The advance of the Saljuqs instigated the emergence of military dynasties in Syria (Bilād al-Shām). With the removal of the Fatimids from Cairo this system of military rule expanded to Egypt. The new soldier-rulers, many of them foreigners, were aware of the political weight of legitimacy, image and propaganda, particularly when they advanced the ideology of protecting the Abode of Islam against its enemies, first the Franks and later the Mongols. They forged strong ties with the religious establishment and invested considerable resources in pious endowments. They were also Maecenas of literature and supported historians who told the stories of their dynasties and communicated their memory. As a result, the stormy centuries of the late ʿAbbāsid period (1055–1517) witnessed the development of a rich Arab historiography in Syria and Egypt (cf. Claude Cahen, “L'historiographie arabe: des origines au VIIe s. h.”, Arabica 33, 1986, 182). The history of society and of the historical craft in these lands during the Zangid (1127–74), Ayyubid (1171–1260), and Mamluk (1250–1517) years are the subject of the three new studies reviewed here.
Clio's practitioners commonly agree that the past and history are not the same thing, and frequently debate questions concerning historiography and fiction. The “Culture industry”, as understood by Adorno and Horkheimer, including the interpretation of historical narratives, has constituted a component of the craft of historians for centuries prior to the new wave of scholarly debates on narrative, deconstruction, image and other buzz-words. Konrad Hirschler takes on this theme, understanding that the historical narrative reflects the historian's experience and that before studying the chronicle we have to study the historian himself. His starting point is the assumption that in order to decipher the historical story we should first grasp the standpoint of the sources.
Hirschler provides an in-depth study of Ayyūbid historiography, concentrating on two historians, Abū Shāma and Ibn Wāṣil, who for several decades observed and participated in the history described in their chronicles. The former's Kitāb al-Rawḍatayn (Book of the Two Gardens) seems to cue quranic verses such as 30:15: “As for those who believed and did deeds of righteousness they will be entertained in a garden (rawḍa)”. As for the noun mufarrij in the title of the latter's Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār Banī Ayyūb, it is surprising that Hirschler does not take account of the genre of al-faraj baʾd al-shidda (deliverance after hardship), for example the writings by Ibn Abī Dunyā and al-Tanūkhī.
He opens his study with a short note on social networking and the benefits of “analysis methodology”, a term used by social scientists since the 1950s. Following the lines taken by Makdisi, he analyses the career of Ibn Wāṣil, a mediocre historian and teacher who was in the service of the late Ayyubid and early Mamluk sultans. The second part of this chapter dwells on the career of Abū Shāma, a historian who took a different path. Hirschler enlarges the investigation of the intellectual and social framework by tracing the intellectual roots of Abū Shāma and Ibn Wāṣil. Although both historians were educated in the traditional curriculum of the Ayyubid era, it is nevertheless easy to discover dissimilarities in their narratives. He convincingly argues that this distinction is rooted in the authors' self-image and fields of interest.
Minute description enables Hirschler to reconstruct daily life in Damascus during the thirteenth century. Influenced by literary theories, he dwells upon the semantics of the chronicles' titles. I fully agree with his assertion that it is possible to detect a personalized voice in chronicles composed by contemporaries. Some of these historians used verses as a vehicle to express critical voices. An elaboration of poetry would have been a most welcome contribution. The concluding chapter of Hirschler's book is a study in Wirkungsgeschichte, a developing methodology in cultural history. He briefly describes the reception of Abū Shāma's and Ibn Wāṣil's historical works in Mamluk, Ottoman and modern Arabic historiography.
While Hirschler demonstrates an open attitude to postmodern approaches to historical writings, Daniella Talmon-Heller's investigation of the social and cultural history of Bilād al-Shām during the late ʿAbbāsid period (1146–1260) is heavily influenced by anthropological history. She opens her book with a panoramic description of sacred places in Bilād al-Shām and highlights the culture of relics and the importance of the mosque in urban and rural Muslim communities during the years of jihād. This is an informative chapter that would be a useful source for further investigation.
The second chapter deals with social and religious activities within these premises, throwing light on social rhythm in the public sphere. This is not an account of everyday life in medieval Syrian cities, but a description of teachers, students, ascetics and other religious functionaries. This is followed by a thick description of the urban religious functionaries. The account of Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzī is particularly long. One may wonder if quantitative history is not a more suitable method to study social networks than the descriptive history used by the author. S. Leder, Yasin Muhammad al-Sauwas and Mamun al-Sajarji, Muʿjam al-samaʿāt al-dimashqiyya al-muntakhaba min sanat 550 ilā 750/ 1155 ilā 1349 (Damascus: IFEA, 1996), is mentioned in the notes, but missing from the bibliography.
The political and social aspects of Fridays and Islamic festival sermons have been studied by several scholars. Some of the medieval preachers produced guidance manuals to be used by future colleagues. Talmon-Heller refrains from speculating on the Damascene arena and carefully restricts her contribution to a solid account of the personnel who guided the believers within the walls of the mosque and on other communal prayers. The chapter on cemeteries and funerals clearly demonstrates the gap between local traditions in Ayyubid Syria and “the culture of the book”, or the pseudo-historical maxima that were manipulated in order to achieve a “normative” Islamic tradition.
Medieval Muslim scholars often portrayed themselves as heirs (warathāt) of the prophets. A short exposé of this theme would have contributed to a better insight into the self-image and role of this class. Talmon-Heller's observations lead the reader to conclude that deep changes took place in the public demonstration of religion, reflecting the emergence of a new world vision among Muslims in the years of war between Islam and Latin Christianity. Distinguishing the history of Bilād al-Shām during the Crusades from that of the succeeding Mamluk age is a historian's stratagem to deal with longue durée developments, and evaluate the changes that swept through the region.
Sami G. Massoud studies the historical narratives of three crises that severely shook the Mamluk regime during the closing years of the Baḥrī period and the early Circassian period. He opens with the turning point that indicated the end of the Qalawunid dynasty. The second crisis started with the deposition of the sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān (764–778/1363–77), culminated in fighting over Damascus during Mintash's rebellion, and ended with the victory of Barqūq (1386–91). The third case study deals with Mamluk historiography of the year following the devastating incursion of Tamerlane (804/1401–02). The accounts of these episodes are investigated by Massoud, who differentiates between contemporary and later chroniclers.
By focusing on the three case studies and by evaluating each historian separately, Massoud fails to produce a clear picture of their networking and the transmission of information not merely from teachers to students but also vice versa. The report about the expedition dispatched by the sultan al-Ẓāhir Sayf al-Dīn to Cyprus and Rhodes (847/1443), preserved in Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī's chronicle Inbā' al-ghumar (ed. ʿA. al-Bukhari, Hayderabad, 1395/1985, 9: 200–13), may serve to illustrate this shortcoming. The expedition was also recorded by the contemporary historian ʿAlī b. Da'ūd al-Khaṭīb al-Ṣayrafī al-Jawharī (819–900/1416–94) in his Nuzhat al-nufūs wa'l-abdān fi tawārīkh al-zamān (ed. Ḥ. Ḥabashī, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, 1971–94, 4: 271–3). Although this episode is beyond the scope of Massoud's study, it can nevertheless illuminate the nature of scholars' networks. Among the participants in this incursion was Burhān al-Dīn Ibrāhīm al-Biqāʿī who wrote a diary (taʿlīq). Although the published version of his chronicle does not include the relation of the fighting, his teacher Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī quotes the diary verbally. As a result we possess a first-hand account that reflects not only the hardships of sailing and fighting but also the self-image of a Muslim jurist.
Although Massoud demonstrates an impressive knowledge of primary and secondary literature, his methodology of slicing the topic into three detached cases does not offer the reader a comprehensive overview of Mamluk historiography. A better strategy for exploring this knotty topic would be the study of networks and of the reception of earlier narratives. Thus for example the complicated relations between ʿAlī al-Jawharī al-Ṣayrafī and Ibn Taghri-Birdi can be deduced not only from the former's bulky chronicle Nuzhat al-nufūs but even from his modest historical work Inbā' al-haṣr bi-abnā' al-ʿaṣr (ed. Ḥasan Ḥabashī, Cairo: Dār al-Kutub, 1970; cf. the obituary of the historian's father at pp. 175–82). Aḥmad Darrag, “La vie d'Abu al-Maḥasin Ibn Taghri-Birdi et son œuvre”, Ann. Isl. 11, 1972, 163–4, depicts al-Ṣayrafī as “the major detractor of Ibn Taghri-Birdi”. By confining his investigation to just the one chronicle by al-Jawharī, Massoud fails to illuminate the complicated nature of the relations between the two historians.
Hirschler has demonstrated the significance of the chronicles' titles. Elucidating the meaning of the Arabic is a useful exercise, and translating the books' names could have been a first step in this direction, but Massoud's contribution to this field is limited.
Despite these few minor critical notes the three books are a most welcome contribution to the fields of history and historiography of Syria and Egypt in the twelfth to fifteenth centuries.
