'jam al-buldān, ii, p. 232Google Scholar; Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 390Google Scholar), and whose work was apparently available to the former (Mu'jam al-buldān, Yāqūt, ii, p. 733Google Scholar).

22 Al-Sakhāwī regrettably forgot the name of one historian of Nisibis (Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 405Google Scholar), but for Amid we have citations to a Ta'rikh written by the Hanbalī polymath Sharaf al-Dīn Ismā'īl b. Aḥmad b. 'Alī al-Āmidī (Ibn al-Tītī, d. 677; see al-Ṣafadī, , al-Wāfi bi'I-wafayāt, ix [Wiesbaden, 1974], p. 88Google Scholar; and al-Baghdādī, Īḍāḥ al-maknūn, , i, p. 211Google Scholar [“Ibn al-Bītī”]). Illisch, L. (Geschichte der Artuqidenherrschaft von Mardin zwischen Mamluken und Mongolen 1260—1410 AD [Münster, 1984], p. 11Google Scholar) suggests that Ibn al-Tītī's history of Āmid was a continuation of Ibn al-Azraq's work.

23 Ibn al-Azraq's Ta'rikh survives in two incomplete MSS: British Library OR 5803, and British Library OR 6310; since the second of these begins in A.H. 255, I shall limit my comments to the first.

24 On this, see below.

25 A later hand has inserted hunā faṣl on f. 12b between 11. 14 and 15 to separate this section from the next.

26 The battle of Jalūlī' is curiously put in year 19, rather than the m o r e usual 16.

27 “Three Arabic MSS.,” p. 785Google Scholar.

28 There appear to have been several.

29 Amedroz, , “Three Arabic MSS.,” p. 785Google Scholar; Fiey, J. M., “Mārūta de Martyropolis d'après Ibn al-Azraq,” Analecta Bollandiana, xciv (1976), p. 36Google Scholar.I can first make out the t w o paginations on f. 2a of my film, where number ten also appears above number two.

30 Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 16Google Scholar, notes only that they “probably contained a history of the early Islamic period,” and Awad, , Ta'rikh, p. 16Google Scholar (English introduction)/p. 6 (Arabic introduction) suggests Muhammad's life, the caliphate of Abū Bakr and the beginning of 'Umar's.

31 Savran, , “General information,” pp. 248ffGoogle Scholar.

32 The first occurs early on, and in it Ibn al-Azraq refers the reader to an account (dhikr) about the tomb of the prophet Daniel, which is said to have come in the “first part (juz) of this book” (see f. 13a, 11. 9–10). (For accounts of the discovery of his tomb during the conquest of al-Sūs, see al-Ṭabarī, , Ta'rikh al-rusul wa'l-mulūk [Leiden, 1901], i, pp. 2566fGoogle Scholar.; and Ḥawqal, Ibn, Kitāb ṣurat al-arḍ [Leiden, 1939], p. 225Google Scholar). Later Ibn al-Azraq refers the reader to an account of Alexander the Great; this too he says he has discussed in the “first part of this book”; see f. 99b, 11. 15–16, and f. 36b, 1. I.

33 Discussing 'Uthmān's reign (f. 23b, 11. 17–18) Ibn al-Azraq alludes to ‘Uthmān's intercession on behalf of 'Abd Allāh b. Sa'd b. Abī Sarḥ, here identified as 'Abd Allāh b. Abī Sarḥ, after Muḥammad's conquest of Mecca (see Watt, W. M., Muhammad at Medina [Oxford, 1956], p. 68Google Scholar); this, Ibn al-Azraq says, “we have first mentioned in the second part of this book.” For other examples, see f. 23a, 11. 9–10; f. 24b, 11. 2–3; and f. 72a, 1. 5.

34 f. 7a, 1. 15 to f. 7b, 1. 5.

35 fa-inna mabnā hādhā al-kitāb wa-jam'ahu kāna qad qara'tu

36 (aṣl) Assuming that the author of the work is Aḥmad b. Abī Ṭahir Ṭayfūr (d. 280/893), we might expect that the original manuscript had been superseded by authorized copies. For a description of manuscript transmission and the role of the asl, see Rosenthal, F., The Technique and Approach of Muslim Scholarship (Rome, 1947). P. 4Google Scholar; and for an elaborate example, Ibn al-'Adīm, , Bughya, pp. 81f.Google Scholar

37 Reading wa-ibtidā' ‘imāratihā; cf. f. 7b, 1. 9. I have rendered 'imāra as “building” throughout. The term describes the erection of specific buildings, as well as urban development in general; see, for example, Sayf al-Dawla's activities in Mayyāfāriqīn on f. 113a.

38 Although it might first appear that two ‘Uqaylids, Mu'tamid al-Dawla Qirwāsh (b. al-Muqallad) (ruled from 391–442) and Sharaf al-Dawla (b. Quraysh) (453–78) have been conflated, Awad has noted (Ta'rikh, p. 129 note 1Google Scholar) Ibn al-Azraq's curious practice of giving the former the laqab of Sharaf al-Dawla.

39 Literally: “came to desire” (aḥbabtu, which is written twice).

40 Here a mark directs the reader's attention to another line of text, which was written upside down at the top of the folio, but apparently in the same hand. It is confused, but a tentative reading is as follows: “a period, and the Byzantines returned, took it [back] from them, and it remained in their hands until the Muslims conquered it.”

41 Here I follow the standard reading of the date (see Amedroz, , “Three Arabic MSS.”, p. 785Google Scholar; Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 5Google Scholar; Ta'rikh, Awad Arabic introduction, p. 12Google Scholar; and al-Imārāt al-artuqiyya, al-Khalīl, p. 27Google Scholar). However, the date might well be read as 592.

42 Literally “the Muḥammadan Arab hijra”: al-hijra al-Muḥammadiyya al-'arabiyya. The date is followed by various prayers.

43 The work has been edited twice: first as Ta'rikh al-dawla al-atābakiyya mulūk al-Mawṣil in the Recueil des historiens des Croisades: Historiens Orientaux, ii2 (Paris, 1876)Google Scholar; and second as al-Ta'rikh al-bāhir fi al-dawla alātabakiyya fi al-Mawṣil (Cairo, 1963).Google Scholar

44 The names are far t oo numerous to list here: suffice it only to mention Ka'b al-Aḥbār, Salmān al-Fārisī, and Sufyān al-Thawrī.

45 The earliest example concerns Mu'āwiya's administrative responsibilities in the north during ‘Uthman's reign; see f. 22a, ult. to 22b, 1. 7; for other examples, see f. 72b, 11. 17–18; f. 78a, 11. 12–13; f. 79a, 11. 5–6; f. 88a, 11. 10–11; f. 90a, 11. 8–10; f. 91a, 1. 20; f. 92a, 11. 3–4; f. 93b, 11. 16–19; f. 96b, 11. 12–13; f. 99a, 11. 1–3; f. 102b, 11. 14–15.

46 See, for example, ff. 96b and 97a.

47 See his Ta'rikh al-Mawṣil (Cairo, 1967).Google Scholar

48 f. 6b.

49 ff. 113a–114a. The account was published by Canard, M., Sayfal Daula: Recueil de textes relatifs à I'émir Sayf al Daula le Hamdanide (Algiers, 1934), pp. 208ff.Google Scholar

50 f. 88b, 1. 21 to f. 89b, 1. 13 (Baghdad); f. 90b, 11. 18–21 (Ruṣāfa); f. 97b, 1. 8 to f. 98a, 1. 18 (Sāmarrā); and f. 79b, 11. 1–4 (Mosul).

51 See Lassner, J., “Notes on the topography of Baghdad: the systematic description of the city and the ,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, LXXXIII (1963), p. 460f.Google Scholar

52 al-Mawṣil, ‘Ta'rikh, pp. 26ffGoogle Scholar.

53 On this history, see below.

54 Needless to say, his interest in the monuments of his city is not confined to the early folios; among the later, see Awad, , Ta'rikh, pp. 86f., 107f., 168f, and 214Google Scholar. Although he did not have direct access to the work, Markwart, J. (Südarmenien und die Tigrisquellen nachgriechischen und arabischen Geographen [Vienna, 1930], p. 185Google Scholar) seems to have been the first to recognize the source's value for geography and topography; but no one, it seems, has exploited the work systematically since.

55 For an examination of the fitna theme in earlier historical writing, see Noth, A., The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: a Source-Critical Study, 2nd edition. (Princeton, 1994), passim.Google Scholar

56 A History ofSharvān and Darband in the ioth and 11th Centuries (Cambridge, 1958), p. 170Google Scholar.

57 Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 6Google Scholar.

58 Such as, for example, al-Tha'labī and al-Wāḥidī, on whom see below.

59 Hillenbrand, , Principality, pp. 69/166Google Scholar.

60 See al-Muqaddasī, , Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fi ma'rifat al-aqālīm (Leiden, 1906), p. 142Google Scholar (jalaba li'l-shī'a).

61 See his al-KāmilJi al-ta'rikh (Beirut, 1965–7), i, pp. 21fGoogle Scholar. (I take this passage to express more than simply the author's false modesty). Mayyāfāriqīn itself appears to have become a centre of Shāfī'I learning during the Ḥamdānid period; see Halm, H., Die Ausbreitung der ŝāfi'itischen Rechtsschule von den Anfängen bis zum 8./14. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1974), 197.Google Scholar

62 al-Najāshī, al-Rijāl (Beirut, 1988) ii, pp. 319fGoogle Scholar; al-Suyūṭī, Ṭabaqāt al-ḥuffāẓ (Cairo, 1973), pp. 375fGoogle Scholar; Hajar, Ibn, Lisān al-mizān (Hyderabad, 1331), v, 322Google Scholar. On Ḥanafism in Mārdīn during the Artuqid period, see Illisch, , Geschichte der Artuqidenherrschaft, pp. 170ffGoogle Scholar.

63 See Bausani, A., “Religion in the Saljuq period,” Cambridge History of Iran, v (Cambridge, 1968), p. 292.Google Scholar

64 Cf. Haarmann, U.'s review of Hillenbrand, Principality, in Bibliotheca Orientalis, li (1994), p. 183Google Scholar; Haarmann takes no view on Minorsky's suggestion.

65 Principality, p. 60, note 70.Google Scholar

66 For a detailed discussion of the second of these, see Stern, S. M., “The succession of the Fatimid Imam al-Āmir, the claims of the later Fatimids to the imamate, and the rise of Ṭayyibī Ismailism,” Oriens, IV (1951), pp. 193–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Awad, , Ta'rikh, p. 276fGoogle Scholar.

68 Principality, pp. 162f./60ffGoogle Scholar.

69 Cf. the description of al-Āmir (tawaṭṭada la-hu mulk Miṣr wa-nawāḥihā) (Awad, , Ta'rikh, p. 277Google Scholar) with that of al-Ḥāfiẓ: wa-baqiya al-Ḥāfiẓ fi al-khilāfa wa-istaqarra wa-tawaṭṭada mulkuhu (Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 162Google Scholar).

70 See the accounts beginning on f. 23b, 1. 14 and f. 24b, 1. 10.

71 Defied only by 'Alī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn; see the account on f. 24a, second half.

72 f. 35a, 1. 6, and the famous tradition on f. 43b, 11. 16–17, according to which the Prophet tells 'Alī: “O'Alī, you were the first Muslim to convert and the first among the believers in faith (awwal al-mu' minīn īmānan). You are to me as Aaron was to Moses” (wa-anta minni bi-manzilat Hārūn min Mūsā). Cf. also f. 113b, 11. 17–19, where one of ‘Alī's prophecies is fulfilled.

73 See f. 74b (‘Alī Zayn al-'Ābidīn); f. 79b (Muhammad al-Bāqir); f. 89b (Ja'far al-Ṣādiq); f. 92b (Mūsā al-Kāẓim, whose tomb he visited no fewer than three times); f. 95b (‘Alī al-Riḍā); f. 98a-b (Muḥammad al-Jawād); f. IO2a-b (‘Alī al-Hādī).

74 Of course, it could be argued that al-Tabarī wrote before the events in Sāmarrā' had become significant; but according to Kohlberg, the names of the Twelve Imāms had already appeared in the Tafsir of al-Qummī (d. 307/919), and by al-Kulīnī's death (329/941), “all the basic ingredients of Twelver Shī'ī theory may be found.” See Kohlberg, E., “From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-‘Ashariyya,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XXXIX (1976), p. 523Google Scholar. Al-Ṭabarī's famous abridger, Ibn al-Athīr, is silent as well.

75 The account begins on f. 103b, 1. 4 and ends on f. 104a, 1. 3.

76 f. 103b.

77 Halm, H., Shiism (Edinburgh, 1991), p. 35.Google Scholar

78 Ibn Khallikān, , Wafayāt al-a'yān, iv, p. 176Google Scholar.

79 See below, note 113.

80 Awad, , Ta'rikh, pp. 112ffGoogle Scholar.

81 Cf. the account preserved by al-Mufīd, al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-irshād, trans. Howard, I. K. A. (London, 1981), pp. 15f.Google Scholar

82 f. 35a, 11. 14–19. Al-Mas'ūdī alludes to a version of the same story; see his Murūj al-dhahab (Beirut, 1970), iii, P. 93.Google Scholar

83 Hillenbrand, , Principality, pp. 62f./163:Google Scholar “The people of Egypt and the Ismā'īlīs are in error. Only those with prejudices and heretical beliefs hold this view. There is no imām and no caliph except one from the 'Abbāsid family (āl al-'Abbās) in Baghdad” (my translation).

84 See Bosworth, C. E., “Al-Maqrīzī's epistle ‘Concerning what has come down to us about the Banū Umayya and the Banū 1-‘Abbās’” Studia Arabica and Islamica (Festschrift for Ihsan Abbas) (Beirut, 1981), pp. 39–45.Google Scholar

85 Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 57Google Scholar; see also Millward, W., “The sources of al-Ya'qūbī and the question of Shī'a partiality,” Abr-Nahrain XII (1971–1972), pp. 47–74.Google Scholar

86 See his Ta'rikh Baghdad (Leipzig, 1908 and Cairo, 1949)Google Scholar. On Aḥmad b. Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr in general, see Sezgin, F., Geschichte des atabischen Schrifttums (Leiden, 1967), i, pp. 348fGoogle Scholar. (hereafter cited as GAS); Rosenthal, , History, pp. 152fGoogle Scholar. (where he notes that the work was a model for urban topography in Spain as well), and El 2 s.v. (Rosenthal).

87 The whole question of Ḥamdānid and ‘Uqaylid historiography has long been overlooked; instead we only have discussions about what has survived and what it can tell us about the dynasties in question. The two most thorough discussions seem to be Canard, M., Histoire de la Dynastie des H'amdanides de jazîra et de Syrie (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar, “Introduction”; and Bikhazi, R. J., The Hamdanid Dynasty of Mesopotamia and North Syria 234–404/868–1014, (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1981), i, pp. 14–29.Google Scholar

88 On al-Shimshāṣī, see al-Najāshī, , Rijāl, ii, pp. 93fGoogle Scholar; Yāqūt, , Mu'jam al-buldān, ii, p. 320Google Scholar; al-Tha'ālibī, , Yatīmat al-dahr (Damascus, 1304), i, p. 9Google Scholar; al-Shimshāṣī, , Kitāb al-Anwār wa-maḥāsin al-shi'r (Kuwait, 1977), i, pp. 3ff.Google Scholar; Ibn al-Nadīm, , al-Fihrist, p. 154Google Scholar. Here I follow Dodge's emendation (based on the Beatty MS) of Flügel's text from al-Sumaysāṣī to al-Shimshati; see Dodge, B., The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture (New York, 1970), i, p. 339Google Scholar. Dodge's view is confirmed by Yāqūt, , Irshād al-arīb (Leiden, 1911), v, p. 375Google Scholar, and al-Baghdādī, Ibn al-Najjār, Dhayl Ta'rikh Baghdād (Hyderabad, 1985), iv, p. 42Google Scholar, both of whom cite Ibn al-Nadīm.

89 “Three Arabic MSS,” pp. 794fGoogle Scholar.

90 Awad, , Ta'rikh, Arabic introduction, p. 1Google Scholar.

91 And to judge by the notes written at the back of his copy of Wüstenfeld, so t oo did Margoliouth.

92 As we almost certainly should, since al-Shimshāṣī travelled in Shī'te circles.

93 See the Amālī al-Murtaḍa (Cairo, 1954)Google Scholar, passim.

94 See Ibn al-Nadīm, , al-Fihrist, p. 54Google Scholar.

95 qad qila innahu taraka kathiran min akhlāqihi 'ind 'ulūw sanatihi; see al-Fihrist, I bn al-Nadīm, p. 154Google Scholar. That Ibn al-Nadīm was writing in 377 is confirmed by the accounts in al-Ṣafadī, , al-Wāfi bi'l-wafayāt, xxii, p. 158Google Scholar, and Yāqūt, , Irshād, v, p. 375Google Scholar, both of which are based on it.

96 See Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 12Google Scholar; Markwart, , Südarmenien, p. 197Google Scholar, note r.

97 See, for examples, Ibn al-Nadīm in note 88 above; Eddé-Terrasse, A. M., Description de la Syrie du Nord (Damascus, 1984), pp. 115Google Scholar, note 3, and 194, note 4; and Mu'jam al-buldān, Yāqūt, iii, p. 320Google Scholar.

98 al-Dawādārī, Ibn, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmi' al-ghurar (Cairo, 1961), vi, p. 272Google Scholar (his copy of al-Sumaysāṣī's work on Syria petered out in 394). My attention was first drawn to this passage by Forsythe, J. H., The Byzantine-Arab Chronicle (938–1034) of Yahya b. Sa'id al-Antaki (Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Michigan, 1977), p. 103.Google Scholar (I am indebted to H. Kennedy for making this work available to me).

99 See al-Athīr, Ibn, al-Lubāb fi tahdhīb al-ansāb (Cairo, 1355), i, p. 566Google Scholar; al-Dhahabī, , Siyar, xviii, pp. 71f.Google Scholar; al-'Imād, Ibn, Shadharāt al-dhahab (Cairo, 1350–1351) iii, pp. 291Google Scholar; Mu'jam al-buldān, Yāqūt, iii, p. 152Google Scholar.

100 Ibn al-Athīr, , al-Lubāb, i, p. 566Google Scholar; Mākūlā, Ibn, al-Ikmāl (Hyderabad, 1966), v, pp. 141fGoogle Scholar.; Elisséef, N., La description de Damas d'lbn 'Asākir (Damascus, 1959), p. 268Google Scholar. On the khānqāhs and ribāṣs of Damascus in this period, see Pouzet, L., Damas au viie/xiiie siècle: vie et structures religieuses d'une métropole islamique (Beirut, 1988)Google Scholar, chapter 4, and on the khānqāh named after al-Sumaysāṭī, , pp. 169, 211, 232, and 317Google Scholar.

101 But cf. the case of Ibn Wāṣil (d. 697/1298), who wrote works on adab, handasa, ‘ilm al-hay'a, ṭibb, and ta'rikh; see his Mufarrij al-kurūb (Cairo, 1953), i, p. 4.Google Scholar

102 Ibn Mākūlā, , al-lkmāl, v, pp. 141fGoogle Scholar.

103 Hillenbrand, , Principality, pp. 130/200.Google Scholar

104 These included the fourth-century Syrian historian, al-Rāzī; see Conrad, G., Abū'l-Ḥusain al-Rāzi (–347/958) und seine Schriften (Stuttgart, 1991), p. 18Google Scholar; and for others who cited his Ta'rikh Baghdād, see Sezgin, , GAS, i, p. 349Google Scholar, and Rosenthal, , History, p. 386.Google Scholar

105 See, for instance, al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, , Ta'rikh Baghdād, i, p. 117Google Scholar, where the author had access to two recensions of Aḥmad b. Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr's work. Note, however, that in general al-Khaṭīb cites surprisingly little from the work; see ‘Umarī, , Mawdrid, p. 212Google Scholar; and Lassner, J., The Topography of Baghdad in the Early Middle Ages (Detroit, 1970), pp. 34f.Google Scholar

106 See al-Khaṭīb's, description of the work: lahu kitāb Baghdād al-muṣannaf fi akhbār al-khulafā‘ wa-ayyāmihim (Ta'rikh Baghdād, iv, p. 211)Google Scholar; and Lassner, , “Notes on the topography of Baghdad,” p. 463Google Scholar.

107 An account of the Hamdānid/Byzantine battle at Aleppo in 351 is attributed by al-Dhahabī to ‘Alī b. Muḥammad al-Shimshāṭī; it certainly would fit in a dynastic history of the time. See Canard, , Sayf al Daula, pp. 145ff.Google Scholar

108 Among those that have survived and have been edited recently, see the Ta'rikh Wāsiṭ of al-Wāsiṭī, Baḥshal (d. 292) (Beirut, 1986)Google Scholar, the Ṭabaqāt al-muḥaddithin bi-Isfahān of al-Shaykh, Ibn (d. 369) (Beirut, 1989)Google Scholar, and the Ta'rikh Jurjān of al-Sahmī, (d. 427) (Beirut, 1981).Google Scholar

109 Lassner, , “Notes on the topography of Baghdad,” p. 463.Google Scholar

110 In addition to the passage translated above, Ibn al-Azraq cites the Kitāb Baghdād (presumably that of Aḥmad b. Ṭahir Ṭayfūr) on f. 95a, 1. 13; and al-Shimshāṭī on f. 35a, I. 14.

111 f. 92b, 1. 2.

112 f. 2b, 1. II, that is, Rufay' b. Mihrān al-Riyāḥi al-Baṣri, who died sometime during the governorship of al-Ḥajjāj, or in 106 or III (see Ibn Ḥajar, , Tahdhib al-tahdhib [Hyderabad, 1325], iii, p. 285Google Scholar). It may be as the purported author of a tafsir that Ibn al-Azraq knew him; on Rufay', see also al-Balādhuri, , Futūh al-buldān (Leipzig, 1866), p. 411Google Scholar; and Sezgin, , GAS, i, p. 34Google Scholar.

113 f. 35a, 1.7.

114 f. 2a, 1. 6.

115 f. 100a, 1. 15; and 106a, II. 14–15.

116 f. 123a, 1. 8; it is not, it seems, part of the preserved portion, which only covers years 389–393 (The Historical Remains).

117 f. 61b, 1. 13.

118 f. 26b, 1. 10; f. 37a, 1. I. On Abū Isḥaq Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhim al-Tha'labi (d. 427/1036) and his tafsir, see Ibn Khallikān, , Wafayāt, i, pp. 79f.Google Scholar; and Brockelmann, , GAL, i, p. 350Google Scholar, and GAL SI, p. 592Google Scholar.

119 f. 15b, 11. 15–16; f. 37a, 1. I. O n Abū al-ḥasan, 'Ali b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Wāḥidi (d. 468/1075) and his tafsirs, see Ibn Khallikān, , Wafayāt, iii, pp. 303f.Google Scholar; and Brockelmann, , GAL, i, p. 411Google Scholar, and GAL SI, pp. 730fGoogle Scholar.

120 f. 12b, 1. 7.

121 f. 108a, 1. 20 (Awad, , Ta'rikh, English introduction, p. 32Google Scholar, incorrectly reads Ibn al-Shajari). Although unknown to Amedroz, he is probably to be identified as Ahmad b. Kāmil b. Khalaf b. Shajara b. Mansūr b. Ka'b (b. 260; d. 350), a student of al-Ṭabari's, who is credited with a Kitāb al-ta'rikh and tawārikh aṣḥdb al-ḥadith. See Yāqūt, , Irshād, ii, pp. 16ff.Google Scholar; and al-Khatṭib, , Ta'rikh Baghdād, iv, pp. 357ffGoogle Scholar.

122 f. 99b, 1. 13 (text reads Ibn Kh-dh-ā-d-ā-w-y-h)

123 f. 22a, 11. 10–11; f. 62b (margin); f. 72a, 1. 10; f. 82a, 11. 19–20; f. 88b, 1. 20; f. 90a, 1. 4; and f. 94b, 1. 17.

124 f. 12b, 1. 16; f. 22a, 1. 11; and f. 113b, 11. 14–15 (on year 339). The tafsirs might well be those o f al-Tha'labi and al-Wāḥidi.

125 f. na, 11. 14–21; and cf. f. 11b. Presumably to be identified with Ibn al-Azraq's contemporary, Abū al-Fath Muḥammad b. 'Ali b. Nubāta (Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 110Google Scholar), who was appointed qāḍi of Mārdin in 538/1144, rather than with the famous khaṭib Muḥammad b. Ismā'il b. Nubāta (d. 374/985; see Ibn Khallikān, , Wafaydt al-a'yān, iii, pp. 156ff.Google Scholar, citing Ibn al-Azraq).

126 For the Jazīran conquests, see al-Balādhurī, , Futūh, pp. 172ff.Google Scholar

127 Note that much later Abū ‘Ubayda and ‘Iyāḍ b. Ghanm are said to have been related: ‘Iyād‘ is either his ibn ‘amm or ibn imra’atihi; see Abd al-Barr, Ibn, ‘al-Isti ‘āb fi ma‘rifat al-aṣḥāb (Cairo, 1977), ix, p. 69.Google Scholar

128 al-Ṭabarī, , Ta’rīkh, i, pp. 2505ff.Google Scholar

129 Futūḥ, pp. 175fGoogle Scholar.

130 See, for instance, the report credited to the famous Jazīran traditionist Maymūn b. Mihrān: al-Jazīra kulluhā futūḥ Iyāḍ b. Ghanm (Futūḥ, p. 182Google Scholar) as well as others, according to which Mayyāfāriqīn falls after Nisibis (Futūḥ;, p. 75Google Scholar, on the authority of Thābit b. al-Ḥajjāj), or after Āmid and before Nisibis (FutūḤ, pp. 176Google Scholar, on the authority of al-Ḥajjāj b. Abī Maī al-Ruṣāfī).

167 Futūḥ, pp. 176fGoogle Scholar.

132 al-Ṭabarī, , Ta’rīkh, i, p. 2506.Google Scholar

133 That is, whether the figure in question was ‘Umayr b. Sa‘d b. Shuhayd, of the Aws, or ‘Umayr b. Sa‘d b. ‘Ubayd, whose father had been killed at Qādisiyya (al-Balādhurī, , Futūḥ, p. 177Google Scholar). The confusion continued in Ibn Ḥajar's time; see his al-IṢāba fi tamyiz al-ṣaḥāba (Cairo, 1907), v, pp. 32f.Google Scholar

134 al-Balādhurī, , Futūḥ, p. 178.Google Scholar

135 f. 2b, II. 8 to 3a. Cf. al-Ṭabarī, , Ta’rikh, i, pp. 2444–2456.Google Scholar

136 See al-Nadīm, Ibn, Fihrist, p. 94.Google Scholar For citations in Ibn Ḥajar, see Sezgin, U., Abū Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der umaiyadischen Zeit (Leiden, 1971), pp. 154f.Google Scholar and add Iṣāba, v, p. 175; here Ibn ḥajar draws on the work for information on ‘Umar b. Sa‘d.

137 Note, for example, that Ḥajar, Ibn, (Iṣāba, v, pp. 174f.Google Scholar) seems to have drawn some of his other material from a rijāl specialist, Ibn Fatḥūn (d. 519; see Rosenthal, , History, p. 332Google Scholar, note 8), in his Dhayl to Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s Istī‘āb; Ibn Fatḥūn, in his turn, was drawing on thejazīran rijāl specialist, Abū ‘Arūba (see above, note 21).

138 The Life of Gabriel (edited and translated by Palmer, A. in his Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier [Cambridge, 1990], microfiche 2, p. lxxii)Google Scholar, describes a meeting between the saint and the “governor of the Arabs” (lit. “sons of Hagar” shulṭānā d-bnay Hāgār); the meeting apparently took place in the town of Jazīrat b. ‘Umar shortly after the conquest of the north, and it produced a treaty, the terms of which are then described. As Palmer suggests (Monk, pp. 158f.Google Scholar), there is little reason to consider it authentic, and one of his criticisms is the use of the term shulṭānā, rather than the much more usual malkā (“king”). But in ‘Umar b. Sa‘d, who might have reasonably been considered a “governor” (although we might also expect amīrā), we may have the inspiration for this ingredient in the legend.

139 See Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 13.Google Scholar

140 Perhaps the best example occupies nearly all off. 5a, where a monk insists that ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb honour a letter exempting his monastery from the kharāj, which he is said to have written during an earlier trip to Antioch taken during the Jāhiliyya; ‘Umar demurs, noting that the coming of Islam had made all earlier agreements obsolete.

141 See f. 13b, 11. 15–16; f. 16a, 1. 17 to f. 16b, 1. 1; f. 23a, 1. 8.

142 Yāqūt, , Mu‘jam al-buldān, iv, p. 707.Google Scholar

143 Futūḥ, pp. 172f. and 177fGoogle Scholar.

144 See Wellhausen, J., Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (Berlin, 1899), vi, pp. 88f.Google Scholar Although Wellhausen is certainly correct that “die Frage, von wem ein Land erobert sei, hatte nicht bloss historische Bedeutung,” it must also be said that he does not adequately describe and date the intersection of the “practical interests” of Syrian and Iraqi claimants and the emergence of the conquest traditions.

145 See the Libri Wakedii De Mesopotamiae expugnatae historia, ed. Ewald, G. H. A. (Göttingen, 1827)Google Scholar; and the Geschichte der Eroberung von Mesopotamien und Armenien, trans. Niebuhr, B. G. (Hamburg, 1847)Google Scholar; the latter is dated by Markwart (without discussion) to the twelfth century; see his Südartnenien, p. 285Google Scholar. I am at present examining the two works in some detail.

146 f. 26b, 1. 7.

147 f. 10b, 1. 19. Ibn al-Azraq was an enthusiastic traveller, tourist and pilgrim: for some of his travels and pilgrimages, see f. 13b, 11. 2, 5, and 12; f. 22b, 1. 18; and 93b, 1. I. For an overview, see Amedroz, , “Three Arabic MSS.,” p. 787ff.Google Scholar

148 f. 7b, 11. 7–12.

149 qīlā ma dhukirafi al-tash‘ith. The semantic range o f the Syriac term (tash‘ītā) is wide (see Witakowski, W., The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Maḥrē. A Study in the History of Historiography [Uppsala, 1987], pp. 153ff.)Google Scholar, e.g. “s tory”, “account”, “history”, but here almost certainly the original sense is “life”.

150 pace Minorsky (EI 2 s.v. “Mayyāfāriḳīn,”), who puts the tash‘ith in “the Jacobite church of Mayyāfāriḳīn.” Ibn al-Azraq was in fact familiar with a Jacobite church (bī‘at al-ya‘āqiba) (see f. 113a, 1. 18), as was one of the sources used by the anonymous Edessan chronicler of the middle of the twelfth century, to whom we owe the Chronicle of 1234 (ed. by Chabot, J. B. in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, nos. 82 (Syriac)/354 (French) [Paris, 1916 and 1974], pp. 292/220)Google Scholar; this account is dated to 1074. The same source (pp. 283f./213) also speaks of a Melkite bishop in Mayyāfāriqīn in 1029. Ignatius was one Jacobite bishop of Mayyāfāriqīn who was a contemporary of Ibn al-Azraq; he appears as the city's bishop in 1166 (see Michael, the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien (Paris, 1910), iii, p. 480, and for a full list, p. 500).Google Scholar According to Honigmann, E. (Le Couvent de Barṣaumā et le Patriarcat Jacobite d'Antioche et de Syrie [Louvain, 1967]Google Scholar, the evidence for Jacobite bishops in the city runs out in 1186.

151 Or perhaps more generally, a “Christian authority”.

152 Following a marginal note, and reading: fa-dhakara lī shayan ghayr al-maqṣūd.

153 Lacuna.

154 Writing 14 years after Amedroz's articles, J. Markwart seems to have been the first to notice Ibn al-Azraq's reliance on the Life; for the literature on Mārūtā, see Baumstark, A., Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922), pp. 53f.Google Scholar; de Urbina, I.Ortiz Patrologia Syriaca (Rome, 1965), pp. 51f.Google Scholar; and more recently Fiey, J. M., “Mārūta de Matyropolis d'après Ibn al-Azraq,” pp. 35–46.Google Scholar

155 See Yāqūt, , Mu‘jam al-buldān, iv, pp. 703ff.Google Scholar; al-A‘lāq al-khaṭīra, Ibn Shaddād iii1, pp. 360ffGoogle Scholar. Whether Yāqūt and Ibn Shaddād were drawing on the same manuscript tradition that produced BL OR 5803 is another matter.

156 For a convincing critique, see Calder, N., Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (Oxford, 1993), pp. 209ffGoogle Scholar.

167 See, for example, Conrad, L. I., ‘Theophanes and the Arabic historical tradition: some indications of intercultural transmission,” Byzantische Forschungen, XV (1990), pp. 1–44Google Scholar; Hoyland, R., “Arabic, Syriac and Greek historiography in the first Abbasid century: an inquiry into inter-cultural traffic,” Aram, III (1993), pp. 219ff.Google Scholar

158 See, for example, a “translation and reworking” into Arabic of what appears to be recognizably Christian material, which can be dated to the late eighth century (Cook, M., “An early Islamic apocalyptic chronicle,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, LII [1993], pp. 25–29).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

159 Murūj, ii, p. 34.Google Scholar

160 al-Tanbih wa'1-ishrāf (Leiden, 1894), p. 54.Google Scholar

161 Tanbih, p. 155Google Scholar. For a discussion, see Shboul, A., Al-Mas'ūdī and his world (London, 1979), pp. 292f.Google Scholar

162 Pace Lewis, B., “The use by Muslim historians of non-Muslim sources,” Historians of the Middle East, p. 183.Google Scholar

163 Ibn al-‘Adīm, , Bughya, pp. 82–25Google Scholar.

164 See now Morray, D., An Ayyubid Notable and his World: Ibn al-‘Adīm and Aleppo as Portrayed in his Biographical Dictionary of People Associated with the City (Leiden, 1994), pp. 151ff.Google Scholar (reviewed below, pp. 98–99).

165 See Awad, , Ta'rikh, p. 131Google Scholar; Margoliouth, D. S., The Letters of Abu ’l-‘Alā (Oxford, 1898), p. xviGoogle Scholar; and Barsoum, I. A., al-Lu’lu’ al-manthūr, tr. Moosa, M. (Columbia University Ph.D., 1965), pp. 13ff.Google Scholar

166 For an example, see Fiey, J. M., Chrétiens syriaques sous les Abbasides surtout à Bagdad (749–1258) (Louvain, 1980), p. 201.Google Scholar

167 See Graf, G., Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, ii (The Vatican, 1947), pp. 177ff.Google Scholar On Abū al-Qāsim, see Awad, , Ta'rīkh, index, s.v. “Abū al-Qasim”; and EI 2s.v. “al-Maghribi.”Google Scholar

168 See Graf, , Geschichte, ii, p. 189Google Scholar; Uṣaybi'a, Ibn Abī ‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fi ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (Beirut, n.d.), p. 341Google Scholar. Ibn al-Azraq himself (Awad, , Ta'rikh, pp. 164fGoogle Scholar.) knew of a Christian named Ibn Shallīṭā (Syr. “ruler”, “governor”), who was in charge of a waqf in Mayyāfāriqīn during the reigns of al-Ḥasan b. Marwān and Mumahhid al-Dawla (380/990–401/1011); out of the funds of this waqf he spent large sums on digging the city's third canal.

169 See Graf, , Geschichte, ii, pp. 259Google Scholarff; Uṣaybi'a, Ibn Abī, ‘Uyūn al-anbā’, pp. 328f.Google Scholar On YaḤyā, see also Brockelmann, , GAL SI, pp. 862f.Google Scholar; and, for the Takrītī milieu of the ninth and tenth centuries, Fiey, J. M., “Tagrît: Esquisse d'histoire chrétienne,” L'Orient Syrien, VIII (1963), p. 316ff.Google Scholar (reprinted in idem, Communautés syriaques en Iran et Irak des origines à 1552 [London, London]Google Scholar). On zījs (astronomical handbooks with texts and tables), see King, D. “Astronomy”, in The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Science and Learning in the ‘Abbasid Period (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 276ff.Google Scholar

170 The Edessan author of the Chronicle of 1234 had at least one Arabic source that covered the early ninth century; see Fiey's, J. M. introduction to the French translation of the second volume, p. xGoogle Scholar.

171 See Graf, , Geschichte, ii, p. 188.Google Scholar For an example of his use of al-Ṭabarī, , see his Opus Chronologicum (Paris, 1910) (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium no. 62), p. 18Google Scholar.

172 See El2 s.v.faḍīla; and Elad, E., “The History and topography of Jerusalem during the early Islamic period: the historical value of Faḍā'il al-Quds literature: a reconsideration,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, XIV (1991), pp. 41–70.Google Scholar

173 See Manẓūr, Ibn, Mukhtaṣar ta'rikh Dimashq li-Ibn ‘Asākir (Damascus, 1984), i, pp. 275ff.Google Scholar

174 Conrad, L., “Syriac perspectives on Bilād al-Shām during the Abbasid period,” Bilād al-Shām During the Abbasid Period (Amman, 1991), p. 43.Google Scholar

175 See, for instance, the comments of Segal, J. B., Edessa, “The Blessed City” (Oxford, 1970), p. 180.Google Scholar Segal only reluctantly cites his sources explicitly, but it appears that much of his material on the pre-Islamic topography of Edessa comes from the Chronicle of Edessa, Procopius, and the Chronicle of 1234; if so, the historiographic conservatism is remarkable.

Segal's inconsistent footnoting has long frustrated his readers, and at least occasionally, the practice leaves room for generalisations of astonishing breadth. For example, the third paragraph of p. 193 purports to describe tribal settlement in northern Mesopotamia during the early Islamic period, but behind it lies an unacknowledged passage (Futūḥ, al-Balādhurī, p. 178Google Scholar) which has been badly garbled, ‘Uthmān having been replaced by ‘Umar.

176 E.g. Michael the Syrian, the Chronicle of 1234, and the Zuqnin Chronicle, perhaps all drawing on John of Ephesus; see Witakowski's, comments in his Syriac Chronicle, p. 134Google Scholar, and in Jeffreys, E. (ed.), Studies in John Malalas (Sydney, 1990), pp. 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ibn al-'Adīm's, editor (Bughya, p. 85Google Scholar and note 1) suggests Malalas as a source, but the case is not made.

177 Of course this is not to say that this interest was limited to Malalas; cf., for instance, the discussion of Procopius's panegyric of Justinian in Cameron, A., Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), pp. 84ff.Google Scholar and Croke, B. and Crow, J., “Procopius and Data,” Journal of Roman Studies, LXXIII (1983), pp. 43ff.Google Scholar

178 See Ibn al-‘Adīm, , Bughya, p. 83Google Scholar; Shaddād, Ibn, Description de la Syrie du Nord, p. 229Google Scholar; and Ibid, Zubdat al-ḥalab min ta'rikh Ḥalab (Damascus, 1951), i, p. 15.Google Scholar

179 Yāqut, , Mu'jam al-buldān, i, p. 171; ii, pp. 305 and 876.Google Scholar For Yāqūt's use of Yaḥyā's work, see Heer, F. J., Die historischen und geographischen Quellen in Jāqūt's geographischen Wörterbuch (Strassburg, 1898), p. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Of course, one can only guess about h ow much acknowledged use Yāqūt made of t he work.

180 See shaddād, Ibn, al-A‘lāq al-khaṭira, iii, p. 32.Google Scholar

181 On Ḥammād, see Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 390Google Scholar, note 5; and I. ‘Abbās, , Shadharāt min kutub mafqūda fi al-ta’rikh (Beirut, 1988), p. 173.Google Scholar

182 al-‘Adīm, Ibn, Bughya, p. 82.Google Scholar

183 Ibn al-‘Adīm cites Idrīs elsewhere (Bughya, , pp. 1327 and 2946Google Scholar), and he was known to Abū Shāma as well (see Rosenthal, , Historiography, p. 131, note 5).Google Scholar

184 Bughya, Ibn al-‘Adīm, p. 82.Google Scholar Several histories of Antioch were available to medieval Muslim historians; see Nasrallah, J., Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l'eglise melchite du ve au xxe siècle, iii (Paris, 1983), pp. 72f.Google Scholar

185 The point is worth emphasizing, particularly since Tritton's view of a monolithic Islamic policy vis-à-vis the dhimmis has astonishing staying power; see Selb, W. Orientalisches Kirchenrecht, i (Vienna, 1981), p. 220Google Scholar (with note 818); and Conrad, , “A Nestorian diploma of investiture from the Tadkira of Ibn Ḥamdūn: the text and its significance,” Studia Arabica and Islamica (Festschrift for Ihsan Abbas) (Beirūt, 1981), pp. 101f.Google Scholar

186 See the, examples in Kawerau, P., Die jakobitische Kirche im Zeitalter der syrischen Renaissance: Idee and Wirklichkeit (Berlin, 1960), pp. 92f.Google Scholar

187 Note, for example, Shihāb al-Dīn's policies in Mayyāfāriqīn in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, as they are described in the Chronicle of 1234, PP. 222/166Google Scholar.

188 According to the Chronicle of 1234 (pp. 182/136)Google Scholar, Najm al-Dīn [Alpī; Artuqid ruler of Mārdīn and Mayyāfāriqīn; d. 1176] took a greater interest in church building than his Christian contemporaries. Ibn al-Azraq says nothing of this activity.

189 See Hillenbrand, , Principality, p. 14Google Scholar.

190 See, for examples, his description of Mayyāfāriqīn under Naṣr al-Dawla (Awad, , Ta'rīkh, p. 110Google Scholar), and at the beginning of Najm al-Dīn Il-Ghāzi's rule, (Hillenbrand, , Principality, pp. 148ff./33ff.Google Scholar)

191 See Awad, , Ta'rīkh, pp. 86, 110, 166Google Scholar. For prosperity in Āmid under Mumahhid al-Dawla, see also Hebraeus, Bar (Ibn al-‘Ibrī), Ta'rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal (Beirut, 1958), p. 173.Google Scholar

192 I am grateful to D. S. Richards and W. F. Madelung for their helpful criticisms of an earlier draft of this article.