VOLUME V SLICE I Calhoun to Camoens (continued 5)

In the same year a revolution at Constantinople overthrew the empress Irene. The new emperor Nicephorus, thinking himself strong enough to refuse the payment of tribute, wrote an insulting letter to Hārūn, who contented himself with replying: “Thou shall not hear, but see, my answer.” He entered Asia Minor and took Heraclea, plundering and burning along his whole line of march, till Nicephorus, in alarm, sued for peace. Scarcely had the caliph returned into winter quarters when Nicephorus broke the treaty. When the news came to Rakka, where Hārūn was residing, not one of the ministers ventured to tell him, until at last a poet introduced it in a poem which pleased the monarch. Notwithstanding the rigour of the season, Hārūn retraced his steps, and Nicephorus was compelled to observe his engagements. In 805 the first great ransoming of Moslem prisoners took place on the banks of the little river Lamus in Cilicia. But Nicephorus, profiting by serious disturbances in Khorasan, broke the treaty again, and overran the country as far as Anazarba and Kanīsat as-saudā (“the black church”) on the frontier, where he took many prisoners, who were, however, recovered by the garrison of Mopsuestia. Thus Hārūn was obliged to take the field again. He entered Asia Minor with an army of 135,000 regulars, beside volunteers and camp followers. Heraclea was taken, together with many other places, and Tyana was made a military station. At the same time his admiral, Homaid b. Ma‘yūf, conquered Cyprus, which had broken the treaty, and took 16,000 of its people captive. Nicephorus was now so completely beaten that he was compelled to submit to very harsh conditions. In the year 808 the second ransoming between the Moslems and the Greeks took place near the river Lamus.

The disturbances in Khorasan were caused by the malversations of the governor of that province, Ali b. ‘Īsā b. Māhān. The caliph went in person to Merv, in order to judge of the reality of the complaints which had reached him. Ali b. ‘Īsā hastened to meet the caliph on his arrival at Rai (Rhagae), near the modern Teheran, with a great quantity of costly presents, which he distributed with such profusion among the princes and courtiers that no one was anxious to accuse him. Hārūn confirmed him in his post, and, after having received the chiefs of Tabaristān who came to tender their submission, returned through Bagdad to Rakka on the Euphrates, which city was his habitual residence. In the following year Rāfi’ b. Laith, a grandson of Nasr b. Sayyār, raised the standard of revolt in Samarkand, and, at the head of a numerous army, defeated the son of Ali b. ‘Īsā. Thereupon Ali fled from Balkh, leaving the treasury, which was plundered by the populace after his departure. The caliph on learning that the revolt was due to Ali’s tyranny, sent Harthama b. A‘yan with stringent orders to seize Ali and confiscate his possessions. This order was carried out, and it is recorded that 1500 camels were required to transport the confiscated treasures. The caliph’s hope that Rāfi’ would submit on condition of receiving a free pardon was not fulfilled, and he resolved to set out himself to Khorasan, taking with him his second son Mamun. On the journey he was attacked by an internal malady, which carried him off, ten months after his departure from Bagdad, a.h. 193 (March 809), just on his arrival at the city of Tūs. Hārūn was only forty-five years of age. He was far from having the high qualifications of his grandfather Mansur; indeed he did not even possess the qualities of his father and his brother. When the latter asked him to renounce his right of succession, he was willing to consent, saying that a quiet life with his beloved wife, the princess Zobaida, was his highest wish, but he obeyed his mother and Yahyā b. Khālid. As long as the Barmecides were in office, he acted only on their direction. After their disgrace he was led into many impolitic actions by his violent and often cruel propensities. But the empire was, especially in the earlier part of his reign, in a very prosperous state, and was respected widely by foreign powers. Embassies passed between Charlemagne and Hārūn in the years 180 (a.d. 797) and 184 (a.d. 801), by which the former obtained facilities for the pilgrims to the Holy Land, the latter probably concessions for the trade on the Mediterranean ports. The ambassadors brought presents with them; on one of these occasions the first elephant reached the land of the Franks.

Under the reign of Hārūn, Ibrāhīm b. al-Aghlab, the governor of Africa, succeeded in making himself independent of the central government, on condition of paying a fixed annual tribute to his suzerain the caliph. This was, if we do not take Spain into the account, the first instance of dismemberment, later to be followed by many others.

In the days of this caliph the first paper factories were founded in Bagdad.

6. Reign of Amīn.—On the death of Hārūn his minister, Fadl b. Rabī’, with the view of gaining the new caliph’s confidence, hastened to call together all the troops of the late caliph and to lead them back to Bagdad, in order to place them in the hands of the new sovereign, Amīn. He even, in direct violation of Hārūn’s will, led back the corps which was intended to occupy Khorasan under the authority of Mamun. Aware, however, that in thus acting he was making Mamun his irreconcilable enemy, he persuaded Amīn to exclude Mamun from the succession. Mamun, on receiving his brother’s invitation to go to Bagdad, was greatly perplexed; but his tutor and later vizier, Fadl b. Sahl, a Zoroastrian of great influence, who in 806 had adopted Islam, reanimated his courage, and pointed out to him that certain death awaited him at Bagdad. Mamun resolved to hold out, and found pretexts for remaining in Khorasan. Amīn, in anger, caused the will of his father, which, as we have seen, was preserved in the Ka‘ba, to be destroyed, declared on his own authority that Mamun’s rights of succession were forfeited, and caused the army to swear allegiance to his own son Mūsā, a child of five, on whom he bestowed the title of an-Nātiq bil-Haqq (“he who speaks according to truth”), a.h. 194 (a.d. 809-810). On hearing the news, Mamun, strong in the rightfulness of his claim, retaliated by suppressing the caliph’s name in all public acts. Amīn immediately despatched to Khorasan an army of 40,000 under the command of Ali b. ‘Īsā, who had regained his former influence, and told the caliph that, at his coming to Khorasan, all the leading men would come over to his side. Zobaida, the mother of the caliph, entreated Ali to treat Mamun kindly when he should have made him captive. It is said that Fadl b. Sahl had, through a secret agent, induced Fadl b. Rabī’ to select Ali, knowing that the dislike felt towards him by the Khorasanians would double their strength in fighting against him. Mamun, on his side, sent in all haste an army of less than 4000 men of his faithful Khorasanians, and entrusted their command to Ṭāhir b. Hosain, who displayed remarkable abilities in the war that ensued. The two armies met under the walls of Rai (Shaaban 195, May 811). By a bold attack, in the manner of the Kharijites of yore, Ṭāhir penetrated into the centre of the hostile army and killed Ali. The frightened army fled, leaving the camp with all its treasures to Ṭāhir, who from that day was named “the man with the two right hands.” A courier was despatched immediately to Merv, who performed the journey, a distance of about 750 miles, in three days. On the very day of his arrival, Harthama b. A‘yan had left Merv with reinforcements. Mamun now no longer hesitated to take the title of caliph.

When the news of Ali’s defeat came to Bagdad, Amīn sent Abdarrahmān b. Jabala to Hamadān with 20,000 men. Ṭāhir defeated him, forced Hamadān to surrender, and occupied all the strong places in Jabal (Media). The year after, Amīn placed in the field two new armies commanded respectively by Ahmad b. Mazyad and Abdallah b. Ḥomaid b. Qaḥṭaba. The skilful Ṭāhir succeeded in creating divisions among the troops of his adversaries, and obtained possession, without striking a blow, of the city of Holwān, an advantage which opened the way to the very gates of Bagdad. He was here reinforced by troops sent from Khorasan under the command of Harthama b. A‘yan, who was appointed leader of the war against Amīn, with orders to send Ṭāhir to Ahwāz. Ṭāhir continued his victorious march, conquered Ahwāz, took Wāsit and Madāin, and pitched his camp near one of the gates of the capital, where he was rejoined by Harthama. One after the other the provinces fell away from Amīn, and he soon found himself in possession of Bagdad alone. The city, though blockaded on every side, made a desperate defence for nearly two years. Ultimately the eastern part of the city fell into the hands of Ṭāhir, and Amīn, deserted by his followers, was compelled to surrender. He resolved to treat with Harthama, as he was averse to Ṭāhir; but this step caused his ruin. Ṭāhir succeeded in intercepting him on his way to Harthama, and immediately ordered him to be put to death. His head was sent to Mamun (September 813). It was presented to him by his vizier, Faḍl b. Sahl, surnamed Dhu‘l-Riyāsatain, or “the man with two governments,” because his master had committed to him both the ministry of war and the general administration. Mamun hid his joy beneath a feigned display of sorrow.

Amīn was only twenty-eight years old. As a ruler he was wholly incompetent. He hardly comprehended the importance of the affairs with which he was called upon to deal. He acted invariably on the advice of those who for the time had his confidence, and occupied himself mainly with the affairs of his harem, with polo, fishing, wine and music. The five years of his reign were disastrous to the empire, and in particular to Bagdad which never entirely recovered its old splendour.

7. Reign of Mamun.—On the day following the death of Amīn Ṭāhir caused Mamun to be proclaimed at Bagdad, and promised in his name a general amnesty. The accession of this prince appeared likely to restore to the empire the order necessary for its prosperity. It was not so, however. The reign of Mamun—that reign in which art, science and letters, under the patronage of the caliph, threw so brilliant a lustre—had a very stormy beginning. Mamun was in no haste to remove to Bagdad, but continued to reside at Merv. In his gratitude to Faḍl b. Sahl, to whose service he owed his success, he not only chose him as prime minister of the empire, but also named his brother, Hasan b. Sahl, governor of Media, Fārs, Ahwāz, Arabia and Irak. The two generals to whom he owed still more were not treated as they deserved. Harthama was ordered to return to Khorasan; Ṭāhir was made governor of Mesopotamia and Syria, with the task of subduing Naṣr b. Shabath, who with numerous adherents refused submission to the caliph. The Alids seized on the elevation of Mamun as a pretext for fresh revolts. At Kufa a certain Ibn Ṭabāṭabā placed an army in the field under Abu‘l-Sarāyā, who had been a captain in the army of Harthama. An army sent by Hasan b. Sahl was defeated, and Abu‘l-Sarāyā, no longer content to play a second part, poisoned his chief, Ibn Ṭabāṭabā, and put in his place another of the family of Ali, Mahommed b. Mahommed, whom, on account of his extreme youth, he hoped to govern at his will. Abu‘l-Sarāyā’s success continued, and several cities of Irak—Basra, Wāsit and Madāin—fell into his hands. Mecca, Medina and Yemen also were mastered by the Alids, who committed all kinds of atrocities and sacrilege. Abu‘l-Sarāyā, who even struck money in Kufa, began to menace the capital, when Hasan b. Sahl hastily sent a messenger to Harthama b. A‘yan, who was already at Holwān on his way back to Merv, entreating him to come to his aid. Harthama, who was deeply offended by his dismissal, refused at first, but at last consented, and at once checked the tide of disaster. The troops of the Alids were everywhere driven back, and the whole of Irak fell again into the hands of the Abbasids. Kufa opened its gates; Basra was taken by assault. Abu‘l-Sarāyā and Mahommed b. Mahommed fled to Mesopotamia, but were made prisoners. The former was decapitated, the latter was sent to Khorasan, the revolt in Arabia was quickly suppressed, and peace seemed within reach. This, however, was by no means the case. The disorder of civil war had caused a multitude of robbers and vagabonds to emerge from the purlieus of Bagdad. These ruffians proceeded to treat the capital as a conquered city, and it became necessary for all good citizens to organize themselves into a regular militia. Harthama, having vanquished Abu‘l-Sarāyā, did not go to Hasan b. Sahl, but proceeded towards Merv with the purpose of telling Mamun that the state of affairs was not as Fadl b. Sahl represented it to him, and urging him to come to Bagdad, where his presence was necessary. Fadl, informed of his intentions, filled the caliph’s mind with distrust against the old general, so that when Harthama arrived Mamun had him cast into prison, where he died shortly afterwards. When the tidings of his disgrace came to Bagdad, the people expelled the lieutenant of Hasan b. Sahl, called by them the Mājūzī (“the Zoroastrian”), who had chosen Madāin for his residence, and put at their head Mansūr, a son of Mahdi, who refused to assume the title of caliph, but consented to be Mamun’s vicegerent instead of Hasan b. Sahl.

Meanwhile, at Merv, Mamun was adopting a decision which fell like a thunderbolt on the Abbasids. In a.h. 201 (a.d. 817), under pretence of putting an end to the continual revolts of the partisans of Ali, and acting on the advice of his prime minister Fadl, he publicly designated as his successor in the Caliphate Ali ar-Ridā, a son of that Mūsā al-Kāzim who perished in the prison of Mahdi, a direct descendant of Hosain, the son of Ali, and proscribed black, the colour of the Abbasids, in favour of that of the house of Ali, green. This step was well calculated to delight the followers of Ali, but it could not fail to exasperate the Abbasids and their partisans. The people of Bagdad refused to take the oath to Ali b. Mūsā, declared Mamun deposed, and elected his uncle, Ibrāhīm, son of Mahdi, to the Caliphate.33 It was only indirectly that the news reached the caliph, who then saw that Fadl had been treating him as a puppet. His anger was great, but he kept it carefully to himself. Fadl was one day found murdered, and Ali b. Mūsā died suddenly. The historians bring no open accusation against Mamun, but it seems clear that the opportune removal of these men was not due to chance. Mamun affected the profoundest grief, and, in order to disarm suspicion, appointed as his prime minister the brother of Fadl, Hasan b. Sahl, whose daughter Būrān he afterwards married. Soon after the news came to him that Hasan b. Sahl had become insane. Mamun appointed an officer to act as his lieutenant, and wrote that he was coming to Bagdad in a short time. From that moment the pseudo-caliph Ibrāhīm found himself deserted, and was obliged to seek safety in concealment. His precarious reign had, however, lasted nearly two years. Mamun had found out also that the general uneasiness was largely due to his treatment of Harthama and Tāhir, the latter having been put in a rebellious country without the men and the money to maintain his authority. The caliph therefore wrote to Tāhir to meet him at Nahrawān, where he was received with the greatest honour. Having taken all precautions, Mamun now made his solemn entry into Bagdad, but, to show that he came as a master, he still displayed for several days the green colours, though at last, at the request of Tāhir, he consented to resume the black. From this time, a.h. 204 (August 819), the real reign of Mamun began, freed as he now was from the tutelage of Faḍl.

When welcoming Tāhir, Mamun bade him ask for any reward he might desire. Tāhir, fearing lest the caliph, not being able to endure the sight of the murderer of his brother, should change his mind towards him, contrived to get himself appointed governor of Khorasan. Like most of the great Moslem generals, Tāhir, it is said, had conceived the project of creating an independent kingdom for himself. His death, a.h. 207 (a.d. 822), prevented its realization; but as his descendants succeeded him one after the other in the post of governor, he may be said in reality to have founded a dynasty in Khorasan. His son Abdallah b. Tāhir was a special favourite of Mamun, He brought Naṣr b. Shabath to subjection in Mesopotamia, and overcame by great ability a very dangerous rebellion in Egypt. When he returned thence, the caliph gave him the choice between the government of Khorasan and that of the northern provinces, where he would have to combat Babak the Khorramite. Abdallah chose the former (see below, § 8).

The pseudo-caliph, Ibrāhim, who, since Mamun’s entry into Bagdad, had led a wandering life, was eventually arrested. But Mamun generously pardoned him, as well as Faḍl b. Rabi’, the chief promoter of the terrible civil war which had so lately shaken the empire. After that time, Ibrahim lived peacefully at the court, cultivating the arts of singing and music.

Tranquillity being now everywhere re-established, Mamun gave himself up to science and literature. He caused works on mathematics, astronomy, medicine and philosophy to be translated from the Greek, and founded in Bagdad a kind of academy, called the “House of Science,” with a library and an observatory. It was also by his orders that two learned mathematicians undertook the measurement of a degree of the earth’s circumference. Mamun interested himself too in questions of religious dogma. He had embraced the Motazilite doctrine about free will and predestination, and was in particular shocked at the opinion which had spread among the Moslem doctors that the Koran was the uncreated word of God. In the year 212 (a.d. 827) he published an edict by which the Motazilite (Mu’tazilite) doctrine was declared to be the religion of the state, the orthodox faith condemned as heretical. At the same time he ordered all his subjects to honour Ali as the best creature of God after the Prophet, and forbade the praise of Moawiya. In a.h. 218 (a.d. 833) a new edict appeared by which all judges and doctors were summoned to renounce the error of the uncreated word of God. Several distinguished doctors, and, among others, the celebrated Ahmad b. Ḥanbal (q.v.), founder of one of the four orthodox Moslem schools, were obliged to appear before an inquisitorial tribunal; and as they persisted in their belief respecting the Koran, they were thrown into prison. Mamun, being at Tarsus, received from the governor of Bagdad the report of the tribunal, and ordered that the culprits should be sent off to him. Happily for these unfortunate doctors, they had scarcely reached Adana, when news of the caliph’s death arrived and they were brought back to Bagdad. The two successors of Mamun maintained the edicts—Ahmad b. Ḥanbal, who obstinately refused to yield, was flogged in the year 834— but it seems that Motasim did not himself take much interest in the question, which perhaps he hardly understood, and that the prosecution of the inquisition by him was due in great part to the charge which was left him in Mamun’s will. In the reign of Motawakkil the orthodox faith was restored, never to be assailed again.34

In spite of these manifold activities Mamun did not forget the hereditary enemy of Islam. In the years 830, 831 and 832 he made expeditions into Asia Minor with such success that Theophilus, the Greek emperor, sued for peace, which Mamun haughtily refused to grant. Accordingly, he decided on marching in the following year against Amorium, and thence to Constantinople itself. Having sent before him his son Abbas to make Tyana a strong fortress, he set out for Asia Minor to put himself at the head of the army, but died of a fever brought on by bathing in the chill river, Pedendon, 40 m. from Tarsus, in Rajab 218 (a.d. August 833), at the age of forty-eight.

Mamun was a man of rare qualities, and one of the best rulers of the whole dynasty after Mansur. By him the ascendancy of the Persian element over the Arabian was completed. Moreover, he began to attract young Turkish noblemen to his court, an example which was followed on a much larger scale by his successor and led to the supremacy of the Turks at a later period.

8. Reign of Motasim.—Abu Isḥāk al-Mo’taṣim had for a long time been preparing himself for the succession. Every year he had bought Turkish slaves, and had with him in the last expedition of Mamun a bodyguard of 3000. Backed by this force he seems to have persuaded the ailing caliph to designate him as his successor. The chroniclers content themselves with recording that he himself wrote in the name of the caliph to the chief authorities in Bagdad and elsewhere that he was to be the successor. His accession, however, met at first with active opposition in the army, where a powerful party demanded that Abbas should take the place of his father. Abbas, however, publicly renounced all pretension to the Caliphate, and the whole army accepted Motasim, who immediately had the fortifications of Tyana demolished and hastened back to Bagdad, where he made his public entry on the 20th of September 833.

Motasim wanted officers for his bodyguard. Immediately after his coming to Bagdad, he bought all the Turkish slaves living there who had distinguished themselves. Among them were Ashnās, Itākh, Wasīf, Sīmā, all of whom later became men of great influence. The guard was composed of an undisciplined body of soldiers, who, moreover, held in open contempt the religious precepts of Islam. Tired of the excesses committed by these Turks, the people of Bagdad beat or killed as many of them as they could lay hands on, and Motasim, not daring to act with severity against either his guard or the citizens, took the course of quitting the city. Having bought in 834 territories at Sāmarrā, a small place situated a few leagues above Bagdad, he caused a new residence to be built there, whose name, which could be interpreted “Unhappy is he who sees it,” was changed by him into Sorra-man-ra‘ā, “Rejoiced is he who sees it.” Leaving the government of the capital in the hands of his son Hārūn al-Wāthiq, he established himself at Sāmarrā in 836. This resolution of Motasim was destined to prove fatal to his dynasty; for it placed the caliphs at the mercy of their praetorians. In fact, from the time of Wāthiq, the Caliphate became the plaything of the Turkish guard, and its decline was continuous.

In the time of the civil war the marshlands in Irak between Basra and Wāsit had been occupied by a large population of Indians, called yat, or, according to the Arabic pronunciation, Zoṭṭ, who infested the roads and levied a heavy tribute from the ships ascending and descending the Tigris. From the year 821 onwards Mamun had tried in vain to bring them to submission. When Motasim came back to Bagdad, after the death of his brother, he found the people in great distress, their supply of dates from Basra having been cut off by the Zoṭṭ, and resolved to put them down with all means. After seven months of vigorous resistance, they at last yielded on condition of safety of life and property. In January 835 the Zoṭṭ in their national costume and with their own music were conducted on a great number of boats through Bagdad. Thence they were transported to Ainzarba (Anazarba) on the frontier of the Greek empire. Twenty years later they entered Asia Minor, whence in a later period they came into Europe, under the name of Athinganoi (Ziganes) and Egyptians (gipsies).35

A far more difficult task lay before Motasim, the subjection of Bābak al-Khorramī in Azerbaijan. Though the name Khorramī is often employed by the Moslem writers to designate such extravagant Moslem sectaries as the Hāshimīya, the real Khorramī were not Moslems, but Persian Mazdaqites, or communists. The name Khorramī, or Khorramdīnī, “adherent of the pleasant religion,” seems to be a nickname. As they bore red colours, they were also called Mohammira, or Redmakers. Their object was to abolish Islam and to restore “the white religion.” We find the first mention of them in the year 808, when Harun al-Rashid sent an army against them. During the civil war their power was steadily increasing, and spread not only over Azerbaijan, but also over Media (Jabal) and Khorasan. The numerous efforts of Mamun to put them down had been all in vain, and they were now in alliance with the Byzantine emperor. Therefore, in the year 835, Motasim made Afshīn, a Turkish prince who had distinguished himself already in the days of Mamun, governor of Media, with orders to take the lead of the war against Bābak. After three years’ fighting, Bābak was taken prisoner. He was carried to Sāmarrā, led through the city on the back of an elephant, and then delivered to the executioners, who cut off his arms and legs. His head was sent to Khorasan, his body was crucified. For long afterwards the place where this happened bore the name of “Bābak’s Cross.”

In the hope of creating a diversion in Bābak’s favour, Theophilus in 837 fell upon and laid waste the frontier town of Zibatra. There and in several other places he took a great number of prisoners, whom he mutilated. The news arrived just after that of the capture of Bābak, and Motasim swore to take exemplary vengeance. He assembled a formidable army, penetrated into Asia Minor, and took the city of Amorium, where he gained rich plunder. During his return the caliph was informed of a conspiracy in the army in favour of ‘Abbās the son of Mamun, of which ‘Ojaif b. ‘Anbasa was the ringleader. The unfortunate prince was arrested and died soon after in prison. The conspirators were killed, many of them with great cruelty. (For the campaign see Bury in J.H.S., 1909, xxix. pt. i.)

Motasim had just returned to Sāmarrā when a serious revolt broke out in Tabaristan, Māziyār, one of the hereditary chiefs of that country, refusing to acknowledge the authority of Abdallah Ibn Ṭāhir, the governor of Khorasan, of which Tabaristan was a province. The revolt was suppressed with great difficulty, and it came out that it was due to the secret instigation of Afshīn, who hoped thereby to cause the fall of the Ṭāhirids, and to take their place, with the ulterior object of founding an independent kingdom in the East. Afshīn, who stood at that moment in the highest favour of the caliph, was condemned and died in prison. Motasim died a year later, January 842.

9. Reign of Wāthiq.—His son Wāthiq, who succeeded, though not in the least to be compared with Mamun, had yet in common with him a thirst for knowledge—perhaps curiosity would be a more appropriate term—which prompted him, as soon as he became caliph, to send the famous astronomer Mahommed b. Mūsā into Asia Minor to find out all about the Seven Sleepers which he discovered in the neighbourhood of Arabissus,36 and Sallām the Interpreter to explore the situation of the famous wall of Gog and Magog, which he reached at the north-west frontier of China.37 For these and other personal pursuits he raised money by forcing a number of high functionaries to disgorge their gains. In so vast an empire the governors and administrators had necessarily enjoyed an almost unrestricted power, and this had enabled them to accumulate wealth. Omar had already compelled them to furnish an account of their riches, and, when he found that they had abused their trust, to relinquish half to the state. As time went on, nomination to an office was more and more generally considered a step to wealth. During the reign of the Omayyads a few large fortunes were made thus. But with the increasing luxury after Mansur, the thirst for money became universal, and the number of honest officials lessened fast. Confiscation of property had been employed with success by Hārūn al-Rashīd after the disgrace of the Barmecides, and occasionally by his successors, but Wāthiq was the first to imprison high officials and fine them heavily on the specific charge of peculation.

The caliph also shared Mamun’s intolerance on the doctrinal question of the uncreated Koran. He carried his zeal to such a point that, on the occasion of an exchange of Greek against Moslem prisoners in 845, he refused to receive those Moslem captives who would not declare their belief that the Koran was created. The orthodox in Bagdad prepared to revolt, but were discovered in time by the governor of the city. The ringleader Ahmad b. Naṣr al-Khozā‘ī was seized and brought to Sāmarrā, where Wāthiq beheaded him in person. The only other event of importance in the reign of Wāthiq was a rising of the Arabian tribes in the environs of Medina, which the Turkish general Boghā with difficulty repressed. When he reached Sāmarrā with his prisoners, Wāthiq had just died (August 846). That the predominance of the praetorians was already established is clear from the fact that Wāthiq gave to two Turkish generals, Ashnās and Itākh respectively, the titular but lucrative supreme government of all the western and all the eastern provinces. In his days the soldiery at Sāmarrā was increased by a large division of Africans (Maghribīs).

10. Reign of Motawakkil.—As Wāthiq had appointed no successor the vizier Mahommed Zayyāt had cast his eye on his son Mahommed, who was still a child, but the generals Wasīf and Itākh, seconded by the upper cadi Ibn abī Da’ud, refused their consent, and offered the supreme power to Wāthiq’s brother Ja‘far, who at his installation adopted the name of al-Motawakkil ‘alā ‘llāh (“he who trusts in God”). The new caliph hated the vizier Zayyāt, who had opposed his election, and had him seized and killed with the same atrocious cruelty which the vizier himself had inflicted on others. His possessions, and those of others who had opposed the caliph’s election, were confiscated. But the arrogance of Itākh, to whom he owed his Caliphate, became insufferable. So, with the perfidy of his race, the caliph took him off his guard, and had him imprisoned and killed at Bagdad. He was succeeded by Wasīf.

About this time an impostor named Mahmūd b. Faraj had set himself up as a prophet, claiming to be Dhu‘l-Qarnain (Alexander the Great) risen from the dead. Asserting that Gabriel brought him revelations, he had contrived to attract twenty-seven followers. The caliph had him flogged, and compelled each of the twenty-seven to give him ten blows on the head with his fist. The “prophet” expired under the blows (850).

One of the first acts of Motawakkil was the release of all those who had been imprisoned for refusing to admit the dogma of the created Koran, and the strict order to abstain from any litigation about the Book of God. The upper cadi Ibn abī Da’ud, the leader of the movement against orthodoxy, who had stood in great esteem with Mamun and had fulfilled his high office under the reigns of Motasim and Wāthiq, had a stroke of paralysis in the year 848. His son Mahommed was put in his place till 851, when all the members of the family were arrested. They released themselves by paying the enormous sum of 240,000 dinārs and 16,000,000 dirhems, which constituted nearly their whole fortune, and were then sent to Bagdad, where father and son died three years later. An orthodox upper cadi was named instead, and the dogma of the created Koran was declared heresy; therewith began a persecution of all the adherents of that doctrine and other Motazilite tenets. Orthodoxy triumphed, never again to lose its place as the state religion. Hand in hand with these reactionary measures came two others, one against Jews and Christians, one against the Shi‘ites. The first caliph who imposed humiliating conditions on the Dhimmis, or Covenanters, who, on condition of paying a certain not over-heavy tribute, enjoyed the protection of the state and the free exercise of their cult, was Omar II., but this policy was not continued. A proposition by the cadi Abū Yūsuf to Hārūn al-Rashid to renew it had not been adopted. Motawakkil, in 850, formulated an edict by which these sectaries were compelled to wear a distinctive dress and to distinguish their houses by a figure of the devil nailed to the door, excluding them at the same time from all public employments, and forbidding them to send their children to Moslem schools. Nevertheless, he kept his Christian medical men, some of whom were high in favour. He showed his hatred for the Shi‘ites by causing the mausoleum erected over the tomb of Hosain at Kerbela, together with all the buildings surrounding it, to be levelled to the ground and the site to be ploughed up, and by forbidding any one to visit the spot. A year before, a descendant of Hosain, Yahyā b. Omar, had been arrested and flogged on his orders. He escaped afterwards, rose in rebellion at Kufa in 864, and was killed in battle. It is reported that the caliph even permitted one of his buffoons to turn the person of Ali into mockery.

In the year 848-849 Ibn Ba‘īth, who had rendered good service in the war against Bābak, but had for some cause been arrested, fled from Sāmarrā to Marand in Azerbaijan and revolted. Not without great difficulty Boghā, the Turkish general, succeeded in taking the town and making Ibn Ba‘īth prisoner. He was brought before Motawakkil and died in prison. In the year 237 (a.d. 851-852) a revolt broke out in Armenia. Notwithstanding a vigorous resistance, Boghā subdued and pacified the province in the following year. In that same year, 852-853, the Byzantines made a descent on Egypt with 300 vessels. ‘Anbasa the governor had ordered the garrison of Damietta to parade at the capital Fostāt. The denuded town was taken, plundered and burned. The Greeks then destroyed all the fortifications at the mouth of the Nile near Tinnis, and returned with prisoners and booty. The annual raids of Moslems and Greeks in the border districts of Asia Minor were attended with alternate successes, though on the whole the Greeks had the upper hand. In 856 they penetrated as far as Amid (Diārbekr), and returned with 10,000 prisoners. But in the year 859 the Greeks suffered a heavy defeat with losses of men and cattle, the emperor Michael himself was in danger, whilst the fleet of the Moslems captured and sacked Antalia. This was followed by a truce and an exchange of prisoners in the following year.

In 855 a revolt broke out in Homs (Emesa), where the harsh conditions imposed by the caliph on the Christians and Jews had caused great discontent. It was repressed after a vigorous resistance. A great many leading men were flogged to death, all churches and synagogues were destroyed and all the Christians banished.

In the year 851 the Boja (or Beja), a wild people living between the Red Sea and the Nile of Upper Egypt, the Blemmyes of the ancients, refused to pay the annual tribute, and invaded the land of the gold and emerald mines, so that the working of the mines was stopped. The caliph sent against them Mahommed al-Qommī, who subdued them in 856 and brought their king Ali Bābā to Sāmarrā before Motawakkil, on condition that he should be restored to his kingdom.

About this time Sijistan liberated itself from the supremacy of the Ṭāhirids. Ya’qūb b. Laith al-Saffār proclaimed himself amīr of that province in the year 860, and was soon after confirmed in this dignity by the caliph.

In 858 Motawakkil, hoping to escape from the arrogant patronage of Waṣīf, who had taken the place of Itākh as head of the Turkish guard, transferred his residence to Damascus. But the place did not agree with him, and he returned to Sāmarrā, where he caused a magnificent quarter to be built 3 m. from the city, which he called after his own name Ja‘farīya, and on which he spent more than two millions of dinars (about £900,000). He found the means by following the example of his predecessor in depriving many officials of their ill-gotten gains. He contrived to enrol in his service nearly 12,000 men, for the greater part Arabs, in order to crush the Turks. In the year of his elevation to the Caliphate, he had regulated the succession to the empire in his own family by designating as future caliphs his three sons, al-Montaṣir billāh (“he who seeks help in God”), al-Mo’tazz billāh (“he whose strength is of God”), and al-Mowayyad billāh (“he who is assisted by God”). By and by he conceived an aversion to his eldest son, and wished to supplant him by Motazz, the son of his favourite wife Qabīha. The day had been fixed on which Montasir, Waṣīf and several other Turkish generals were to be assassinated. But Waṣīf and Montasir had been informed, and resolved to anticipate him. In the night before, Shawwāl a.h. 247 (December 861), Motawakkil, after one of his wonted orgies, was murdered, together with his confidant, Fatḥ b. Khāqān. The official report, promulgated by his successor, was that Fatḥ b. Khāqān had murdered his master and had been punished for it by death. For the administrative system in this reign see Mahommedan Institutions.

11. Reign of Montasir.—On the very night of his father’s assassination Montasir had himself proclaimed caliph. He was a man of very feeble character, and a mere puppet in the hands of his vizier Ahmad b. Khaṣīb and the Turkish generals. He was compelled to send Wasif, the personal enemy of Ibn Khaṣīb, to the frontier for a term of four years, and then to deprive his two brothers Motazz and Mowayyad, who were not agreeable to them, of their right of succession. He died six months after, by poison, it is said.

12. Reign of Mosta‘īn.—The Turkish soldiery, now the chief power in the state, chose, by the advice of Ibn Khaṣīb, in succession to Montasir, his cousin Ahmad, who took the title of al-Mosta‘īn billāh (“he who looks for help to God”). In the reign of this feeble prince the Greeks inflicted serious losses on the Moslems in Asia Minor. A great many volunteers from all parts, who offered their services, were hunted down as rioters by the Turkish generals, who were wholly absorbed by their own interests. The party which had placed Mosta‘īn on the throne, led by Ibn Khaṣīb and Otāmish, were soon overpowered by Waṣīf and Boghā. Ibn Khaṣīb was banished to Crete, Otāmish murdered. The superior party, however, maintained Mosta‘īn on the throne, because they feared lest Motazz should take vengeance upon them for the murder of his father Motawakkil. But in the year 865 Waṣīf and Boghā fled with Mosta‘īn to Bagdad, and Motazz was proclaimed caliph at Sāmarrā. A terrible war ensued; Mosta‘īn was obliged to abdicate, and was killed in the following year.

In 864 a descendant of Ali, named Hasan b. Zaid, gained possession of Tabaristan and occupied the great city of Rai (Rey) near Teheran. A year later the province was reconquered by the Ṭāhirid governor of Khorasan, so that Hasan was obliged to retreat for refuge to the land of the Dailam. But he returned soon, and after many reverses ruled over Tabaristan and Jorjān for many years.

13. Reign of Motazz.—Motazz, proclaimed caliph at Bagdad in the first month of 252 (January 866), devoted himself to the object of freeing himself from the omnipotent Turkish generals, especially Waṣīf and Boghā, who had opposed his election. But such a task demanded an ability and energy which he did not possess. He was obliged to grant them amnesty and to recall them to Sāmarrā. He mistrusted also his brothers Mowayyad and Mowaffaq, who had interceded for them. He put the former to death and drove the latter into exile to Bagdad. Some time after he had the satisfaction of seeing Waṣīf killed by his own troops, and succeeded, a year later, in having Boghā assassinated. But a more difficult problem was the payment of the Turkish, Persian and African guards, which was said to have amounted in a.h. 252 to 200,000,000 dirhems38 (about £6,500,000), or apparently twice the revenue derived from the land tax. As the provincial revenues annually decreased, it became impossible to pay this sum, and Ṣāliḥ the son of Waṣīf, in spite of the remonstrances of the caliph, confiscated the property of state officials. Upon a further demand, Motazz, having failed to procure money from his mother Qabīha, who was enormously rich, was seized upon and tortured, and died of starvation in prison (Shaaban 255, July 868).

The dismemberment of the empire continued fast in these years, and the caliph was compelled to recognize the virtual independence of the governors Ya’qūb the Saffārid (see Saffārids and Persia, History, § B) in Seistan, and Ahmad b. Tūlūn in Egypt.

14. Reign of Mohtadī.—Immediately after the seizure of Motazz, the Turks, led by Ṣāliḥ b. Waṣīf, proclaimed as caliph one of the sons of Wāthiq with the title of al-Mohtadī billāh (“the guided by God”), who, however, refused to occupy the throne until his predecessor had solemnly abdicated. Mohtadī, who was a man of noble and generous spirit and had no lack of energy, began by applying the precarious measure of power which was left him to the reform of the court. He banished the musicians and singers, and forbade all kinds of games; he devoted himself to the administration of justice, and gave public audiences to the people for the redress of their grievances. At the same time he contrived to elevate the power of the Abnā, the descendants of those Persian soldiers who had established the dynasty of the Abbasids, in order to break the supremacy of the Turks and other mercenaries. But Mohtadī came too late, and the Turks did not leave him time to finish his work.

On the news of the conspiracy against Motazz, Mūsā, the son of the famous general Boghā,39 then governor of Media (Jabal), ordered his deputy-general Mofliḥ to return at once from a proposed invasion of Dailam, and moved with his army towards Sāmarrā, notwithstanding the peremptory orders of the caliph. At his approach Ṣāliḥ, who was afraid of Mūsā, hid himself, but was soon discovered and killed. At that moment a Kharijite, named Mosāwir, who in 867 had risen in Mesopotamia and beaten more than one general of the government, took Balad and menaced Mosūl. Mūsā could not refuse to comply with the formal command of the caliph to march against him. During the absence of these troops, Mohtadī seems to have tried to get rid of the principal Turkish leaders. A brother of Musa and one of his best generals, Bāyikbeg (Baiekbāk), were killed, but the soldiery he had gained over for himself were not strong enough. Mohtadī was overwhelmed and killed, Rajab 256 (June 870).

15. Reign of Motamid.—Whether from weariness or from repentance, the Turkish soldiery discontinued for a time their hateful excesses, and their new leader, Mūsā b. Boghā, was without the greed and ambition of his predecessors. A son of Motawakkil was brought out of prison to succeed his cousin, and reigned for twenty-three years under the name of al-Mo’tamid ‘alā‘llāh (“he whose support is God”). He was a feeble, pleasure-loving monarch, but Mohtadī had regained for the Caliphate some authority, which was exercised by Obaidallah b. Khāqān, the able vizier of Mohtadī, and by Motamid’s talented brother Abū Ahmad al-Mowaffaq; Mūsā b. Boghā himself remained till his death a staunch servant of the government. During the reign of Motamid great events took place. The great power long wielded by the Ṭāhirids, not only in the eastern provinces, but also at Bagdad itself, had been gradually diminishing, and came to an end in the year 873, when Ya’qūb the Saffārid occupied Nīshāpur and imprisoned Mahommed b. Ṭāhir with his whole family. The power of Ya’qūb then increased to such an extent that he was not content with the caliph’s offer to recognize him as supreme in the provinces he had conquered, and military governor of Bagdad, but marched against Irak. The caliph himself, wearing the mantle and the staff of the Prophet, then went out against him, and after a vigorous resistance he was beaten by Mowaffaq, who had the command of the troops, and fled to Jondisāpūr in Khūzistān, where he died three years later, leaving his empire to his brother ‘Amr. This prince maintained himself in power till the year 900, when he was beaten and taken prisoner by Ismā‘īl b. Ahmed the Sāmānid. The Sāmānids had been governors of Transoxiana from the time of Mamun, and after the fall of the Ṭāhirids, had been confirmed in this office by the caliph. After 287 (900) they were independent princes, and under their dominion these districts attained to high prosperity.

Motamid had also to deal with a rising of the negro slaves in the province of Basra, led by one Ali b. Mahommed, who called himself a descendant of Ali. It lasted from 869 to 883, and tasked the government to its utmost.40

In the west, Ahmad b. Tūlūn became a mighty prince, whose sway extended over Syria and a part of Mesopotamia. Motamid, who wished to free himself from the guardianship of his brother Mowaffaq, concerted with him a plan to emigrate to Egypt, Ahmad being himself angered against Mowaffaq on personal grounds. Motamid’s flight was stopped by his vizier Ibn Makhlad, and the caliph himself was reconducted to Sāmarrā as a prisoner in the year 882. From that time there was war between the Abbasids and the Ṭūlūnids. Ahmad died in 270 (884). His son Khomārūya succeeded him, and maintained himself in power till his death in 896, in which year his daughter was married to the caliph Motadid. Ten years later Egypt was conquered by a general of the caliph Moktafī.

During the reign of Motamid the emperor Basil I. conducted the war against the Moslems with great success, till in the year 270 (a.d. 884) his army suffered a terrible defeat near Tarsus, in which the greater part of the army, the commander Andreas, and many other patricians perished.

Motamid had appointed his son al-Mofawwid as successor to the Caliphate, and after him his brother Mowaffaq. When the latter died in the year 891, his son Aḅū ‘l-‘Abbās, al-Mo’taḍid (“he who seeks his support in God”), was put in his place. Next year Mofawwid was compelled to abdicate in favour of his cousin. Shortly after Motamid died, Rajab 279 (October 892). Not long before these events, the seat of the Caliphate had been restored to Bagdad.

16. Reign of Motadid.—Motadid may be called, after Mansūr, the most able and energetic of all the Abbasid rulers. He took good care of the finances, reformed the administration, was an excellent commander in war, and maintained order as far as possible. The Kharijites in Mesopotamia, who for many years had molested the government, were finally crushed with the aid of their former ally Ḥamdān, who became the founder of the well-known dynasty of the Ḥamdānites. The mighty house of Abū Dolaf in the south-west of Media, which had never ceased to encroach on the Caliphate, was put down. The governor of Azerbaijan and Armenia, belonging to the powerful Turkish house of the Sājids or Sājites, whose loyalty was always doubtful, planned an invasion of Syria and Egypt. Motadid frustrated it by a quick movement. The citizens of Tarsus who were involved in the plot were severely punished. The chief punishment, however, the burning of the fleet, was a very impolitic measure, as it strengthened the hands of the Byzantines.

Almost simultaneously with the rising of the negro slaves in Basra there arose in the province of Kūfa the celebrated sect of the Carmathians (q.v.), Fātimites41 or Isma‘ilites. This powerful sect, which save for a difference of opinion would have joined the negro rising, remained outwardly quiet during Motamid’s reign, but under Motadid the government began to have misgivings about them. Abū Sa‘īd al-Jannābī, who had founded a Carmathian state in Bahrein, the north-eastern province of Arabia (actually called Laḥsā), which could become dangerous for the pilgrim road as well as for the commerce of Basra, in the year 900 routed an army sent against him by Motadid, and warned the caliph that it would be safer to let the Carmathians alone. In the same year the real chief of the sect, whose abode had been discovered by the caliph, fled from Salamia in Syria, where he lived, to Africa, and hid himself at Sijilmāsa (in Tafilalt) in the far west, whence he reappeared ten years later at Kairawan as the Mahdi, the first caliph of the Fatimites.42

Motadid died in Rabia II. a.h. 289 (March 902), leaving the Caliphate to his son al-Moktāfī billāh (“he who sufficeth himself in God”).

17. Reign of Moktafi.—Moktafi inherited his father’s intrepidity, and seems to have had high personal qualities, but his reign of six years was a constant struggle against the Carmathians in Syria, who defeated the Syrian and Egyptian troops, and conquered Damascus and other cities. Moktafi led his troops in person, and his general, Mahommed b. Suleimān, gained a signal victory. Three of their chiefs were taken and put to death. But, to avenge their defeat, they lay in wait for the great pilgrim caravan on its return from Mecca in the first days of 294 (906), and massacred 20,000 pilgrims, making an immense booty. This horrible crime raised the whole Moslem world against them. Zikrūya their chief was defeated at last and perished.

After the defeat of the Syrian Carmathians, Mahommed b. Suleimān was sent by the caliph to Egypt, where he overthrew the dominion of the Tūlūnids. ‘Īsā b. Mahommed al-Naushari was made governor in their stead (905).

The war with the Byzantines was conducted with great energy during the reign of Moktafi. In the year 905 the Greek general Andronicus took Marash, and penetrated as far as Haleb (Aleppo), but the Moslems were successful at sea, and in 907 captured Iconium, whilst Andronicus went over to the caliph’s side, so that the Byzantine emperor sent an embassy to Bagdad to ask for a truce and an exchange of prisoners.

18. Reign of Moqtadir.—The sudden death of Moktafi, Dhu‘l-qa‘da 295 (August 908), was a fatal blow to the prestige of the Caliphate, which had revived under the successive governments of Mowaffaq, Motadid and himself. The new caliph, al-Moqtadir billāh (“the powerful through God”), a brother of Moktafi, was only thirteen years of age when he ascended the throne. Owing to his extreme youth many of the leading men at Bagdad rebelled and swore allegiance to Abdallah, son of the former caliph Motazz, a man of excellent character and of great poetical gifts; but the party of the house of Motadid prevailed, and the rival caliph was put to death. Moqtadir, though not devoid of noble qualities, allowed himself to be governed by his mother and her ladies and eunuchs. He began by squandering the 15,000,000 dinars which were in the treasury when his brother died in largesses to his courtiers, who, however, merely increased their demands. His very able vizier, the noble and disinterested Ali b. ‘Īsā, tried to check this foolish expenditure, but his efforts were more than counterbalanced by the vizier Ibn abi‘l-Forāt and the court. The most shameless bribery and the robbery of the well-to-do went together with the most extravagant luxury. The twenty-four years of Moqtadir’s reign are a period of rapid decay. The most important event in the reign was the foundation of the Fātimite dynasty, which reigned first in the Maghrib and then in Egypt for nearly three centuries (see Fatimites and Egypt: History, “Mahommedan”).

Far more dangerous, however, for the Caliphate of Bagdad at the time were the Carmathians of Bahrein, then guided by Abu Ṭāhir, the son of Abu Sa‘īd Jannābi. In 311 (a.d. 923) they took and ransacked Basra; in the first month of the following year the great pilgrim caravan on its return from Mecca was overpowered; 2500 men perished, while an even larger number were made prisoners and brought to Lahsā, the residence of the Carmathian princes, together with an immense booty. The caravan which left Bagdad towards the end of this year returned in all haste before it had covered a third of the way. Then Kufa underwent the fate that had befallen Basra. In 313 (a.d. 926) the caravan was allowed to pass on payment of a large sum of money. The government of Bagdad resolved to crush the Carmathians, but a large army was utterly defeated by Abu Ṭāhir in 315 (927), and Bagdad was seriously threatened. Next year Mecca was taken and plundered; even the sacred Black Stone was transported to Lahsā, where it remained till 339 (950), when by the express order of the Imām, the Fātimite caliph, it was restored to the Ka‘ba.

In 317 (929) a conspiracy was formed to dethrone Moqtadir, to which Mūnis, the chief commander of the army, at first assented, irritated by false reports. Very soon he withdrew, and though he could not prevent the plundering of the palace, and the proclamation as caliph of another son of Motadid with the title al-Qāhir billāh (“the victorious through God”), he rescued Moqtadir and his mother, and at the same time his imprisoned friend Ali b. ‘Īsā, and brought them to his own house. A few days later, a counter-revolution took place; the leaders of the revolt were killed, and Moqtadir, against his wish, was replaced on the throne. In 320 (a.d. 932) Mūnis, discovering a court intrigue against him, set out for Mosul, expecting that the Hamdānids, who owed to him their power, would join him. Instead of doing this, they opposed him with a numerous army, but were defeated. Mūnis took Mosul, and having received reinforcements from all parts, marched against Bagdad. The caliph, who wished nothing more than to be reconciled to his old faithful servant, was forced to take arms against him, and fell in battle Shawwāl 320 (October 932), at the age of 38 years. His reign, which lasted almost twenty-five years, was in all respects injurious to the empire.

19. Reign of Qāhir.—After the victory Mūnis acted with great moderation and proclaimed a general amnesty. His own wish was to call Abu Ahmad, a son of Moktafi, or a son of Moqtadir, to the Caliphate, but the majority of generals preferring Qāhir because he was an adult man and had no mother at his side, he acquiesced, although he had a personal dislike for him, knowing his selfish and cruel character. Qāhir was a drunkard, and derived the money for his excesses from promiscuous confiscation. He ill-treated the sons of Moqtadir and Abu Ahmad, and ultimately assassinated his patrons Mūnis and Yalbak, whose guardianship he resented. In Jomada I. 322 (April 934) he was dethroned and blinded, and died in poverty seven years later.

During the last years of Moqtadir and the reign of Qāhir a new dynasty rose. Būya, the chief of a clan of the Dailam, a warlike people who inhabit the mountainous country south-west of the Caspian Sea, had served under the Sāmānids, and found a footing in the south of Media (Jabal), whence his three sons— well known under the titles they assumed at a later period: ’Imād addaula (“prop of the dynasty”), Rokn addaula (“pillar of the dynasty”), and Mo‘izz addaula (“strengthener of the dynasty”)—succeeded in subduing the province of Fārs, at the time of Qāhir’s dethronement (see Persia: History).

20. Reign of Radi.—Moqtadir’s son, who was then proclaimed caliph under the name of ar-Rādī billāh (“the content through God”), was pious and well-meaning, but inherited only the shadow of power. The vizier Ibn Moqla tried to maintain his authority at least in Irak and Mesopotamia, but without success. The treasury was exhausted, the troops asked for pay, the people in Bagdad were riotous. In this extremity the caliph bade Ibn Rāiq, who had made himself master of Basra and Wāsit, and had command of money and men, to come to his help. He created for him the office of Amīr al-Omarā, “Amir of the Amirs,” which nearly corresponds to that of Mayor of the Palace among the Franks.43 Thenceforth the worldly power of the Caliphate was a mere shadow. The empire was by this time practically reduced to the province of Bagdad; Khorasan and Transoxiana were in the hands of the Sāmānids, Fārs in those of the Būyids; Kirman and Media were under independent sovereigns; the Hāmdānids possessed Mesopotamia; the Sājids Armenia and Azerbaijan; the Ikshīdites Egypt; as we have seen, the Fātimites Africa, the Carmathians Arabia. The Amir al-Omarā was obliged to purchase from the latter the freedom of the pilgrimage to Mecca, at the price of a disgraceful treaty.

During the troubles of the Caliphate the Byzantines had made great advances; they had even taken Malatia and Samosata (Samsat). But the great valour of the Hamdanid prince Saif-addaula checked their march. The Greek army suffered two severe defeats and sued for peace.

21. Reign of Mottaqi.—Radi died in Rabia I. a.h. 329 (December 940). Another son of Moqtadir was then proclaimed caliph under the name of al-Mottaqī billāh (“he who guards himself by God”). At the time of his accession the Amīr al-Omarā was the Turkish general Bajkam, in whose favour Ibn Rāiq had been obliged to retire. Unfortunately Bajkam died soon after, and his death was followed by general anarchy. A certain Barīdī, who had carved out for himself a principality in the province of Basra, marched against Bagdad and made himself master of the capital, but was soon driven out by the Dailamite general Kūrtakīn. Ibn Rāiq came back and reinstated himself as Amīr al-Omarā. But Barīdī again laid siege to Bagdad, and Mottaqi fled to Nāsir addaula the Hamdānid prince of Mosul, who then marched against Bagdad, and succeeded in repelling Barīdī. In return he obtained the office of Amīr al-Omarā. But the Dailamite and Turkish soldiery did not suffer him to keep this office longer than several months. Tūzūn, a former captain of Bajkam, compelled him to return to Mosul and took his place. Mottaqi fled again to Mosul and thence to Rakka. The Ikshīd, sovereign of Egypt and Syria, offered him a refuge, but Tūzūn, fearing to see the caliph obtain such powerful support, found means to entice him to his tent, and had his eyes put out, Saphar 333 (October 944).

22. Reign of Mostakfi.—As successor Tūzūn chose al-Mostakfī billāh (“he who finds full sufficiency with God”), a son of Moktafi. This prince, still more than his predecessors, was a mere puppet in the hands of Tūzūn, who died a few months later, and his successor Ibn Shīrzād. Such was the weakness of the caliph that a notorious robber, named Hamdī, obtained immunity for his depredations by a monthly payment of 25,000 dinars. One of the Būyid princes, whose power had been steadily increasing, marched about this time against Bagdad, which he entered in Jomada I. a.h. 334 (December 945), and was acknowledged by the caliph as legal sovereign, under the title of Sultan. He assumed at this time the name of Mo‘izz addaula. Mostakfi was soon weary of this new master, and plotted against him. At least Mo‘izz addaula suspected him and deprived him of his eyesight, Jomada II. a.h. 334 (January 946). There were thus in Bagdad three caliphs who had been dethroned and blinded, Qāhir, Mottaqi and Mostakfi.

23. Reign of Moti.—Mo‘izz addaula soon abandoned his original idea of restoring the title of caliph to one of the descendants of Ali, fearing a strong opposition of the people, and also dreading lest this should lead to the recovery by the caliphs of their former supremacy. His choice fell on a son of Moqtadir, who took the title of al-Moti’ billāh (“he who obeys God”). The sultan, reserving to himself all the powers and revenues of the Caliphate, allowed the caliph merely a secretary and a pension of 5000 dirhems a day. Though in public prayers and on the coins the name of the caliph remained as that of the supreme authority, he had in reality no authority out of the palace, so that the saying became proverbial, “he contents himself with sermon and coin.”

The Hamdānid prince of Mosul, who began to think his possessions threatened by Mo‘izz addaula, tried without success to wrest Bagdad from him, and was obliged to submit to the payment of tribute. He died in 358 (a.d. 969), and ten years later the power of this branch of the Hamdanids came to an end. The representative of the other branch, Saif addaula, the prince of Haleb (Aleppo), conducted the war against the Byzantines with great valour till his death in 356 (a.d. 967), but could not stop the progress of the enemy. His descendants maintained themselves, but with very limited power, till a.h. 413 (a.d. 1022).

Mo‘izz addaula died in the same year as Saif addaula, leaving his power to his son Bakhtiyār ‘Izz addaula, who lacked his father’s energy and loved pleasure more than business.

While the Abbāsid dynasty was thus dying out in shame and degradation, the Fātimites, in the person of Mo‘izz li-dīn-allah (or Mo‘izz Abu Tamin Ma‘add) (“he who makes God’s religion victorious”), were reaching the highest degree of power and glory in spite of the opposition of the Carmathians, who left their old allegiance and entered into negotiations with the court of Bagdad, offering to drive back the Fātimites, on condition of being assisted with money and troops, and of being rewarded with the government of Syria and Egypt. The former condition was granted, but the caliph emphatically refused the latter demand, saying: “Both parties are Carmathians, they profess the same religion and are enemies of Islam.” The Carmathians drove the Fātimites out of Syria, and threatened Egypt, but, notwithstanding their intrepidity, they were not able to cope with their powerful rival, who, however, in his turn could not bring them to submission. In 978-979 peace was made on condition that the Carmathians should evacuate Syria for an annual payment of 70,000 dinars. But the losses sustained by the Carmathians during that struggle had been enormous. Their power henceforward declined, and came to an end in a.h. 474 (a.d. 1081).

Mo‘izz addaula, as we have seen, professed a great veneration for the house of Ali. He not only caused the mourning for the death of Hosain and other Shi‘ite festivals to be celebrated at Bagdad, but also allowed imprecations against Moawiya and even against Mahomet’s wife Ayesha and the caliphs Abu Bekr, Omar and Othman, to be posted up at the doors of the mosques. These steps annoyed the people and the Turkish soldiery, who were Sunnites, and led at last to an insurrection. Moti was compelled to abdicate, and Bakhtiyār was driven out of Bagdad Dhu‘l-qa‘da 363 (August 974).

24. Reign of Tai.—Moti left the empty title of caliph to his son al-Tā‘i li-amri‘llāh (“the obedient to the command of God”). The Turks who had placed him on the throne could not maintain themselves, but so insignificant was the person of the caliph that ‘Adod addaula, who succeeded his cousin Bakhtiyār in Bagdad, did not think of replacing him by another. Under this prince, or king, as he was called, the power of the Būyids reached its zenith. His empire stretched from the Caspian to the Persian Sea, and in the west to the eastern frontier of Syria. He did his best to remedy the misery caused by the intestine Wars, repaired the ruined mosques and other public edifices, founded hospitals and libraries—his library in Shirāz was one of the wonders of the world—and improved irrigation. It was also he who built the mausoleum of Hosain at Kerbela, and that of Ali at Kufa. But after his death in the year 372 (a.d. 983), his sons, instead of following the example of their predecessors, the three sons of Būya, fought one against the other. In 380 (a.d. 990) the youngest of them, Bahā addaula, had the upper hand. This prince, who was as avaricious as he was ambitious, wishing to deprive the caliph Ta‘i of his possessions, compelled him to abdicate a.h. 381 (a.d. 991).

25. Reign of Qādir.—A grandson of Moqtadir was then made caliph under the name of al-Qādir billāh (“the powerful through God”). The only deed of power, however, that is recorded of him, is that he opposed himself to the substitution of a Shi‘ite head cadi for the Sunnite, so that Bahā addaula had to content himself with giving to the Shi‘ites a special judge, to whom he gave the title of naqīb (superintendent). During this caliphate the Būyid princes were in continual war with one another. Meanwhile events were preparing the fall of their dynasty. In 350 (a.d. 961) a Turkish general of the Sāmānids had founded for himself a principality in Ghazni, arid at his death in 366 (a.d. 976) his successor Sabuktagin had conquered Bost in Sijistān and Qosdār in Baluchistan, beaten the Indian prince Diaya Pala, and been acknowledged as master of the lands west of the Indus. At his death in 387 his son Mahmud conquered the whole of Khorasan and Sijistān, with a great part of India. He then attacked the Būyids, and would have destroyed their dynasty but for his death in the year 421 (a.d. 1030).

In 389 (a.d. 999) Ilek-khān, the prince of Turkistan, took Bokhārā and made an end to the glorious state of the Sāmānids, the last prince of which was murdered in 395 (a.d. 1005). The Sāmānids had long been a rampart of the Caliphate against the Turks, whom they held under firm control. From their fall dates the invasion of the empire by that people. The greatest gainer for the moment was Mahmūd of Ghazni. In Mesopotamia and Irak several petty states arose on the ruins of the dominions of the Hamdānids and of the Abbasids.

Qādir died in the last month of a.h. 422 (November 1031). He is the author of some theological treatises.

26. Reign of Qāim.—He was succeeded by his son, who at his accession took the title of al-Qāim bi-amri‘llāh (“he who maintains the cause of God”). During the first half of his long reign took place the development of the power of the Ghūzz, a great Turkish tribe, who took the name Seljuk from Seljuk their chief in Transoxiana. Already during the reign of Mahmūd large bodies had passed the Oxus and spread over Khorasan and the adjacent countries. In the time of his successor the bulk of the tribe followed, and in the year 429 (a.d. 1038) Toghrul Beg, their chief, beat the army of the Ghaznevids and made his entry into Nishapur. Thenceforth this progress was rapid (see Seljuks). The situation in Bagdad had become so desperate that the caliph called Toghrul to his aid. This prince entered Bagdad in the month of Ramadan a.h. 447 (December 1055), and overthrew finally the dynasty of the Būyids.44 In 449 (a.d. 1058) the caliph gave him the title of “King of the East and West.” But in the following year, 450, during his absence, the Shi‘ites made themselves masters of the metropolis, and proclaimed the Caliphate of the Fātimite prince Mostansir. They were soon overthrown by Toghrul, who was now supreme, and compelled the caliph to give him his daughter in marriage. Before the marriage, however, he died, and was succeeded by his nephew Alp Arslān, who died in 465 (25th December) (a.d. 1072). Qāim died two years later, Shaaban a.h. 467 (April 1075).

In the year 440 Mo‘izz b. Bādīs, the Zeirid ruler of the Maghrib, made himself independent, and substituted in prayer the name of the Abbasid caliph for that of Mostansir. In order to punish him, the latter gave permission to the Arab tribes in Egypt to cross the Nile, and granted them possession of all the lands they should conquer. This happened in 442 (a.d. 1050) and was of the greatest significance for the subsequent fate of Africa.

27. Reign of Moqtadi.—In the first year of the Caliphate of al-Moqtadī bi-amri‘llāh (“he who follows the orders of God”), a grandson of Qāim, the power of the Seljuk empire reached its zenith. All the eastern provinces, a great part of Asia Minor, Syria with the exception of a few towns on the shore, the main part of West Africa acknowledged the caliph of Bagdad as the Imām. Yemen had been subjected, and at Mecca and Medina his name was substituted in the public prayers for that of the Fātimite caliph. But after the death of Malik-Shah a contest for the sultanate took place. The caliph, who had in 1087 married the daughter of Malik-Shah, had been compelled two years after to send her back to her father, as she complained of being neglected by her husband. Just before his death, the Sultan had ordered him to transfer his residence from Bagdad to Basra. After his death he stayed and supported the princess Turkān Khātūn. This lost him his life. The day after Barki-yāroq’s triumphant entry into Bagdad, Muharram 487 (February 1094), he died suddenly, apparently by poison.

28. Reign of Mostazhir.—Al-Mostazhir billāh (“he who seeks to triumph through God”), son of Moqtadi, was only sixteen years old when he was proclaimed caliph. His reign is memorable chiefly for the growing power of the Assassins (q.v.) and for the first Crusade (see Crusades). The Seljuk princes were too much absorbed by internal strife to concentrate against the new assailants. After the death of Barkiyāroq in November 1104, his brother Mahommed reigned till April 1118. His death was followed about four months later by that of Mostazhir.

29. Reign of Mostarshid.—Al-Mostarshid billāh (“he who asks guidance from God”), who succeeded his father in Rabia II. 512 (August 1118), distinguished himself by a vain attempt to reestablish the power of the caliph. Towards the end of the year 529 (October 1134) he was compelled to promise that he would confine himself to his palace and never again take the field. Not long after he was assassinated. About the same time Dobais was killed, a prince of the family of the Banu Mazyad, who had founded the Arabian state of Hillah in the vicinity of the ruins of Babel in 1102.

30. Reign of Rāshid.—Al-Rāshid billāh (“the just through God”) tried to follow the steps of his father, with the aid of Zengī, the prince of Mosul. But the sultan Mas‘ūd beat the army of the allies, took Bagdad and had Rāshid deposed (August 1136). Rāshid escaped, but was murdered two years later.

31. Reign of Moqtafi.—His successor Al-Moqtafi li-amri‘llāh (“he who follows the orders of God”), son of Mostazhir, had better success. He was real ruler not only of the district of Bagdad, but also of the rest of Irak, which he subdued by force. He died in the month of Rabia II. 555 (March 1160). Under his reign the central power of the Seljuks was rapidly sinking. In the west of Atabeg (prince’s guardian) Zengī, the prince of Mosul, had extended his dominion over Mesopotamia and the north of Syria, where he had been the greatest defender of Islam against the Franks. At his death in the year 541 (a.d. 1146), his noble son, the well-known Nūreddīn, who was called “the just king,” continued his father’s glorious career. Transoxiana was conquered by the heathen hordes of Khatā, who towards the end of 535 (a.d. 1141) under the king Ghurkhān defeated the great army of the Seljuk prince and compelled the Turkish tribes of the Ghuzz to cross the Oxus and to occupy Khorasan.

32. Reign of Mostanjid.—Al-Mostanjid billāh (“he who invokes help from God”), the son of Moqtafi, enlarged the dominion of the Caliphate by making an end to the state of the Mazyadites in Hillah. His allies were the Arabic tribe of the Montafiq, who thenceforth were powerful in southern Irak. The greatest event towards the end of his Caliphate was the conquest of Egypt by the army of Nūreddīn, the overthrow of the Fātimite dynasty, and the rise of Saladin. He was killed by his majordomo in Rabia II. 566 (December 1170).

33. Reign of Mostadi.—His son and successor al-Mostadī’ bi-amri‘llāh (“he who seeks enlightenment by the orders of God “), though in Egypt his name was now substituted in public prayers for that of the Fātimite caliph, was unable to obtain any real authority. By the death of Nūreddīn in 569 (a.d. 1174) Saladin’s power became firmly rooted. The dynasty founded by him is called that of the Ayyūbites, after the name of his father Ayyūb. Mostadi died in the month of Dhu‘l-qa‘da 575 (March 1180).

34. Reign of Nāsir.—Quite a different man from his father was his successor al-Nāsir li-dīni‘llāh (“he who helps the religion of God”). During his reign Jerusalem was reconquered by Saladin, 27 Rajab 583 (October 2nd, 1187). Not long before that event the well-known Spanish traveller Ibn Jubair visited the empire of Saladin, and came to Bagdad in 580, where he saw the caliph himself. Nāsir was very ambitious; he had added Khūzistān to his dominions, and desired to become also master of Media (Jabal, or Persian Irak, as it was called in the time of the Seljuks). Here, however, he came into conflict with the then mighty prince of Khwārizm (Khīva), who, already exasperated because the caliph refused to grant him the honours he asked for, resolved to overthrow the Caliphate of the Abbasids, and to place a descendant of Ali on the throne of Bagdad. In his anxiety, Nāsir took a step which brought the greatest misery upon western Asia, or at least accelerated its arrival.

In the depths of Asia a great conglomeration of east Turkish tribes (Tatars or Mongols), formed by a terrible warrior, known under his honorific title Jenghiz Khān, had conquered the northern provinces of China, and extended its power to the frontiers of the Transoxianian regions. To this heathen chief the Imām of the Moslems sent a messenger, inducing him to attack the prince of Khwārizm, who already had provoked the Mongolian by a disrespectful treatment of his envoys. Neither he nor the caliph had the slightest notion of the imminent danger they conjured up. When Nāsir died, Ramadan 622 (October 1225), the eastern provinces of the empire had been trampled down by the wild hordes, the towns burned, and the inhabitants killed without mercy.

35. Reign of Zāhir.—Al-Zāhir bi-amri‘llāh (“the victorious through the orders of God”) died within a year after his father’s death, in Rajab 623 (July 1226). He and his son and successor are praised as beneficent and just princes.

36. Reign of Mostansir.—Al-Mostansir billāh (“he who asks help from God”) was caliph till his death in Jornada II. 640 (December 1242). In the year 624 (1227) Jenghiz Khān died, but the Mongol invasion continued to advance with immense strides. The only man who dared, and sometimes with success, to combat them was Jelaleddin, the ex-king of Khwārizm, but after his death in 628 (a.d. 1231) all resistance was paralysed.

37. Reign of Mostasim.—Al-Mosta‘ṣim billāh (“he who clings to God for protection”), son of Mostansir, the last caliph of Bagdad, was a narrow-minded, irresolute man, guided moreover by bad counsellors. In the last month of the year 653 (January 1256) Hulaku or Hulagu, the brother of the gteat khān of the Mongols, crossed the Oxus, and began by destroying all the strongholds of the Ismā‘īlīs. Then the turn of Bagdad came. On the 11th of Muharram 656 (January 1258) Hulaku arrived under the walls of the capital. In vain did Mostasim sue for peace. Totally devoid of dignity and heroism, he ended by surrendering and imploring mercy from the barbarian victor. On the 4th of Saphar (February 10th) he came with his retinue into the camp. The city was then given up to plunder and slaughter; many public buildings were burnt; the caliph, after having been compelled to bring forth all the hidden treasures of the family, was killed with two of his sons and many relations. With him expired the eastern Caliphate of the Abbasids, which had lasted 524 years, from the entry of Abu’I-Abbas into Kufa.

In vain, three years later, did Abu’I-Qasim Ahmad, a scion of the race of the Abbasids, who had taken refuge in Egypt with Bibars the Mameluke sultan, and who had been proclaimed caliph under the title al-Mostanṣir billāh (“he who seeks help from God”), make an effort to restore a dynasty which was now for ever extinct. At the head of an army he marched against Bagdad, but was defeated and killed before he reached that city. Then another descendant of the Abbasids, who also had found an asylum in Egypt, was proclaimed caliph at Cairo under the name of al-Hākim bi-amrillāh (“he who decides according to the orders of God”). His sons inherited his title, but, like their father, remained in Egypt without power or influence (see Egypt: History, “Mahommedan period”). This shadow of sovereignty continued to exist till the conquest of Egypt by the Turkish sultan Selim I., who compelled the last of them, Motawakkil, to abdicate in his favour (see Turkey: History). He died at Cairo, a pensionary of the Ottoman government, in 1538.

Another scion of the Abbasid family, Mahommed, a great-grandson of the caliph Mostansir, found at a later period a refuge in India, where the sultan of Delhi received him with the greatest respect, named him Makhdumzādeh, “the Master’s son,” and treated him as a prince. Ibn Batūta saw him when he visited India, and says that he was very avaricious. On his return to Bagdad the traveller found there a young man, son of this prince, who gained a single dirhem daily for serving as imām in a mosque, and did not get the least relief from his rich father. It seems that this Mahommed, or his son, emigrated later to Sumatra, where in the old Samūtra the graves of their descendants have been lately discovered.

(M. J. de G.)

1 Throughout this article, well-known names of persons and places appear in their most familiar forms, generally without accents or other diacritical signs. For the sake of homogeneity the articles on these persons or places are also given under these forms, but in such cases, the exact forms, according to the system of transliteration adopted, are there given in addition.

2 See Noldeke, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Poesie der alten Araber (1864), pp. 89 seq.

3 De Goeje, Mémoires d’hist. et de géog. orient. No. 2 (2nd ed., Leiden, 1864); Nöldeke, D.M.Z., 1875, p. 76 sqq.; Balādhurī 137.

4 The accounts differ; see Balādhurī 305. The chronology of the conquests is in many points uncertain.

5 Balādhurī 315 sq.; Tabarī. i. 1068.

6 He sought to make the whole nation a great host of God; the Arabs were to be soldiers and nothing else. They were forbidden to acquire landed estates in the conquered countries; all land was either made state property or was restored to the old owners subject to a perpetual tribute which provided pay on a splendid scale for the army.

7 Nöldeke, Tabari, 246. To Omar is due also the establishment of the Era of the Flight (Hegira).

8 Even in the list of the slain at the battle of Honain the Emigrants are enumerated along with the Meccans and Koreish, and distinguished from the men of Medina.

9 It was the same opposition of the spiritual to the secular nobility that afterwards showed itself in the revolt of the sacred cities against the Omayyads. The movement triumphed with the elevation of the Abbasids to the throne. But, that the spiritual nobility was fighting not for principle but for personal advantage was as apparent in Ali’s hostilities against Zobair and Ṭalḥa, as in that of the Abbasids against the followers af Ali.

10 Or, at least, so they thought. The history of the letter to ‘Abdallah b. abī Sarḥ seems to have been a trick played on the caliph, who suspected Ali of having had a hand in it.

11 Ma‘ad is in the genealogical system the father of the Moḍar and the Rab‘īa tribes. Qais is the principal branch of the Moḍar.

12 The Arabs always call them Rūm, i.e. Romans.

13 A single genealogist, Abu Yaqazān, says that he was a legitimate son of Abu Sofiān, and that his mother was Asmā, daughter of A’war. But all others call his mother Somayya, who is said to have been a slave-girl of Hind, the wife of Abu Sofiān, and who became later also the mother of Abu Bakra. We cannot make out whether Abu Sofiān acknowledged him as his son or not. At a later period, the Abbasid caliph Mahdi had the names of Ziyād and his descendants struck off the rolls of the Koreish; but, after his death, the persons concerned gained over the chief of the rolls office, and had their names replaced in the lists (see Tabari iii. 479).

14 Aghāni xx. p. 13, Ibn abi Osaibia i. p. 118.

15 Tabari ii. p. 82.

16 See Chodzko, Théâtre persan (Paris, 1878).

17 Dozy took communis for a gloss to civiliter

18 Formerly the capital of the homonymous province of Syria; it lies a day’s march west from Haleb (Aleppo).

19 This account of the conquest is based partly on the researches of Dozy, but mainly on those of Saavedra in his Estudio sobre la Invasion de los Arabes en España (Madrid, 1892). Some of the details, however, e.g. the battle near Tamames and the part played by the sons of Witiza, are based, not on documentary evidence, but on probable inferences. For other accounts of the deaths of Musa and Abdalaziz see Sir Wm. Muir, Caliphate (London, 1891), pp. 368-9.

20 Solaiman is the Arabic form of Solomon. The prophecy is to be found in the Kitāb al-Oyūn, p. 24; cf. Tabari ii. p. 1138.

21 Seyid Ameer Ali, A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mahomet, pp. 341-343.

22 Cf. Van Vloten, Recherches sur la domination arabe, le Chiitisme et les croyances messianiques sous le Khalifat des Omayades (Amsterdam, 1894), p. 63 seq.

23 Cf. Wellhausen, Die Kampfe der Araber mit den Rom. in der Zeit der Umaijiden (Göttingen, 1901), p. 31.

24 Bayān i. p. 42; Dozy, Histoire des musulmans d’Espagne, i. p. 246, names the place Bacdoura or Nafdoura, the Spanish chronist Nauam.

25 Dozy i. p. 268.

26 Merwan has been nicknamed al-Ja‘di and al-Ḥimār (the Ass). As more than one false interpretation of these names has been given, it is not superfluous to cite here Qaisarānī (ed. de Jong, p. 31), who says on good authority that a certain al-Ja‘d b. Durham, killed under the reign of Hishām for heretical opinions, had followers in Mesopotamia, and that, when Merwan became caliph, the Khorasanians called him a Ja‘d, pretending that all’Ja‘d had been his teacher. As to al-Ḥimār this was substituted also by the Khorasanians for his usual title, al-Faras, “the race-horse.”

27 The Arabic word for “shedder of blood,” as-Saffāh, which by that speech became a name of the caliph, designates the liberal host who slaughters his camels for his guests. European scholars have taken it unjustly in the sense of the bloodthirsty, and found in it an allusion to the slaughter of the Omayyads and many others. At the same time, it was not without much bloodshed that Abū‘l-Abbas finally established his power.

28 The rule of the caliphs in Morocco, which had never been firmly established, had already, in 740, given place to that of independent princes (see MOROCCO, History).

29 This Hāshimīya near Kufa is not to be confused with that founded by Abu‘l-Abbas near Anbar.

30 Cf. G. le Strange, Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate (Oxford, 1900).

31 Tabari iii. p. 443 seq.

32 The first citizens of Medina who embraced Islam were called Anṣār (“helpers”).

33 On this event, see a remarkable essay by Barbier de Meynard in the Journal Asiatique for March-April, 1869.

34 Cf. W.M. Patton, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Mihna (Leiden, 1897); and article Mahommedan Religion.

35 See M.J. de Goeje, Memoire sur les migrations des Ziganes travers l’Asie (Leiden, 1903); also Gipsies.

36 See M.J. de Goeje, “De legende der Zevenslapers van Efeze,” Versl. en Meded. der K. Akad. v. Wetensch. Afd. Letterk. 4e Reeks, iii., 1900.

37 See M.J. de Goeje, “De muur van Gog en Magog,” Versl. en Meded. 3e Reeks, v., 1888.

38 “Dinars” in the text of Tabari iii. 1685, must be an error for “dirhems.”

39 This Boghā was called al-Kabir, or major; the ally of Waṣīf, a man of much inferior consideration, al-Saghir, or minor.

40 See Nöldeke, Orientalische Skizzen, pp. 155 seq.

41 For the connexion between Carmathians and Fatimites see under FATIMITES.

42 M.J. de Goeje, Mémoire sur les Carmathes du Bahraïn et les Fatimides (Leiden, 1886).

43 See Defrémery, Mémoire sur les Emirs al-Omara (Paris, 1848).

44 Henceforward the history of the Caliphate is largely that of the Seljuk princes (see Seljuks).

CALIVER, a firearm used in the 16th century. The word is an English corruption of “calibre,” and arises from the “arquebus of calibre,” that is, of standard bore, which replaced the older arquebus. “Caliver,” therefore, is practically synonymous with “arquebus.” The heavier musket, fired from a rest, replaced the caliver or arquebus towards the close of the century.

CALIXTUS, or Callistus, the name of three popes.

Calixtus I., pope from 217 to 222, was little known before the discovery of the book of the Philosophumena. From this work, which is in part a pamphlet directed against him, we learn that Calixtus was originally a slave and engaged in banking. Falling on evil times, he was brought into collision with the Jews, who denounced him as a Christian and procured his exile to Sardinia. On his return from exile he was pensioned by Pope Victor, and, later, was associated by Pope Zephyrinus in the government of the Roman church. On the death of Zephyrinus (217) he was elected in his place and occupied the papal chair for five years. His theological adversary Hippolytus, the author of the Philosophumena, accused him of having favoured the medalist or Patripassian doctrines both before and after his election. Calixtus, however, condemned Sabellius, the most prominent champion of that system. Hippolytus accused him also of certain relaxations of discipline. It appears that Calixtus reduced the penitential severities applied until his time to those guilty of adultery and other analogous sins. Under Calixtus and his two immediate successors, Hippolytus was the leader of a schismatic group, organized by way of protest against the election of Calixtus. Calixtus died in 222, in circumstances obscured by legends. In the time of Constantine the Roman church reckoned him officially among the martyr popes.

(L. D.*)

Calixtus II. (d. 1124), pope from 1119 to 1124, was Guido, a member of a noble Burgundian family, who became archbishop of Vienne about 1088, and belonged to the party which favoured reform in the Church. In September 1112, after Pope Paschal II. had made a surrender to the emperor Henry V., Guido called a council at Vienne, which declared against lay investiture, and excommunicated Henry. In February 1119 he was chosen pope at Cluny in succession to Gelasius II., and in opposition to the anti-pope Gregory VIII., who was in Rome. Soon after his consecration he opened negotiations with the emperor with a view to settling the dispute over investiture. Terms of peace were arranged, but at the last moment difficulties arose and the treaty was abandoned; and in October 1119 both emperor and anti-pope were excommunicated at a synod held at Reims. The journey of Calixtus to Rome early in 1120 was a triumphal march. He was received with great enthusiasm in the city, while Gregory, having fled to Sutri, was delivered into his hands and treated with great ignominy. Through the efforts of some German princes negotiations between pope and emperor were renewed, and the important Concordat of Worms made in September 1122 was the result. This treaty, made possible by concessions on either side, settled the investiture controversy, and was confirmed by the Lateran council of March 1123. During his short reign Calixtus strengthened the authority of the papacy in southern Italy by military expeditions, and restored several buildings within the city of Rome. During preparations for a crusade he died in Rome on the 13th or 14th of December 1124.

See M. Maurer, Pabst Calixt II. (Munich, 1889); U. Robert, Hisloire du pape Calixte II. (Paris, 1891); and A. Hauck’s Realencyklopädie, Band iii. (Leipzig, 1897).

Calixtus III. (c. 1378-1458), pope from 1455 to 1458, was a Spaniard named Alphonso de Borgia, or Borja. A native of Xativa, he gained a great reputation as a jurist, becoming professor at Lerida; in 1429 he was made bishop of Valencia, and in 1444 a cardinal, owing his promotion mainly to his close friendship with Alphonso V., king of Aragon and Sicily. Chosen pope in April 1455, he was very anxious to organize a crusade against the Turks, and having sold many of his possessions, succeeded in equipping a fleet. Neither the princes nor the people of Europe, however, were enthusiastic in this cause, and very little result came from the pope’s exertions. During his papacy Calixtus became involved in a quarrel with his former friend, Alphonso of Aragon, now also king of Naples, and after the king’s death in June 1458 he refused to recognize his illegitimate son, Ferdinand, as king of Naples, asserting that this kingdom was a fief of the Holy See. This pope was notorious for nepotism, and was responsible for introducing his nephew, Rodrigo Borgia, afterwards Pope Alexander VI., to Rome. He died on the 6th of August 1458.

See A. Hauck’s Realencyklopädie, Band iii. (Leipzig, 1897).

CALIXTUS, GEORG (1586-1656), Lutheran divine, was born at Medelby, a village of Schleswig, in 1586. After studying philology, philosophy and theology at Helmstädt, Jena, Giessen, Tübingen and Heidelberg, he travelled through Holland, France and England, where he became acquainted with the leading Reformers. On his return in 1614 he was appointed professor of theology at Helmstädt by the duke of Brunswick, who had admired the ability he displayed when a young man in a dispute with the Jesuit Augustine Turrianus. In 1613 he published a book, Disputationes de Praecipuis Religionis Christianae Capitibus, which provoked the hostile criticism of orthodox scholars; in 1619 he published his Epitome theologiae, and some years later his Theologia Moralis (1634) and De Arte Nova Nihusii. Roman Catholics felt them to be aimed at their own system, but they gave so great offence to Lutherans as to induce Statius Buscher to charge the author with a secret leaning to Romanism. Scarcely had he refuted the accusation of Buscher, when, on account of his intimacy with the Reformed divines at the conference of Thorn (1645), and his desire to effect a reconciliation between them and the Lutherans, a new charge was preferred against him, principally at the instance of Abraham Calovius (1612-1686), of a secret attachment to Calvinism. In fact, the great aim of his life was to reconcile Christendom by removing all unimportant differences. The disputes to which this attitude gave rise, known in the Church as the Syncretistic controversy, lasted during the whole lifetime of Calixtus, and distracted the Lutheran church, till a new controversy arose with P.J. Spener and the Pietists of Halle. Calixtus died in 1656.

There is a monograph on Calixtus by E.L.T. Henke (2 vols., 1853-1856); see also Isaak Dorner, Gesch. d. protest. Theol. pp. 606-624; and especially Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie.

CALL (from Anglo-Saxon ceallian, a common Teutonic word, cf. Dutch kallen, to talk or chatter), to speak in a loud voice, and particularly to attract some one’s attention by a loud utterance. Hence its use for a visit at a house, where the name of the occupier, to whom the visit was made, was called aloud, in early times, to indicate the presence of the visitor. It is thus transferred to a short stay at a place, but usually with the idea of a specific purpose, as in “port of call,” where ships stop in passing. Connected with the idea of summoning by name are such uses as “roll-call” or “call-over,” where names are called over and answered by those present; similar uses are the “call to the bar,” the summoning at an Inn of Court of those students qualified to practise as barristers, and the “call within the bar” to the appointment of king’s counsel. In the first case the “bar” is that which separates the benchers from the rest of the body of members of the Inn, in the other the place in a court of law within which only king’s counsel, and formerly serjeants-at-law, are allowed to plead. “Call” is also used with a particular reference to a divine summons, as of the calling of the apostles. It is thus used in nonconformist churches of the invitation to serve as minister a particular congregation or chapel. It is from this sense of a vocatio or summons that the word “calling” is used, not only of the divine vocation, but of a man’s ordinary profession, occupation or business. In card games “call” is used, in poker, of the demand that the hand of the highest bettor be exposed or seen, exercised by that player who equals his bet; in whist or bridge, of a certain method of play, the “call” for a suit or for trumps on the part of one partner, to which the other is expected to respond; and in many card games for the naming of a card, irregularly exposed, which is laid face up on the table, and may be thus “called” for, at any point the opponent may choose.

“Call” is also a term on the English and American stock exchanges for a contract by which, in consideration of a certain sum, an “option” is given by the person making or signing the agreement to another named therein or his order or to bearer, to “call” for a specified amount of stock at a certain day for a certain price. A “put,” which is the reverse of a “call,” is the option of selling (putting) stock at a certain day for a certain price. A combined option of either calling or putting is termed a “straddle,” and sometimes on the American stock exchange a “spread-eagle.” (See further Stock Exchange.) The word is also used, in connexion with joint-stock companies, to signify a demand for instalments due on shares, when the capital of the company has not been demanded or “called” up at once. (See Company.)