246 Proceedings of the Royal. Irish Academy. 



only a partial lodgment of the Arats in the fortifications or even in a 

 neighbonriag fortress. It has generally been assnmed that there was 

 hut the one castle of Babylon to be taken ; but it is clear that this was 

 but a pai-t of the fortifications of Misr. "We have already seen that^ 

 according to John of Xikiu, Tendunyas 'Xaks) was a fortified post; 

 and it is possible that ez-Zubeyr's scaling of the fort may refer to 

 what Mr. Butler describes as the second capture of Tendunyas. 

 MakrizI mentions another fortress besides Kasr esh-Shema' (the well- 

 known fortress close to Cairo which is generally identified with the 

 Castle of Babylon) ; and this other fortress, which was situated on a 

 rocky hill to the south-east of Kasr esh-Shema', and was within the 

 city, was particularly called the fortress or palace ( ,^) of Babylon. 

 Remains of this other fortress may possibly be represented by the 

 massive walls on the southern part of the hill, afterwards known as 

 'Antar's Stable.* 



"We have seen, therefore, that this Treaty of Misr was concluded 

 between 'Amr and el-Mukawkis on behalf of the Copts about the 

 month of October, 640. It was a treaty of surrender for the whole 

 country, but the Roman garrisons remained unsubdued. Hence the 

 clause ' The garrisons shall not settle (or dwell) among the people of 

 Misr,' a clause to which the Romans were obviously no party. 

 MakrlzT, however, now enters upon a fresh division of the subject, 

 introduced by a fresh chain of tradition,! dating back through Ibn 

 Lahi'a to Tahya ibn jMeymun. According to this ti'adition, 

 el-Mukawkis stipulated for the Romans that they might choose 

 whether they would stay in Egypt on the same terms as the Copts, 

 or whether they would rather go to their own country, which they 



♦ See Lane, Cairo Fifty Years Ago, 146, 147. 

 t Khitat, i. 293. 



