Lane-Poole — Mohammadan Treaties nith Christians. 243 



recorded that the ecclesiastics took part in the treaty, l»ut TabarT 

 mentions their reappearance immediately afterwards to arrange about 

 the prisoners. Who they were it is impossible to say. TabarT and 

 other Arahic writers give them the impossihle names of Abii-Maryam 

 and Abu-Maryam ; and Mr. Butler regards Ahu-Maryam as a cor- 

 ruption of Abu-Miyamm, which itself is an Arahic perversion of 

 Benjamin. Is it possible that Benjamin, the monophysite patriarch 

 who had been driven into hiding by Cyrus, the Melekite patriarch of 

 Alexandria, but who was still alive, and was afterwards reinstated, 

 came out of his retreat near Kus in Upper Egypt to help his people 

 to throw over the Roman yoke ? Or was Abu-Maryam Cyrus himself ? 

 Tabari's story fits perfectly with the contents of the treaty, which 

 is thus shown to be a treaty with the Egyptian people against the 

 wish of the Roman army of occupation. The authority of TabarT as 

 a careful compiler of attested traditions is veiy great, indeed almost 

 absolute in Muslim acceptation : and this story rests on a chain of 

 traditionists running up from es-San through Shu'eyb and Sey f to 

 Abu-Haritha and Abu-'Ottiman ( i_,wj«-2j ^^ y^r^^ J^ ^ -••. ^^ 



A\ Vis i^tftlc ^j\^ '^Jo- j\ ^ '—a*-' j£ )• It is not a record 

 to be lightly set aside. 



The most widely accepted story of the surrender, and the most 

 detailed, is given by el-MakrizT.* It must not be inferred from the 

 lateness of MakrTzT's date (he wrote about 1420) that his account is 

 necessarily of little authority. He was a laborious compiler from 

 good sources ; and he had at his disposition manuscripts of early works 

 which have since disappeared. His account rests upon traditions 

 which may go back — some certainly do — to early times, and it is 



* KhUat, i. 289-294. 



U.I. A. PROC, VOL. XXIV., SEC. C] [19] 



