Shaykh Khaḍir al-Mihrānī, the Ṣ؛fī guide and soothsayer of the Maml؛k sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars (regn. 658–76/1260–77), was the subject of an article by Louis Pouzet, ‘Haḍir ibn Abî Bakr al-Mihrānî’ (Bulletin d'Études Orientales, XXX, 1978, 173–83), which is based almost entirely on the account of Shaykh Khaḍir in al-Nahj al-sadīd by the Coptic chronicler al-Mufaḍḍal b. Abi'l-Faḍā'il. Pouzet was apparently unaware that an almost identical account of Shaykh Khaḍir appears in the eighth volume of Ibn al-Dawādārī's Kanz al-durar wa-jāmi' al-ghurara. The editor of this volume, Ulrich Haarmann, discusses at length in his introduciton (pp.24–9) the relationship between the works of Ibn al-Dawādārī and Ibn Abi'l-Faḍā'il, and demonstrates that they drew independently on a source derived at one or two removes form the still largely unpublished Ḥawādith al-zamān of the Syrian chronicler al-Jazarī (658–739/1260–1338). Since Ibn al-Dawādārī completed this volume, according to the colophon, in 734/1334, while the unique (and probably autography) MS of al-Nahj al-sadīd is dated 759/1358, the version in Kanz al-durar may reasonably be assumed to be the older. A collation of the two versions, however reveals that they agree almost entirely, both verbally and in content. Two points of detail regarding Blochet's edition and translation of Ibn Abi'l-Faḍā'il, as used by Pouzet, may be noted in passing. Blochet, p. 459, line 2, reads kanīsat al-fuh؛d (tr. ‘l'église des Panthères’), a textual error for kanīsat al-Yah؛d, Șthe synagogue of the Jews’. Pouzet here tacitly corrects his source (p. 178). On the other hand, he accepts Blochet's curious rendering of bābā as ‘intendant’ (Pouzet, pp. 174–5 and n. 9), whereas it is surely obvious from the context that it has here, as often, a dervish connotation.