No More Learning

Jauhar's conciliatory policy and the practical benefits of his government
secured general acquiescence in the new regime. Mu'izz did not transfer
his residence to Egypt until the early summer of 973, but Jauhar's con-
quest marks the beginning of a new period in the history of Egypt and
of the Caliphate (969). For two centuries the governors of Egypt con-
tested the claim of the Abbasids to the obedience of all Islām. The
prestige of its rulers was equal and even superior to that of the Caliphs
of Baghdad. The emirs of Syria and Arabia had an alternative Caliph to
whom they might transfer their allegiance at choice. During the next
hundred years the rulers of Lower Mesopotamia were either too weak or
too much engaged elsewhere to exercise any effective control in Syria. The
1 Kamāl-ad-Din gives large extracts from the treaty, including a definition of
the boundaries on the north and north-west.
CH. VI.


## p. 248 (#294) ############################################

248
The Qarmațians in Syria
histories of Syria and Egypt thus run, for the most part, in one channel.
In the extreme north the emirs of Aleppo maintain a precarious in-
dependence. But southern and central Syria, which had been subject to
the Ikhshids and to Abu'l-mish Kāfūr, remained normally subject to
Egypt until the coming of the Turks.
The disaffection or rivalry of the Qarmațians was the chief obstacle
to the occupation of Damascus and southern Syria by the Fāțimites. It
seems probable that the Qarmațians of Bahrain had been up to this point
secret supporters and allies of the Fāțimites. It is therefore possible that
their invasions of Syria in 964 and 968 were instigated by the Caliph
Mu'izz as a step towards his conquest of Egypt and Syria. But now
a party held power in Bahrain whose policy was to oppose the Fāțimites
and to acknowledge the Abbasid Caliphs. Such a complete reversal of
the principles of the sect could not fail to shake the confidence of its
adherents, and it may be that the rapid decline of the Qarmațians from
this date onwards is due to the internal schism so introduced'. The new
policy had only a brief prospect of success. Syria was invaded by one of
Jauhar's lieutenants, Ja'far ibn Fallāh. He defeated the Ikhshid governor,
Husain ibn 'Ubaidallāh, at Ramlah in the autumn of 969 and entered
Damascus in the third week of November. The population of Damascus
was not disposed to acknowledge a Shi'ite Caliph, and Ja'far's position
as governor during two years was precarious and uneasy. On the other
hand Acre, Sidon, Beyrout, and Tripolis seem to have transferred their
allegiance to the Fātimites without resistance. The decisive factor in
their case was the command which the Egyptian fleet held of the sea.
In 971 the Qarmațian leader, Hasan al-'aşam (Hasan al-a-sham), in
agreement with the Emir of Aleppo and the Caliph of Baghdad, invaded
Syria. Ja'far was defeated and Damascus occupied (autumn 971), and the
Qarmațians became masters of the interior of southern Syria. During
the three years of their occupation they twice invaded Egypt without
success (October 971 and May 974). After their second repulse Damascus
was reoccupied by Fāțimite troops for a few months (June 974). But
the inhabitants were still opposed to the Fāțimites, and chose a Turkish
emir, Al-aftakin, to be their governor (spring 975). Al-aftakin, after an
unsuccessful attack on the Syrian coast-towns in 976, was besieged in
Damascus for six months by Jauhar (July-December). A Qarmațian army
came to his rescue, and the allies reoccupied southern Palestine with the
exception of Ascalon, which Jauhar held against them for fifteen months.
The loss of this city in the spring of 978 was counterbalanced by an
Egyptian victory near Ramlah (15 August 978). Al-aftakīn's career was
ended by his capture after the battle, but the Egyptians judged it ex-
pedient to buy off the Qarmațians by promising payment to them of an
annual sum of money. Damascus also maintained its independence.
1 So De Goeje.


## p. 249 (#295) ############################################

The Caliphate and the Empire
249
A Syrian emir named Qassām was chosen governor by the citizens, and
remained in power until July 983. During most of his emirate a large
part of southern Syria was ruled independently by the Arab chief, Mu-
farrij ibn Daghfal ibn Jarrāḥ. In 9821 this chief was driven out of the
country, and thus, finally, Palestine was reduced to obedience. In the
following year Qassām himself surrendered to an Egyptian army. The
Caliph, Abu manșūr Nizār al-^Azīz (975-996), then secured control of
Damascus by appointing as its governor Bakjūr, recently Emir of Hims,
who was a persona grata to the inhabitants (December 983). He ruled
five years and was then deposed for disloyalty (October 988). But the
series of governors who succeeded him, until the Turkish occupation,
were nearly all nominees of the Fāțimite Caliphs.
By the Fāțimite conquest of Egypt and the Greek occupation of
Aleppo in the same year (969), the way was opened for the clash of two
distant powers in Syria. The Syrian coast-towns as far as Tripolis quickly
became a portion of the Fāțimite dominions. In the early part of the year
971 an army sent by Ja'far ibn Fallāḥ unsuccessfully besieged Antioch
for some months. The attempt was not followed up because of the re-
sistance that the Fāțimites met with in Palestine. It was also the con-
dition of Palestine during the Fāțimite conquest and the Qarmatian
occupation that induced the Emperor John (969-976) to invade Syria in
975. Aleppo was already a humble tributary, and probably the Emperor
expected to reduce a large part of the country to the same condition.
The fullest description of his campaign is contained in a letter that he
wrote to an Armenian prince? . The expedition lasted from April to
October. The farthest point reached by the main army was the plain of
Esdraelon (Marj ibn 'Amir). From Antioch the Greeks marched past
Hamāh and Hims, then through the Biqā' and the valley of the Jordan
as far as Baisān. From Baisān they turned westward to Acre, and from
there along the coast back again to Antioch. No hostile army attempted
to stop their progress. Most of the Syrian emirs professed submission in
order to save themselves from attack. Al-aftakin of Damascus and others
purchased immunity by paying considerable sums of money. Baalbek
was besieged and captured, and Beyrout was successfully stormed. Tripolis
was besieged for forty days without success. The real gains of the ex-
pedition were made on the coast just to the south of Antioch and in the
hills facing Jabalah and Lāțiqiyah. From now onwards Jabalah was an
advanced post of the Greek Empire, facing Tripolis and the territory of
the Fāțimites. In the hills Şahyūn and Barzūyah became Greek strong-
holds. Beyond these limits nothing was gained. The southern emirs,
who promised to pay an annual tribute, and even signed treaties to
1 Possibly in the beginning of 983; at all events before the Egyptian attack on
Qassam.
? Matthew of Edessa (trans. by E. Dulaurier, 1858), pp. 16 sqq.
CH, ĐI.


## p. 250 (#296) ############################################

250
History of Aleppo
this effect, were beyond the reach of the Emperor's troops in ordinary
times and never fulfilled their promises'.
In Aleppo after the death of Saif-ad-Daulah (967) the authority of
government was usurped by Turkish slaves, of whom Farghūyah
(Qarghūyah) was the chief. In the following year Saif-ad-Daulah's son,
Sa'd-ad-Daulah Abu 'l-ma‘ālī, was expelled from the city (968). When
Farghūyah submitted to the Greeks (970), as previously described, Sa'd-
ad-Daulah was allowed to retain Hims. In 975 Farghūyah was thrown
into prison by an associate, the emir Bakjūr, part of whose later history
has already been narrated. This encouraged Sa'd-ad-Daulah to attempt
the recovery of his father's capital (976). Bakjūr was compelled to
come to terms, and received Hims in compensation for the surrender of
Aleppo (977).
The chief feature of the remainder of Sa'd-ad-Daulah's emirate is the
oscillation of Aleppo between dependence upon the Greeks and alliance
with the Egyptians. Sa'd-ad-Daulah wished to be quit of the burden of
tribute due to the Emperor, and was willing to make concessions to the
Caliph in return for his help. But ‘Azīz hoped to reduce northern Syria
to the same state of obedience as Palestine, and for this and other reasons
Sa'd-ad-Daulah was compelled at times to ask protection from the Greeks.
His first revolt, in 981, quickly collapsed owing to lack of support from
Egypt. In 983 Bakjūr of Himş, having quarrelled with Sa'd-ad-Daulah,
attacked Aleppo with the support of Fāțimite troops (September). The
siege was raised by a relief force from Antioch under Bardas Phocas.
Bakjūr fled to Damascus, and Hims was sacked by Greek soldiers
(October). Even in these circumstances there was friction between Sa'd-
ad-Daulah and his protectors. The dispute was settled by the payment
in one year of two years' tribute”. During 985 and 986 Sa'd-ad-Daulah
was again in revolt. The principal events were the capture of Killiz by
the Greeks (985) and their siege of Fāmīyah (986). Fāțimite troops
captured and held for a short time the castle of Bulunyās. Most likely
it was the determination of ‘Azīz to make peace with the Greeks that
led to Sa'd-ad-Daulah's submission to the Emperor on the same terms
as before. The amount of the annual tribute was 20,000 dinars (400,000
dirhems).
The career of Bakjūr, which is characteristic of the period, may here
be followed to its close. After ruling Damascus for five years in dependence
on ‘Azīz (983–988), he was deposed by his order. He fled to Raqqah, on
1 Gustave Schlumberger, who gives a brilliant account of all these events, over-
estimates the results of the campaign of 975, and misapprehends the position held
by the Greeks in Syria at this date and later.
2 There was fighting between the allies after the retreat of Bakjūr. The cause
is not mentioned by the sources. Possibly Bardas Phocas demanded payment for
his help either in money or in some other way. Kamāl-ad-Din is wrong in stating
that the Greeks were defeated and driven away from Aleppo by Sa'd-ad-Daulah. His
narrative under this year is confused, and includes events that happened in 986.


## p. 251 (#297) ############################################

The Emperor Basil II
251
the Euphrates, and from there once more plotted against Sa'd-ad- Daulah.
In April 991 he was defeated, captured, and executed by his former master
and rival. In this battle Greek troops from Antioch again assisted the
Emir of Aleppo.
In 987 or 988 (A. H. 377) the first of a series of treaties between the
Greek Emperors and the Egyptian Caliphs was made. The scanty details
which are preserved suggest that it followed the lines of the better-
known treaties of later date. If so, the outstanding feature is that the
Emperor exercises his influence on behalf of the Christian subjects of
the Caliph, and that the Caliph similarly acts as protector of the
Muslims of the Empire. It is significant that under this arrangement
the Fāțimite Caliph is recognised to the exclusion of his Abbasid rival.
Under the treaty there was an exchange of prisoners and the duration of
peace was fixed at seven years'.
Sa'd-ad-Daulah was succeeded nominally by his son Abu'l-faņā'il
Saʻīd-ad-Daulah (December 991). But the effective ruler throughout his
reign was the wazīr Abu Muḥammad Lūlū al-kabir (Lūlū the elder). It
was presumably hostility to him that drove a number of the mamlūks of
Aleppo about this time to seek refuge in Egypt. Their support encouraged
'Azīz to attempt again the conquest of Aleppo. This led to a renewal
of war with the Greek Empire also. The governor of Damascus, Man-
jūtakin (Banjūtakin), commanded the Egyptian army. He invaded the
territory of Aleppo and conducted operations there for thirteen months
(992–993). A Greek force from Antioch under Michael Burtzes was
repulsed (June 992). But Manjūtakīn's operations were not energetic, and
in the spring of 993 he returned to Damascus owing to lack of provisions.
Next spring (994) ‘Azīz sent reinforcements and supplies to Syria, and
with these at his service Manjūtakin attacked Aleppo early in June.
A relief force from Antioch was severely defeated on the banks of the
Orontes (14 September 994). Scarcity of food, caused by the closeness
of the blockade, now reduced the defenders of Aleppo to desperate straits.
In their extremity they were saved by the sudden and unexpected arrival
of the Emperor Basil (976-1025). He rode through Asia Minor in sixteen
days at the head of 3000 horsemen. The alarm caused by his arrival was
so great, the numbers of his army probably so exaggerated, that Man-
jūtakin burned his tents and equipment and made off in panic, without
risking a battle (end of April 995). Basil followed southwards as far as
1 The Muslim historians Abu 'l-maḥāsin and Al-'aini (Rosen, p. 202), who are
our authorities, particularly mention that prayers were to be said in the mosque at
Constantinople in the name of 'Aziz, and that the Emperor agreed to release his
Muslim prisoners. Al-'aini, however, also says that the Emperor sent materials to
Jerusalem for the repair of the church of the Resurrection, and this, doubtless,
was in accordance with the terms of the treaty. See infra, pp. 256-7. The dates
of the later treaties between the Empire and the Caliphate are A. D. 1000, 1027,
and 1037.
CH. VI.


## p. 252 (#298) ############################################

252
The Emperor Basil II
1
1
Al-Buqai'ah, and then turning down to the coast marched northwards by
the Mediterranean to Antioch. Prisoners were taken from Rafanīyah and
Himş, but as dependencies of Aleppo they were presumably not seriously
injured. Tripolis was besieged without success for more than forty days.
Țarațūs was occupied, and garrisoned by Armenian auxiliaries.
‘Azīz now began to prepare extensively for war with the Emperor.
He made terms with Lūlū, who formally acknowledged his Caliphate (995).
But the only fruit of these preparations was an expedition to recover
Tarațūs. ‘Aziz died on 13 October 996, and revolts in southern Syria
against the authority of Hasan ibn 'Ammār, who ruled in the name
of the new Caliph, made foreign wars impossible. For three years the
governor of Antioch carried on an active border warfare and somewhat
strengthened his position in the direction of Tripolis. In 998 he besieged
Famīyah which was held by a Fāțimite garrison. The Egyptians sent a
relief force and the besiegers were severely defeated (19 July 998). This
defeat brought the Emperor Basil once more to Syria (October 999).
Basil's second Syrian campaign lasted almost exactly three months.
Two months were spent in raiding the province of Hims as far as Baalbek.
Shaizar was occupied and garrisoned. Several castles were burned and
ruined (Abu-qubais, Maşyāth, 'Arqah, and the town of Rafanīyah). It
is not likely that Hims itself was much injured. A large amount
of plunder and many captives were secured. From 5 December to
6 January Tripolis was invested, without success. The Emperor spent
the rest of the winter in Cilicia. Affairs in Armenia now claimed his
attention, but even apart from this Basil probably desired to make peace
with the Caliph of Egypt. It may be that the ten years' truce concluded
about this time was ratified before the Emperor left Cilicia in the summer
of 1000.
In the second half of the tenth century Egypt enjoyed a period of
much prosperity and internal peace. This was principally the merit of
the Caliphs Ma'add al-Mu'izz (953-975) and Nizār al-^Azīz (975-996).
They were just and tolerant rulers and fortunate in the generals and
officers of state who served them. Art, learning, and manufactures were
fostered and flourished. Numerous public buildings and other works of
public utility date from this period. The burdens of taxation were some-
what lightened and more equally distributed. Much of the kaleidoscopic
life of the Thousand and One Nights was actually realised in the Cairo
of those days.
The instability of fortune and the caprice of rulers never found more
striking illustrations than in the reign of the sixth Caliph, Abu `Ali al-
1 The Egyptian plenipotentiary in the negotiations was chosen by Barjuwān,
who was assassinated on 4 April 1000. Basil seems to have opened negotiations
during his Syrian campaign, so that the treaty may have been concluded by the
spring of 1000. The conditions of peace are not specified by Yaḥyà, from whom the
particulars of this paragraph are taken.


## p. 253 (#299) ############################################

Caliphate of Hākim
253
Mansur al-Hākim (996-1021). His minority was a time of chaos, when
the chiefs of the Berber and Turkish guards fought and schemed for
supremacy. The native historians relate strange and incredible stories of
his personal government, out of which it is nearly impossible to make a
coherent picture. He is represented as arbitrary and cruel beyond measure
and as the persecutor of every class in turn. He kept his position only
by unscrupulous assassination and by playing off against one another
the Arab, Turkish, Berber, and Negro factions which mingled in his
court. On the other hand, measures are attributed to him which have
been interpreted as the conceptions of a would-be reformer and unpractical
idealist. In part of his reign he seems to be a rigid Muslim, persecuting
Jews and Christians against all tradition and in spite of the fact that his
mother was a Christian and his uncle at one time Patriarch of Jerusalem.
At another period his conduct suggests that he was influenced by the
esoteric doctrine of the Ismāʻīlian sect to which his ancestors belonged.
Towards the end of his life he seems to have countenanced sectaries who
proclaimed him to be an incarnation of deity. The mystery of his death
was a fitting close to a mysterious life. He left his palace one dark night
(13 February 1021) never to return; the presumption is that he was
assassinated. But some declared that he would yet return in triumph as
the divine vice-gerent, and the Druses of Lebanon are said to maintain
this belief to the present day.
The revolts in southern Syria at the beginning of Hākim's reign
reflect the strife of parties in Egypt and did not threaten the authority
of the Caliphate itself. This distinction helps to make intelligible the
maze of revolts and depositions and revolutions in which the governorship
of Damascus was now involved. In twenty-four years and a half there
were at least twenty changes in the occupancy of the post. Two governors
between them held office for nine years, so that the average term of the
remainder was less than ten months each. More than one was deposed
within two months of his appointment. Generally the only cause of change
was the arbitrary disposition of the Caliph or an alteration in the balance
of power amongst the emirs of his court. Sometimes the new governor
had to establish his authority by force of arms.
On one occasion in these years there was a revolt of a more serious
character. Early in 1011 the Arab chief Mufarrij ibn Daghfal ibn
Jarrāḥ, having defeated the Caliph's representative, became ruler of inland
Palestine for the second time. He failed to occupy any of the coast-towns
but held possession of the interior for two years and five months, until
his death (1013). A peculiar feature of this revolt was the acknowledgment
by Ibn Daghfal of the sharīf of Mecca, Hasan ibn Jaʼfar, as “commander
of the faithful. ” This personage was a descendant of the Prophet and so
possessed one outstanding qualification for the Caliphate. But his only
supporter was Ibn Daghfal, and his phantom authority lasted less than
two years. Ibn Daghfal's sons were defeated by Hākim's troops im-
cH. VI.


## p. 254 (#300) ############################################

254
Ruin of the Holy Sepulchre
mediately after their father's death, and the control of Palestine passed
again to the governor of Damascus.
An event of special interest to Christendom occurred in Jerusalem
during Hākim's Caliphate, namely, the profanation and ruin of the
church of the Holy Sepulchre (commencing 27 September 1009). It is
unlikely that the fabric of the church was seriously injured. Hākim
ordered its relics to be taken away and its monuments, including the
Holy Sepulchre, to be destroyed. The portable furnishings of the church
and its treasures were carried into safety before the Caliph's agents arrived.
But the Holy Sepulchre and other venerated shrines were destroyed as
completely as possible. The interior must have been left in a very
mutilated condition. Mufarrij ibn Daghfal began the work of restora-
tion when he was ruler of southern Palestine (i. e. between 1011 and 1013).
Saʻīd-ad-Daulah of Aleppo having died early in January 1002, Lūlū
banished the surviving members of the Hamdān family to Egypt and
assumed the emirate. He acknowledged the Fățimite Caliph, Hākim,
and also continued to pay tribute to the Greek Emperor. His rule is
praised as having been wise and just. After his death (August 1009)
1 The intention of the Caliph and the extent of the destruction of the church are
to be ascertained chiefly from the narratives of Abu Ya'là (pp. 66-68) and Yahyà
(p. 195 sq. ). The former conveys the impression that a primary object of the Caliph
was to plunder the treasures of the church. His version of the Caliph's order par-
ticularly specifies the destruction of the monuments (athar, which, however, is an
ambiguous word and might signify relics). When the historian says “its structures
were ruined and uprooted stone by stone,” he refers, presumably, to such buildings
as the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre. Yahya's account would harmonise completely
with this view but for his summary statement "it was thrown down completely to
the foundations, except what could not be ruined and was too difficult to uproot. ”
If the subject of the first verb is the church, then obviously the expression “to the
foundations” cannot seriously be pressed, and the amount of damage to the walls
and fabric remains obscure. But the subject in the original is quite vague, and the
reference may be principally to the monuments and the interior structures. The
brief statements of other writers, Eastern and Western, are no proof of such a
complete destruction of the church as modern writers have assumed. The exact
date is supplied by Yahyà (Tuesday, five days from the end of Şafar, A. H. 400).
This agrees so far with the statement of Ademar (Lequien, 111, 478) that the Holy
Sepulchre was destroyed on 29 September (A. D. 1010). Yahyà (p. 201, lines 9 sqq. )
relates that Ibn Daghfal began the work of restoration; he observes particularly
that “he restored the places in it” (i. e. the shrines ? ). Possibly Hākim also
authorised its repair, under the influence of his Christian mother and uncle (cf.
Glaber). In A. H. 411 (A. D. 1020) the church is described by Yahyà (p. 230) as still
in a ruined condition. The relevant extracts from the Latin historians are given by
Lequien, Oriens Christianus, III, 475 sqq. Other references will be found in Ibn al-
athir, ix, 147, Maqrīzi, 11, 287 (Kitāb al-khițaț, Bulak edit. , 1853–1854), Abu 'l-maḥā-
sin, 11, 64 (from Adh-dhahabi), and 11, 101, Cedrenus (Corp. Script. Byzant. ), Vol. 11,
p. 456. Forty-five years before this, in A. D. 966, this church had been seriously injured
by the local Muslim and Jewish population (Yahyà, p. 125 sq. ). The dome of the
Holy Sepulchre and the roof of the adjoining main church were then both de-
stroyed, and the necessary repairs had been completed only a short time before the
events of 1009.


## p. 255 (#301) ############################################

Egypt and Syria
255
Manşūr his son, although unpopular, held the emirate for some years
against the Hamdan family and the attacks of the Bani Kilāb under
Şāliḥ ibn Mirdās. Finally he was expelled from Aleppo by an insurrec-
tion (6 January 1016), headed by the governor of the castle, Mubārak-
ad-Daulah Fataḥ, and, having escaped to Antioch, became a pensioner of
the Greeks. These events increased the authority of the Egyptians in
northern Syria. About a year later, Mubārak-ad-Daulah was made
governor of Tyre, Sidon, and Beyrout by Hākim, and ‘Azīz-ad-Daulah
Fātik, an Armenian, was installed as governor of Aleppo (3 February
1017). As so often happened in such cases, the new governor began to
act as an independent emir, and his assassination (13 June 1022)
was probably instigated by Sitt-al-mulk, Hākim's sister, now regent.
During the next two years and a half an Egyptian garrison held the
citadel of Aleppo, and a series of Egyptian governors controlled the city.
The seventh Fāțimite Caliph was Abu 'l-ḥasan 'Ali az-Zāhir. He
was a boy when he succeeded his father and he never exercised much
influence in the government of his dominions (1021-1036). For the
first three years of his reign Hākim's sister, Sitt-al-mulk, was regent.
Soon after her death the Arab tribes on the borders of Syria made a
league against the Caliph, hoping to conquer and rule the country
(1024). The leaders of the revolt were Şāliḥ ibn Mirdās, chief of the
Bani Kilāb, who lived in the neighbourhood of Aleppo, Sinān ibn
«Ulyān, chief of the Bani Kalb, near Damascus, and Hassān, a son of
Mufarrij ibn Daghfal, whose home was in southern Palestine. The con-
federates were at first successful both in Palestine and northern Syria.
Aleppo was captured by Sāliḥ ibn Mirdās (January 1025)', and Hims,
Baalbek, and Sidon soon acknowledged his authority. Thus a
dynasty, that of the Mirdāsites, was established in Aleppo (1025–1080).
In Palestine the Caliph's representative, Anūshtakīn ad-dizbirī, was more
than once defeated and was driven out of Syria. The least successful of
the allies was Sinān ibn 'Ulyān. After his death in July 1028, his
successor deserted the alliance and submitted to the Caliph. In the
following year a decisive battle was fought at Uqḥuwānah, south of Lake
Tiberias, between Sāliḥ and Hassān on the one side, and the Egyptians
and their allies on the other (14 May 1029). Şāliḥ was killed and
Hassān's power was completely broken. From now onwards Anushtakīn
was governor of Damascus and the most powerful emir in Syria
(1029-1041).
i The citadel did not surrender until five months later (June 1025). Cf. note
supra, p. 246. As illustrating the textual criticism that must always be applied to
the dates of Arabic historians, it may be pointed out that 13 Dhu 'l-qa'dah 415 in
Kamal-ad-Din's text (date of the capture of Aleppo) should be 23 Dhu 'l-qa'dah 415,
and that 1 Jumădà ii 416 (date of the surrender of the citadel) should be 1 Jumādà i
416. These are typical errors. The correct dates are given by Yahyà (pp. 246, 248),
along with the week-days, which provide the necessary test of accuracy. See
Stevenson, Crusaders in the East, appendix on Chronology.
new
CH. VI.


## p. 256 (#302) ############################################

256
The Greeks in Syria
During the period of this rebellion, in 1027 (A. H. 418), an in-
teresting treaty of peace was made between the Fāțimite Caliph and the
Emperor Constantine VIII. It was provided that the Caliph's name
should be mentioned in the public prayers of the mosques throughout
the Empire, to the exclusion of his Abbasid rival. This arrangement
was continued until the year 1056, when it was reversed at the instance
of the Turkish Sultan Tughril Beg. A further recognition of the re-
presentative character of the Fātimite Caliph, and another concession to
Islām, was contained in the provision that the Caliph might restore the
mosque in Constantinople and appoint a muezzin to officiate there. The
counterpart of these provisions gave the Emperor the right to restore
the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. It is not to be assumed
that the church had lain in ruins since its profanation by Hākim's
orders in 1009, nor, perhaps, that much was actually done at this
time in the way of restoration'. Another concession made by the
Caliph was that those Christians who had become Muslims by compul-
sion in the time of Hākim might again profess Christianity without
penalty. It may be assumed that the treaty of peace, as usual, was valid
for a limited period only; but the term is not specified by the only
source that mentions the treaty.
Nașr Shibl-ad-Daulah, son of Şāliḥ ibn Mirdās, was permitted to
succeed his father as ruler of Aleppo on the condition that he acknow-
ledged the Fāțimite Caliph in the customary manner, on his coinage and
in the public prayers of Friday. His emirate did not include Hims or
Hamāh, but extended north-eastward to the Euphrates. The Greeks,
who had recently been losing ground in Syria, now seized what seemed
to them an opportunity of improving their position. The territory of
Aleppo was twice invaded (1029 and 1030), both times unsuccessfully.
The Emperor Romanus shared in the second invasion, a very ill-judged
attempt. The Greek army suffered so much in the neighbourhood of
“Azāz from the hot season, lack of water, and fever that it was com-
pelled to retreat in a few days and lost heavily as it retired (August
1030). The Emir of Aleppo, reckoning his triumph an occasion of con-
ciliation and not of defiance, at once opened negotiations for peace.
A treaty was signed on terms that were distinctly unfavourable to the
Muslim city. Aleppo again became tributary to the Empire, and a Greek
deputy was allowed to reside in the city and wateh over the due per-
formance of the conditions of peace (April 1031).
1 Maqrizi (Khițaț, p. 355, lines 9 sqq. ) is here the chief authority. He does not
name the Emperor, but does mention ļāhir. William of Tyre also refers to a
restoration of the church by permission of “Daher” (= Zāhir), and Cedrenus, 11,
501, implies that the restoration was permitted by a son of the Caliph who destroyed
the church. The brief statement of Cedrenus is obviously very confused and in-
accurate (cf. infru, p. 257, n. 3). If Maqrizi were the only authority it might be con-
jectured that his date A. H. 418 was an error for A, H. 428 (i. e. A. D. 1037). See p. 257.


## p. 257 (#303) ############################################

The Greeks in Syria
257
At this date the territory of the Greeks in Syria extended eastward
from Antioch to Hārim and southwards along the coast as far as
Maraqīyah. The hillmen of the Jabal Anşarīyah, who adjoined this
territory, were partially held in check by strong castles such as Bikisrāyil,
but still maintained their independence. After the defeat of Romanus,
one of the chiefs of the hill tribes, Nașr ibn Mushraf, captured Bikisrāyil
and a general rising took place. Maraqīyah was besieged by Ibn Mushraf
and the Emir of Tripolis. Nicetas, the new governor of Antioch, took
prompt action against a very dangerous situation. He raised the siege
of Maraqiyah (December 1030), and during the next two years syste-
matically besieged and reduced the castles of the hillmen (1031-1032).
Balātunus, Bikisrāyil, and $āfīthā were among the fortresses now garri-
soned and held by the Greeks.
These events brought about a resumption of hostilities between the
Empire and the Egyptian Caliph. Anūshtakin of Damascus and the
Emir of Tyre had given a timorous support to the mountaineers in their
struggle with Nicetas. Rafanīyah was therefore attacked and captured
by Greek troops. A Byzantine fleet threatened Alexandria and the
mouths of the Nile. Both parties desired a stable peace, but the task
of settling the matters in dispute proved to be long and difficult. The
chief obstacle to a settlement was the demand of the Emperor that
Aleppo should be treated as a Greek dependency? . The negotiations
were continued, or resumed, after the death of Romanus (April 1034),
and peace was signed, perhaps in the autumn of 1037? . Each party
pledged itself not to assist the enemies of the other, and their respective
spheres of influence in northern Syria were defined. The Greek deputy
whom Romanus had stationed in Aleppo had been driven out soon after
that Emperor's death, so that Aleppo probably secured its independence.
The right of the Emperor to renovate the church of the Holy Sepulchre
was acknowledged, and possibly the privilege of appointing the Bishop
of Jerusalem. In return Michael IV set free 5000 Muslim prisoners.
The duration of the peace was fixed at thirty years. The Emperor sent
builders and money to Jerusalem, but the repairs to the church were not
completed until the reign of his successor Constantine IX 3.
1 Full details of the negotiations are given by Yahyà (p. 270 sq. ). His account
throws light on the terms of the treaty of 1037, and has been used above to sup-
plement the meagre details of that treaty preserved by others. Unfortunately
Yahya's narrative, at least as printed, breaks off before the year 1037 is reached.
? This date is derived from Yaḥyà, who seems to fix it as being three and a
half (Muslim) years after the death of Romanus. Barhebraeus gives A. H. 427, but
his narrative, on the whole, is not strongly against A. H. 428, which would agree
with Yahyà. On the other hand, Cedrenus (vol. 11, p. 515) gives A. M. 6544
(=A. D. 1035–1036) and Abu 'l-fidā (111, 96) and Ibn al-athir (1x, 313) both A. H. 429.
3 The authorities are those of the last note. The renovation of the church must
have been considerable and not merely a repair of the damage done by Hākim.
Cedrenus (11, 501) wrongly makes Romanus commence the work and Michael com-
17
C. MED. H. VOL. V. CH. VI.


## p. 258 (#304) ############################################

258
Caliphate of Mustanșir
The eighth Fāțimite Caliph, Abu tamīm Maʻadd al-Mustanşir,
was only seven years old when his father died (June 1036), so that his
reign began with a succession of regencies. The Caliph's mother, an
African woman, exercised a considerable amount of influence. The con-
temporary Persian traveller Nāşir-i-Khusrau records very favourable
impressions of the prosperity and tranquillity of the country while the
Caliph was a minor.
Early in this reign peaceful relations between Aleppo and Egypt
were broken off. Nașr ibn Şāliḥ was defeated and slain in battle with
Anūshtakīn (May 1038), and Aleppo was captured and garrisoned by
Egyptian troops for a few years (1038-1042). The disgrace of Anushtakin,
followed immediately by his death (January-February 1042)', weakened
the Fāțimite dominion all over Syria. Aleppo was recovered by Nașr's
brother, Mu'izz-ad-Daulah Thumāl (March 1042). He resumed payment
of tribute to the Greeks and so secured himself in that direction. The
terms of the rulers of Egypt were not so easily satisfied. Envoys came
and went between the parties. Attacks were launched against Thumal
by the Emirs of Hims and Damascus, acting in the name of the Caliph
(1048–1050). At length, in 1050, an agreement satisfactory to both sides
was arrived at.
Two isolated events, which are a part of the history of the Fāțimite
Caliphs, deserve mention here. In 10492 Mu'izz ibn Bādīs, the Zairite
Emir of Tunis, ceased to pay tribute to Mustanşir and transferred his
allegiance to the Abbasid Caliph. His family had ruled in Qairawān,
in practical independence, since 973, when the Fāțimite Caliph of the
day made Cairo his residence and capital. But the formal separation,
signalised by the acknowledgment of the Caliph of Baghdad, took place
only now. On the other hand, for the greater part of the year 1059 the
Caliphate of Mustanşir was acknowledged in Baghdad itself. Such
acknowledgments were now symbols of the triumph of political parties
and alliances. The Turkish Sultan Țughril Beg identified his cause with
that of the Abbasid Caliphs, with the result that his enemies in
plete it.