¹ ‘Nous possédons plusieurs listes des évêques du Sinaï. La plus ancienne fut dressée par le moine Ioasaph, d'après divers ouvrages et documents arabes qu'il mentionne. Nektarios, choisi plus tard comme évêque du Sinaï, mais qui fut presque aussitôt élu patriarche de Jérusalem, reproduisit cette liste avec quelques additions dans son Épitome de l'Histoire Sainte en 1677’ (H. L. Rabino, Le monastère de Sainte-Catherine du Mont Sinaï, Cairo, 1938, 80). In a note Rabino gives the following reference for Joasaph's list: ‘Codex sinaiticus 2715, p. 51–53’. This MS does not seem to be included among those microfilmed by the American expedition, so that it is inaccessible for me. From various references I infer that it is also quoted by Amantos, K., Σιναϊτικά μνημεȋα ⋯νέκδοτα Athens, 1928, p. 8Google Scholar; in effect Rabino probably derived his information from Amantos, whose book I have not seen.

² For Nectarius and his works, see Grumel, V.'s article ‘Nectaire’Google Scholar in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique; for the ‘Epitome’ and its sources Manousaka, M. I.'s article ‘H ‘’ Εпιτομή τ ς ‘ιεροκοσμικ ς ‘ιστορίας’ το Νεκταρίου ‘Ιεροσολύμων in Κρητικ Χρονικά, I, 1947, 291–332.Google Scholar

¹ ‘Emer Elmumni’, i.e. amīr al-mu'minīn ‘Commander of the Faithful’, the generic title of the caliphs, was taken as a proper name, and the title ‘sultan’ wrongly applied to the Fāṭimid caliph, who did not bear it. In A.H. 508 the reigning Fāṭimid caliph was al-Āmir (499–524). The conversion of the Hijra date 508 into the Christian date is erroneous, as in fact it corresponds to 1114–15.

² In 538 the reigning caliph was al-Ḥāfiẓ (525–44), and the corresponding Christian date is in fact 1143–4.

³ There is no Fāṭimid caliph called al-Qā'im bi-Naṣr Allāh, which the Greek transcription is no doubt meant to reproduce; the document is certainly by al-Fā'iz bi-Naṣr Allāh (549–55), but the word written without diacritical dots was misread as . A.H. 551 = A.D. 1156–7.

¹ The Mamlūk sultan al-Mu'ayyad Sayf al-Dīn Shaykh reigned 815–24. A.H. 815 = A.D. 1412–13.

² ‘… ο όпοοι λοι ερίσκονται ες τν Αγύпτ το Μοναστηρίου Μετόχιον σφαλς φυλαττόμενα, ες τ Σκευοφυλάκιον, ε καίτινες ξ ατν νσαθρώθησαν τ χρόνω.’

³ The reference is perhaps to Saladin (564–89), founder of the Ayyūbid dynasty, which preceded the rule of the ‘slaves’, i.e. Mamlūks; but there might be in addition a confusion with the Ayyūbid, al-Malik al-Ṣāliḥ (637–47).Google Scholar

⁴ No Ayyūbid ruler bore the regnal title al-Malik al-Muẓaffar. In 592, the ruler of Egypt was al-Malik al-‘Azīz, Saladin's young son, at whose side stood Saladin's brother, al-Malik al-‘Ādil. The document, issued either by al-‘Azīz or by al-'Ādil, probably contained in its protocol among other titles that of al-muẓaffar, ‘the victorious’, which was erroneously taken as the main regnal title. Cf. the protocol of the document Atiya No. 11, issued by al-‘Ādil in the very year 592, which does in fact include that title: [this being the sign manual ] .

⁵ al-Kāmil, Al-Malik, 615–35.Google Scholar

⁶ In 640, the ruler of Egypt was al-Malik al-Ṣāliḥ (637–47); in this case too we have to assume that the subsidiary title al-manṣūr, ‘the victorious’, was taken as a regnal title.

⁷ In the year 641 the reigning sultan was, as we have said in the preceding note, al-Malik al-Ṣāliḥ, whose name was Najm al-Dīn, not Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn.

⁸ The Mamlūk sultan al-Manṣūr Nūr al-Dīn ‘Alī (655–7).

⁹ From the form of the title (composed with billāh), it is clear that the reference is not to a Mamlūk sultan, but to one of the shadow caliphs of Cairo. In the year 690 the caliph was, however, al-Ḥākim bi'llāh (661–701); the Greek form ‘Mutime baila.’ could stand for al-Mu'taṣim bi'llāh (779–85).

¹⁰ Al-Muẓaffar Rukn al-Dīn Baybars II (708–41).

¹ Al-Nāṣir. Nāṣir al-Dīn reigned for the first time 748–52, for the second time in 755; in 760 the reigning sultan was his son, al-Ṣāliḥ Salāḥ al-Dīn Ṣāliḥ (752–62).

² See above, p. 441, n. 1.

³ The reigning sultan in 863 was al-Ashraf Sayf al-Dīn Ināll (857–65), by whom was in effect issued Atiya No. 52 (beg.

[this being the sign manual ] : no Mamlūk sultan had as his reigning title ‘al-Qāhir’, for which ‘Kakher’ probably stands.

⁴ Al-Ẓāhir Sayf al-Dīn Khushqadam (865–72).

⁵ Al-Ashraf Sayf al-Dīn Qā'iṭbāy (872–901).

⁶ ‘Tserkes’, Circassian, stands for ‘Mamlūk’, on account of the position of supremacy which the Circassians occupied in the Mamlūk state from the end of the fourteenth century (cf. Ayalon, D., ‘The Circassians in the Mamlūk kingdom’, JAOS, LXIX, 1949, 135 ff.).Google Scholar

¹ ‘Enfin un certaine quantité de manuscrits, d'imprimés et d'archives sont, paraît-il, déposés au couvent du Sinai au Caire’; Rabino, (see above, p. 439, n. 1), 52.Google Scholar

² There is a copy of this rare first edition in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. The list is to be found on fols. 8v. and 7v. from the end (the book has no pagination).

³ In Echos d'Orient, 1908, 127–8Google Scholar; see also Graf, G., Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Litteratur, III, 158.Google Scholar In 1774 a Sinaite monk, Acacius, made another translation of the Greek handbook of Sinai after the edition of 1773 (autograph in the British Museum, MS Ar. Christ. 33; cf. Graf, ibidem).

⁴ See the bibliographical details in Petit, L., Bibliographie des acoluthies grecques, Bruxelles, 1926, pp. xxxiv–xxxvii.Google Scholar I have seen the three Venice editions—those of 1768, 1773, and 1817—which are to be found in the British Museum. The lists are on pp. 48 ff., 91 ff., and 151 ff., respectively.

⁵ The use made of the lists is slightly erroneous. The Christian dates are followed, though it is obvious that the compiler of the list transposed the Hijra dates which he found in the documents into A.D. dates, and as we have seen transposed them wrongly. Also, in consequence of this error, Eckenstein identifies Kaim labnes Beila with al-Ẓāfir (1149–51) instead of al-Fā'iz, and for Dorotheus she gives the dates 1324–33.

⁶ Rabino's list is based on the Greek handbook, Cheikho's article, K. Papamikhalopulos's ‘Η μον το ρους Σιν , Athens, 1932 (not seen by me; he obviously derived his list from Nectarius or the handbook), and the book of Amantos, quoted above, p. 439, n. 1.

¹ For the history of the study of the Sinai MSS, see BénéchévitchV, N. V, N., Les manuscrits grecs du Mont Sinai et le mande savant de l'Europe depuis le xviie siècle jusqu'à 1927Google Scholar (in the series ‘Texte und Forschungen zur Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Philologie’), Athens, 1937. The alleged Covenant of the Prophet is an exception: it has been repeatedly quoted since Pococke, R., A description of the East, London, 1743, I, 148, 268–70Google Scholar, mentioned it and even gave a translation of it.

² For the history of the church of St. John, in the Balat, which has belonged to the monks of Mount Sinai since the seventeenth century, see A. M. Schneider, in Oriens, IV, 1, 1951, 93. There are also preserved in the metochion a number of Ottoman documents (c. 30 pieces), at which I have looked in a perfunctory manner only. The earliest is a document from the qāḍī's court dated 981/1573–4; there are other documents from the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth Islamic centuries. I am much indebted to Archimandrite Damiyanos Papakonstantinu for his great kindness in allowing me to see the documents and to take photographs of the Fāṭimid decree.

³ The collection of documents was damaged by rioters some years ago.

¹ One is dated 9 Rajab 892, the other 23 Sha'bān 896; no documents bearing these dates occur in Atiya's list, and I had no opportunity to examine personally whether the documents edited by Moritz are included in the microfilms or not. In addition to the documents which he edited, Moritz alludes not only to the Fāṭimid documents mentioned below, but also to documents by Ināl, Khushqadam, Qānṣuh, Khā'ir Beg, and Süleymān, and mentions that there are altogether 22 documents by Qā'iṭbāy. He also mentions a protocol dated 918 and a document dated 920.

¹ I am most grateful to Dr. J. D. Latham, who pointed out to me some years ago (when he was in charge of the oriental department of the Manchester University Library) the existence of the duplicate set of microfilms. Mr. E. Khedoori made a selection of the documents in a thesis submitted to the University of Manchester in 1958 (Charters of privileges granted by the Fatimids and Mamluks to St. Catherine's Monastery of Tur Sinai). It is hoped that he will publish some of the documents which he included in his thesis.

² Atiya's No. 7 does not belong to the Fāṭimid period (as stated by Atiya), but to the Mamlūk period.

¹ I take this opportunity to complete the list of the coins issued by Abū ‘Alī Kutayfāt in the name of the Expected Imam which I have given on p. 205 of my article in Oriens, IV, 2, 1951.Google Scholar I have given in a note the references to the dīnārs and dirhams of the year 525 (for the dirham Miṣr 525 add the specimen described by Soret, F., Revue Archéologique, 1856, 134–6)Google Scholar; in the very year in which my article appeared, P. Balog published four specimens of the dīnārs: three struck in Cairo, A.H. 525 (to be added under No. 2 in my list), one Miṣr, A.H. 525 (no dīnār of this mint was known before). The reference is: Balog, P., ‘Quatre dinars du Khalife fatimide Al-Mountazar li-amr-illah ou bi-amr-illah (525–526 A.H.)’, Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte, XXXIII, 1950–1951, 375–8.Google Scholar My reference to the coinage of the year A.H. 526 is not quite accurate; I have written ‘Other coins (Alexandria, 526) give greater prominence…’, while in fact there is only one specimen known of this type, London, Lane-Poole, S., Catalogue of oriental coins in the British Museum, IV, No. 230 (pp. 55–6).Google Scholar M. Jungfleisch published in the same volume of the Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte which contains Balog's article (pp. 359–74) a study (entitled ‘Jetons (oupoids?) en verre de l'Imam El Mountazer’) in which he describes glass weights bearing inscriptions in the name of the Expected Imam. The historical commentary given by the author is not quite correct and is superseded by the detailed account given in my article in Oriens, which appeared simultaneously. Moreover, the decipherment of some of the inscriptions seems to me unsatisfactory. As the author gives no photographs, but only drawings, I can only guess at what one would expect, stressing that my readings are not always compatible with the drawings, which, however, cannot claim documentary authority. A obv.—there can be hardly any doubt that the correct reading is: al-Imām (or al-Qā'im) al-Mahdī Abū'l-Qāsim Muḥammad al-Muntaẓar (instead of , which gives no sense). I have also little doubt that lines 2 and 3 of the rev. of B and D must be read al-Sayyid al-Ajall al-Afḍal instead of , which again is quite impossible. In E rev., we probably have to read bi-Amr Allāh, as in F and G, and assume that the word amr has been repeated by an error. (The author's reading: al-Muntaẓar Amran min Allāh is most improbable.) I have for the moment no solutions to offer for the remaining puzzles: ḥujjat Allāh , B and C obv.; , B and D rev., line 1, lines 3 and 4 of H obv. It is hoped that further specimens of this interesting series will come to light and make a definitive decipherment possible.

¹ The words which survive of Abū ‘Alī's protocol (lines 1–2) suffice to show that it followed the normal protocol of the viziers as introduced by Badr al- Jamālī. After the elimination of ‘Abd al-Majīd and the proclamation of the sovereignty of the Expected Imam, a new protocol (which still preserves a similarity to the old one) was introduced by him; see the article in Oriens, IV, 2, 1951, 205.Google Scholar

¹ On the back of No. 3 of the three petitions to be published by me the tawqī’ of the vizier is actually preserved.

¹ This was the central office of the administration; Ibn al-Ṭuwayr (quoted by al-Qalqashandī and al-Maqrīzī) calls it aṣl al-dawāwīn. See al-Qalqashandī, , Ṣubb al-a‘shā, III, 493–4Google Scholar; al-Maqrīzī, , Khiṭaṭ, I, 397–100.Google Scholar Abū Ṣāliḥ, The churches and monasteries of Egypt, ed. and transl. B. T. A. Evetts, fol. 33b, mentions a ‘scribe of the salaries of the dīwīn al-majlis1’.

² This Fāṭimid office is not mentioned by al-Qalqashandī and al-Maqrīzī, but Abū Ṣāliḥ (fol. 42b) mentions its head (mutawallī dīwan al-khāṣṣ) under al-Āmir.

¹ This office is not mentioned by al-Qalqashandī and al-Maqrīzī; the former mentions (III, 494) the office of the textile workshops (ṭirāz) situated in Tinnīs and Damietta.

² As we shall see in the next note, the duty, or one of the duties of these offices of inspection was to avoid delays in the accountancy.

³ For the Office of Upper Egypt (al-Ṣa‘īd, which was divided into the Lower and the Upper Ṣa‘īd), see al-Qalqashandī, III, 495, who writes: ‘In it there were several secondary secretaries, who shared the task of inspection and whose duty was to send reminders about accounts which were delayed’. A garden rented from the dīwān of Upper Egypt is mentioned by Abū Ṣāliḥ, fol. 40a. I cannot say why in the preceding instance both the ‘Office’, and the ‘Office of Inspection’ are named separately, while here only the ‘Office of Inspection’ is referred to.

⁴ This office probably dealt with confiscated estates in particular, and with government lands in general. Though the office is not mentioned in the lists of the Fāṭimid offices, al-Qalqashandī quotes (x, 357–9) the diploma of appointment of a head of the dīwān al-murtaja'a, which no doubt designates the same office. (As in the diploma the duties of the office are described as the administration of estates ‘recovered from Bahrām and others’, and by Bahrām the famous minister of al-Ḥāfiẓ is doubtless meant, we may date it from the reign of that caliph.)

⁵ The pious mottoes at the end of these entries, which vary from office to office, presumably formed the signs manual (‘alāma) of the different clerks. (Cf. Abū Ṣāliḥ, fol. 40a, where the ‘alāma, of an official under al-Ḥākim is given as al-ḥamd li'llāh ‘alā mā yastaḥiqq. The translation ‘his sobriquet was’ is erroneous; read ‘his motto was’.)

¹ This note stands alone and there is no indication from which office it emanates.