248 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



Yakut, a Greek, who wrote his great work in 1225, uses the iden- 

 tical words Qjnployed by Makrizi in parts of a practically identical 

 narrative, so far as it goes.* He adds that the Treaty was niade;by 

 el-Mukawkis for the Copts and the Romans ; but while the Romans 

 had the choice of assenting to it or not, according as their emperor 

 should decide, the Copts had no such choice ( .Us*- j-*J Ljiil t<^ •)• 



This treaty with the Copts, which both the Arabs and the Copts 

 upheld against the Romans, is, as we have seen, ascribed by Makrizi, 

 and by much earlier writers, such as Ibn *Abd-el-Hakam and el- 

 BeladhurT, to el-Mukawkis as representative of the Copts. Makrizi 

 describes him as over both the Copts and Romans ( j\^\. ^, U . . . 



j«JfcLoi\ f>^^ ) /^^? J5 V°M )-t Who this Mukawkis was has been 

 a puzzle to all historians. He is called, by Arabic writers, either 

 'the Roman' -'c..!! or 'the Greek' -jli»JU ^^^ l^is name is given 

 either as ' George son of Mina ' U-^ ^ 'f^^PT ' ^^ ' ^^^ ^^ 

 Kurkub' ^ Jiyi j. Tabarl and Beladhuri give him no name 

 beyond el-Mukawkis — a word which is explained as meaning ' ring- 

 dove' in Arabic, but which is probably not Arabic — and John of 

 Nikiu does not mention him by name. Professor KarabacekJ interprets 

 the names as George, son of Mina Parkabios, makes him both strategos 

 and pagarch, and thinks the title Mukawkis may represent the Greek 

 /xeyaux'^s — a title, however, which he has invented on a rather loose 

 analogy with titles, such as evSo^oTaros, found in papyri of the Roman 

 period. Mr. Milne§ identifies him with George the prefect mentioned 

 by John of Nikiu. Professor Bury|| follows Karabacek, but not in the 



* Mu'jam-el-Buldan, s.v. l^lk-iJl , iii. 894-5. f lOiitat, i. 290. 



J Pap. Erzherzog Iteiner, i. 1-11. 

 § Egypt under Roman lUde, 224. 

 II Ed. oi Gibbon, v. appendix, 540. 



