Qalāwūn's Treaty with Acre in 1283Author(s): P. M. HoltReviewed work(s):Source: The English Historical Review, Vol. 91, No. 361 (Oct., 1976), pp. 802-812Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/565643 .Accessed: 11/12/2011 08:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The EnglishHistorical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

802 QALAWfUN'S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I 283 October

Qaldwuin's treaty with Acre in 1283

I N June I283 a treaty was concluded between the Mamluk sultan of Egypt and Syria, al-Mansiir Qalawan, and a group of leading men in the Latin Kingdom. The sultan was at the height of his power. In I279 he had usurped the throne from the sons of his great predecessor, al-ZThir Baybars. In the following year he had overcome an attempt by the governor of Damascus to establish a rival sultanate. Then in I28I he had faced and defeated at Hims a Mongol invading force which had occupied northern Syria. The diminished Latin Kingdom, reduced to a fringe of coastal territories, was by contrast in utter disarray. The crown of Jerusalem was disputed by two absentee claimants, Hugh III of Cyprus and Charles of Anjou, but the position of the latter had been undermined in March I282 by the Sicilian Vespers. He was represented in Acre by his bailli, Odo Poilechien. But there were practical limits to Odo's authority. The grand masters of the military orders had considerable power. William of Beaujeu, since I273

the head of the Order of the Temple, was a kinsman (and hence a partisan) of Charles of Anjou. The Hospitallers, whose chief from I278 was Nicholas Lorgne, did not oppose Charles's agents. The two northern cities of Tyre and Beirut were in effect autonomous lordships, linked with each other and with Cyprus by marriage-ties. John of Montfort, the lord of Tyre, was the brother-in-law of King Hugh, while his own brother, Humphrey of Montfort, was married to Eschiva of Ibelin, who became the lady of Beirut about I282, on the death of her sister Isabella. It is not therefore sur- prising that the treaty of i283 makes no reference to these two cities and their territories, but is restricted to 'the authorities in the kingdom of Acre, Sidon, 'Athlith [Chateau Pelerin] and their lands'.

The treaty of I283 is one of six concluded between Mamluk sultans and authorities in the Latin Kingdom which are extant in Arabic literary sources. Two were negotiated between the Sultan al-Zahir Baybars and the Hospitallers (I267, I27I), a third between the same sultan and the Lady Isabella of Beirut (I269). The parties to the other three treaties were the Sultan al-Mansar Qalawiin and, respectively, the Templars (1282), the authorities in Acre (I283)

and the Lady Margaret of Tyre (i28 5).1

i. These three treaties are noted in R. Rohricht (comp.), Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (Innsbruck, I893), pp. 377, 378-9, 380-I; that with the authorities in Acre in J. Delaville le Roulx (ed.), Cartulaire general de l'ordre des Hospitaliers (Paris, I894-I906), iii. 444. The treaty with the Lady Margaret of Tyre has been studied by Jean Richard, 'Un partage de seigneurie entre Francs et Mamelouks; les "casaux de Sur"', Syria, xxx (I953), 72-82.

1976 QALAWfJN'S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I2 8 3 803

Qalawun's treaty with Acre has been transmitted in three sources, of which the earliest is a contemporary biography of Qalawiin, Tashrzf al-ayydmn wa'l-'usar ft sirat al-Malik al-Manpir, written by the chief chancery clerk, Muhyl al-Din b. 'Abd al-Zahir (d. I292).

The other two versions of the treaty are found in good but later sources. One is the chronicle of Ibn al-Furat (d. 1405), Ta'rikh al-duwal wa'l-mulik; the other, slightly later, is the great chancery encyclopaedia, $ubh al-a'shd, completed in 1412 by al-Qalqashandi, who states that he transcribed this and other treaties from an autograph handbook of Muhammad b. al-Mukarram, a clerk in Qalawiin's chancery. His text has therefore the authority of a contemporary official source behind it. Although it has some obvious corruptions (chiefly in the rendering of European names) and scribal errors, it is the most complete version of the treaty and includes passages which are not found in Tashrzf or Ibn al-Furat. The treaty was first made available to European scholars by Etienne Quatremere, who published the version in Tashrif with additional clauses from Ibn al-Furat, together with a French translation, in an appendix to his Histoire des sultans mamlouks. The full (but frag- mentary) text of Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir's biography was published in I96I, while the relevant volume of Ibn al-Furat's chronicle had appeared in 1942. An Italian translation of the Tashrif version has been made by Francesco Gabrieli, and a rendering of this into English was published in I969. The purpose of the present article is to examine in some detail the structure and contents of the treaty.'

Al-Qalqashandi gives the treaty as one of several examples of instruments negotiated between Muslim and non-Muslim rulers. As such, it forms part of a long section devoted to this subject in the fourteenth volume of Subh al-a'shd, in which he first discusses general matters concerning such treaties, particularly their standing in Islamic international law. Juridically, no permanent settlement could be established between the two parties, but only a truce (hudna) for a specified and limited period of time. The types of treaty comprised in this category are then classified: first, unilateral instruments by which a Muslim ruler concedes a truce; secondly, bilateral undertakings, which open with the formula Istaqarrat al-

i . Bibliography to the above: Murad Kamil (ed.), Tashrifal-ayydm wa'l-'usi7rfisirat al-Malik al-Man,sur (Cairo, i96i),

PP. 34-43. Qustantin Zurayq [Costi K. Zurayk] (ed.), Ta'rikb Ibn al-Furdt (Beirut, I942), Vii.

262-70. Abu'l-'Abbas Ahmad b. 'All al-Qalqashandi, Subb al-a'shafi .ind'at al-inshd (Cairo,

I9I3-I9), xiV. 5I-6 3 8tienne Quatremere, Histoire des sultans mamlouks de l'Egypte (Paris, I837-45), II.

i. I79-85, 224-30- Francesco Gabrieli (tr. E. J. Costello), Arab historians of the Crusades (London, i969),

pp- 326-31. The treaty is summarized and discussed by Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin

de Jerusalem (2nd. edn. Paris, I975), ii. 523-6.

804 QALAWUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 October

hudna baynfuldn wa-fuldn, i.e. 'Truce is established between so-and-so and so-and-so'; thirdly, sworn instruments exchanged between a non-Muslim and a Muslim ruler on the initiative of the former.

Al-Qalqashandi gives as examples of the second category the three treaties of Baybars and this treaty of Qalawiin with Acre. His comments on their drafting are interesting. They are, he says,

in common language and inelegantly arranged; their like would not be drawn up by any clerk with the least skill in drafting. It is strange that such should be drawn up in the time of al-ZAhir Baybars and al-Mansar Qalawuin, who were amongst the greatest of kings, and the chancery in those days was managed by the Band 'Abd al-Zahir, a family of eloquence and outstanding rhetoricians. Perhaps the reason was that in those days the Franks were neighbours to the Muslims in Syria, and terms of agreement would be reached by the two parties clause by clause. Then a clerk from each of the two parties, the Muslims and the Franks, would set it down in common, inelegant words for reasons of speed until they concluded the terms of agreement down to the last clauses of the truce. Then the clerk of the Muslim king would write it according to the tenor of the draft, to match what the Frankish clerk had written. If the sultan's clerk were to make any emendation in it, in the arrangement, the improvement of the words and the eloquence of the composition, this would have departed from what the Frankish clerk had previously agreed to, and thereupon they would disown it, believing that it was not what had been agreed, owing to their lack of Arabic. So the clerk had to keep to what the two clerks had agreed to in the draft.'

In the light of al-Qalqashandi's remarks, it becomes easier to grasp the structure of these treaties, in which the Arabic syntax is very strained and distorted, and the provisions follow no logical order. Grammatically, each treaty consists of a long tail of subordinate phrases and clauses, all dependent on the one essential primary clause, which states that a truce has been concluded between the two parties for a specified period from a given date. It is, however, in the detailed provisions of the treaties that their principal interest lies.

In its form, the treaty of I283 is unambiguously a bilateral instrument, in which the two parties are named. It is thus essentially different from the commercial treaties between the Mamluk sultans and the Italian republics, which were in form decrees of the sultans to their own officials, informing them of the privileges conceded to the foreign merchants. One party to the present treaty was the Sultan al-Mansiir Qalawfin, with whom his son and intended successor, al-Salih 'All, was associated in joint sovereignty. This association, reminiscent of similar arrangements in medieval European monarchies, was a device which had earlier been adopted by Baybars in an attempt to establish hereditary succession in the

I. Qalqashandi, xiv. 70-71.

1976 QALAWUNN S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 805

Mamluk sultanate. Baybars's plan had failed: as we have seen, his sons were set aside and his throne usurped by Qalawiin himself. Qalawan was more successful in founding a dynastic monarchy, for although al-Salih 'Ali predeceased him, he was succeeded by another son, al-Ashraf Khalil (who finally extinguished the Latin Kingdom), and the Qalawunids retained the sultanate, with two brief intervals of usurpation, until late in the fourteenth century. The parties to the treaty on the Frankish side were the leaders of a kingdom where the royal power had crumbled: Odo Poilechien as bailli (the Arabic term used is kdfil), the grand masters William of Beaujeu and Nicholas Lorgne, and Conrad (probably Conrad of Feuchtwangen) the deputy grand master of the Teutonic Order.

The duration and date of inception of the truce are next stated. It was to last 'for the period of ten whole years, ten months, ten days and ten hours'. A duration of ten years is common form in all six Mamluk treaties; a further elaboration such as we have here is also found only in Baybars's first treaty with the Hospitallers, although a period of ten years and ten months appears in his second treaty with the Hospitallers and in Qalawfin's treaty with the Templars. In this as in all the treaties, the beginning of the truce is given in both Muslim and Frankish dating, i.e. 5 Rabi' I 682/3 Haziran [June] 1594 (3 June I283). It is a little surprising that the Seleucid era and not the year of grace is used. This may indicate that the Frankish drafting clerks were drawn from the local Orthodox or Jewish communities, both of which used this era.

The treaty lists in very full detail the territories belonging to each party. The lands of the sultanate are first rehearsed in a list which occupies nearly two pages of the Arabic text in Sub1. Although the Syrian possessions are given in most detail, the list opens with a comprehensive reference to Egypt and the Hijaz. A general guarantee of safety and security by the authorities in Acre for these lands, their inhabitants and their property is stated in some detail. The Arabic terminology marks a difference between the military (al-'asdkir) and the civilian (al-ra'aya) inhabitants of the sultan's dominions: there is, that is to say, no general term for 'subjects'. This distinction reflects the structure of society in the sultanate as composed essentially of two classes; one of warriors (amongst whom the Mamluks were pre-eminent) headed by the sultan as Heerkonig and first among equals, the other of those who were not bred to the profession of arms.' At the end of the guarantee, an ominous clause extends it to all future conquests of the sultanate.

This section of the treaty is followed by its counterpart, in which the territories of Acre, Sidon and 'Athlith are similarly listed and

i. On the similar distinction in the Ottoman state, see Gibb and Bowen, Islamic society and the West (London, I950), I. i. 48, I58.

8o6 QALAWUN'S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 October

guaranteed. Although these coastal districts of Palestine were an insignificant area in comparison with the vast dominions in two continents held by the sultan, their constituent parts are fully and minutely particularized. The purpose is to exclude all ambiguity about the lordship of the lands; in fact these clauses indicate the continuing encroachments of Mamluk power. The provisions relating to 'Athlith offer an interesting example. These clauses (which are given only in Tashr{f) specify as Frankish the castle, town, orchards, vineyards and cultivable lands of 'Athlith. Sixteen localities pertain to 'Athlith. One of these is to become the domain (khbs.) of the sultan, while eight localities which are attributed neither to his domain nor to the domain of 'Athlith are to be a condominium (mund.afa) of the two parties. The formation of condominia, implying a sharing of the revenues of the given districts, was characteristic of these Mamluk-Frankish treaties, but it had precedents. After the First Crusade, a regime of this kind was set up over the Jawlan and other territory east of the Jordan, and there are indeed still earlier instances in Palestine before the Crusading period.' Under Baybars and Qalawuin such condominia formed a transitional stage to the complete annexation of border territories. Baybars's two treaties with the Hospitallers deal at length with condominia. The first treaty, for example, is concerned with the liability to taxation of peasants and nomads, jurisdiction over Muslims and Christians, freedom of passage, and the procedure to obtain the payment of taxes. The absorption of one such territory by the sultanate is noted in the second treaty, where a clause reads:

And likewise whatever was a condominium, such as the castle of al-'Ulayqa [Laicas] in its lands, belonging to the Order of the Hospital, shall pass entirely to the Royal Administration and the August Domain; neither al-Marqab [Margat] nor the Order of the Hospital shall have any part in it.2

Qalawfin's treaty with the lady of Tyre specifies in great detail seventy-eight casalia which were condominia; it goes on to list the revenues from these estates, and to provide for the appointment of tax-collectors.3

The general guarantees of safety and security are followed by the long sequence of particular stipulations, almost all of which may

i. Prawer, i. 257, 274-5. Prawer also notes an apparent joint suzerainty of the Fatimid caliph and the Selijukid ruler of Damascus in the same region before the First Crusade (i. 2I8-9).

2. Qalqashandi, XiV. 43. 3. The term casalia is, of course, not used in the Arabic text, which reads ?ay'a

w,a-mazra'a, literally 'estate[s] and cultivable land', but a few lines earlier there is a reference to ten iay'a which are mentioned in a slightly earlier treaty between the lord of Tyre and a sultan as 'X casaus': G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas (eds.), Urkunden... der Republik Venedig (Vienna, i857), iii. 399.

1976 QALAWUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN 1283 807

be paralleled from other Mamluk and Ayyubid truces with Frankish rulers. They fall into two categories, dealing respectively with military and civilian matters. The military clauses show very clearly the dependence of the Latin Kingdom on its powerful neighbour, in whose interest they are framed. The building or restoration of any castle, fort or fortress outside the walls of Acre, 'Athlith and Sidon was forbidden. Similar conditions were laid by Qalawin upon the Templars in Antartiis (Tortosa) and the lady of Tyre. In Baybars's treaty of I 27I, concluded very shortly after his taking of their great stronghold of Hisn al-Akrad (Crac des Chevaliers), the Hospitallers were forbidden in very precise and repetitive terms to refortify al-Marqab.

Another clause of Qalawiin's treaty with Acre deals with the traffic in arms. It alludes to 'the prohibited articles' (al-mamnz7'dt), later glossed as 'a supply of weapons and otherwise'. This matter was dealt with on a reciprocal basis. Merchants purchasing pro- hibited articles in the territory of the other party were to return them to their owners. The price was to be refunded, and the offending merchants were not to suffer in their persons or their possessions. Whatever their nation or religion, persons taking out prohibited articles were to beunder the jurisdiction of theirown ruler. That such conditions were common form is indicated by the opening words of this clause, which refer to 'the articles formerly recognized as prohibited.'

Other clauses indicate the role of the Latin Kingdom in the sultan's naval and military operations. His galleys, when on an expedition, were not to cause harm to the coastlands of the kingdom, but (unless they were bound for a place in treaty-relations with Acre) they might obtain provisions there. A salvaged galley must be provisioned, repaired and returned to Islamic territory, if it was on an expedition against an ally of Acre, or enabled to continue its voyage if otherwise. A clause dealing with 'pirates' (iardmnyyat al-bahr) is presumably directed against Italian corsairs and perhaps Catalans also.' The authorities in Acre were required to ensure that pirates were denied provisions and water, that any of them who were captured were held, and that goods offered for sale by priates were kept and handed over to the owner. These requirements were also extended to the sultan, but the absence of detail suggests that this was a meaningless and formal concession.

Throughout the period covered by these treaties, the Mamluks remained apprehensive of the dangers from a crusading expedition and from the Mongols. In Baybars's treaty with the lady of Beirut, it was stipulated that she should 'not enable any of the Franks to proceed against the lands of the sultan from Beirut and its lands;

i. I am obliged for this identification to Dr J. Riley-Smith, who also kindly read this article in draft.

8o8 QALAWJUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 October

she shall prevent that, and restrain everyone intending evil.' When Baybars concluded his second treaty with the Hospitallers, in April I271, the situation was critical, since the Lord Edward and his crusaders were on the way to Acre, which they reached in the following month. The relevant clause in this treaty is accordingly more specific:

The Order of the Hospital shall not enable any stranger to enter our territories by land or sea to bring harm or damage to our state, territories, fortresses and [civilian] subjects [ra'iyyatina], unless by main force in the company of a crowned king.'

When Qalawan made his treaty with Acre, there was no such emergency, and the stronger position of the sultanate is reflected in a demand that the authorities there should give him two months notice of any crusade intended by overseas rulers. The Mongols remained a closer and a greater danger, as their invasion in I28I had recently shown. The same clause that deals with the crusaders also stipulates that 'whenever the Mongols or another enemy move by land, whichever party first receives the news shall inform the other of what he has learnt.' The following clause (which has no parallel in other treaties) is concerned with the possibility of another Mongol invasion. In the event of a rout of the Mamluk forces and a Mongol advance on the coast, the Frankish authorities were graciously permitted to defend themselves to the utmost of their power. They were also required to protect refugees from Mamluk, Syria (such as those who had fled from Aleppo in i28i), to assure their safety and that of their possessions.

Besides these military clauses, the treaty contains other pro- visions (omitted in Tashrjf) which throw some light on social and economic conditions. The treaty of I283 and four of the other treaties contain provisions relating to theft and homicide which reflect the unsettled and insecure conditions in the frontier districts and give some information about judicial procedure. The issue which concerns the parties to the treaties is, however, not so much security or even the definition of jurisdiction (although something is said about this) as the manner of ensuring compensation, whether for stolen chattels or a slain man. The treaty of I283 (like those of I267 and I269) provides for compensation as follows:

Compensation shall be made for the slain man by his peer from his nation [minjinsihi]: a knight for a knight, a turcopole for a turcopole, a merchant for a merchant, a foot-soldier for a foot-soldier, and a peasant for a peasant.

The meaning of this is presumably that a prisoner of the appropriate rank would be released and sent back to his own land in compen-

i. Qalqashandi, xiv. 50.

1976 QALAWUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I2 8 3 809

sation for his murdered countryman. The treaty of I285, however, lays down a monetary tariff:

The composition [d&ya] for a knight from either party shall be i,ioo Tyrian dirhams, for a turcopole 200 dirhams, for a peasant Ioo dinars [sic]; the composition of a merchant shall be according to his nation, origin and status. It shall be taken from the people of the villages in which that person was killed as a penalty and a punishment at the same time.1

After the commission of a theft or homicide a period, usually of forty days, was allowed for the discovery of the culprit and (in the case of robbery) the stolen goods. In the treaty of I271 with the Hospitallers an initial period of only twenty days is specified. If the days of grace elapsed without result, recourse was had to a procedure by oath. The two earliest treaties indicate that the oath was taken by the accused and three other persons chosen by the plaintiff. The treaty of I267 says that the three are to swear 'as to what they know about that plea', while from the other treaties one gains the impression that the object of the procedure was to fix the amount of compensation due. Whereas in the treaty of I269 the administrator (wdl!)2 of the district (wilaya) imposes the oath, in Qalawun's treaties of I283 and I285 it is the administrator, not the accused, who is sworn with the three other persons. If the four refuse the oath, the plaintiff is then sworn, and becomes 'entitled to compensation for what is lacking' (in the words of the treaty of 1267), 'and he shall take what he claims' (according to that of I269). The treaty of I267 fixes a limitation of ten days during which the plaintiff is to take his oath, after which his plea fails. The later treaties suggest some variations in procedure. That of I27I empowers the ru'asd' (sing. ra'is)3 of the locality, after the twenty days of grace, to take the nearest neighbour of the missing culprit, presumably as a hostage. If the culprit still absconds after another twenty days (thus making up the forty days of the other treaties), the delegates of the two parties to the treaty are to impose on his neighbours a fine of i,ooo Tyrian dinars, to be shared between the sultan's treasury and that of the Hospital. Qalawutn's treaty with Acre does not mention an oath by the

i. The payment of diya, which is analogous to wergild, goes back to pre-Islamic Arab custom: see E. Tyan, DlYA, in Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd edn.), ii 340-3. In the tariff of i285, the peasant's diya of ioO dinars must be a scribal error for IoO dirhams, otherwise at the current rate of exchange between the gold dinar and the silver dirham it would be nearly double that of the knight: cf. Eliyahu Ashtor, Histoire des prix et des salaires dans l'orient midiival (Paris, I969), p. 275.

2. Wdli in Mamluk administrative terminology usually meant the chief of police of a town. Here the word seems to have a less specific sense, and may well be synonymous with ra'is, i.e. village headman.

3. On the ra'is in the countryside and his functions, see J. Riley-Smith, The feudal nobility and the kingdom of Jerusalem (London, I973), pp. 47-49.

8io QALAWUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 October

plaintiff but gives him the right to petition the Muslim and Frankish authorities, if the administrator does not render him justice. The parties to the treaty bind themselves to punish by death and the confiscation of goods an administrator who has failed to act in cases of homicide and theft. Finally, the treaty of i285 makes obligatory a monetary penalty if the administrator and the three other persons refuse the oath.

Another problem connected with the state of the frontier was that of fugitives, who sometimes professed conversion to the religion of their adopted country. There are provisions about this matter in five of the treaties, but it does not seem possible to discover any consistent principle in them. In Baybars's first treaty with the Hospitallers, a fugitive who brought another's possessions with him was to be given the option of staying or returning, but every- thing he had with him was to be sent back to his country of origin. A slave, however, being himself a chattel, was differently regarded. If he were converted, his price was to be returned, otherwise he himself was to be sent back. The treaty with the lady of Beirut offered no option: a fugitive entering with the chattels of another was to be sent back, no grounds for exception being admitted. This rule was further extended in the second treaty with the Hospitallers. Whatever his legal status (and with no question of his having brought in another's possessions), every fugitive was to be sent back with all he had. The right of sanctuary was specifically refused:

If the fugitive enters the church and sits in it, he shall be taken by the hand, brought out, and delivered to our delegates.'

The treaty also provided that when the sultan's officers handed over fugitives to the representative of the Hospitallers, they were to obtain certificates for the delivery of the person and his pos- sessions.

The treaty of I283 includes detailed provisions in regard to this subject. A fugitive who voluntarily embraced the religion of his country of adoption, Christianity in the Latin Kingdom, Islam in the sultanate, was allowed to remain, but everything he had with him was to be returned to his country of origin: in the words of the treaty, 'he shall remain naked'. An unconverted fugitive, on the other hand, was himself to be sent back with all he had under a safeconduct. A fugitive thief was to be put on oath about what was claimed of him. If the plaintiff was not satisfied, the oath of the administrator of the district was required to confirm that every- thing found with the fugitive had been restored. Another clause, which has no parallel in other treaties, provides for proclamation

i. Qalqashandi, xiv. 48.

I976 QALAWUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 8ii

to be made 'that anyone who was a peasant [fallah] of the lands of the Muslims, whether Muslim or Christian, shall return to the lands of the Muslims; likewise anyone who was a peasant of the lands of the Franks, whether Muslim or Christian.'

This order was to be enforced by expulsion, and each party to the treaty was to deny residence to the peasants of the other party.' The latest treaty in the series, that of i 285, returns unequivocally to the principle of I27I: fugitives of whatever condition were to be sent back with what they had with them.

A curious clause, to which there is nothing analogous in the other treaties, is concerned with sureties held in the Latin Kingdom for the payment of debts. The syntax of the passage gives rise to several ambiguities (thus bearing out al-Qalqashandi's criticisms of the draughtsmanship of these instruments), but it probably refers to persons held at the time of the conclusion of the treaty. Two categories are distinguished. The first includes every debtor the amount of whose debt was established at the time when he was taken as surety by an oath of the administrator of his locality, the fiscal official and the clerk. If these three make a sworn statement before the sultan's representative, the surety's family are to dis- charge his debt, and he is to be released. The second category consists of persons who were seized in Frankish territory, out of fear lest they should abscond. Such sureties, where there was no sworn statement by officials, are to be released.

The security of merchants and their goods in the event of ship- wreck was reciprocally guaranteed. If the merchants themselves were dead or absent, their goods were to be delivered to the sultan's delegates or to the bailli. Similar provision was made for the disposal of the goods of merchants dying in the territory of the other party to the treaty. These terms may be compared with those in the other treaties. Baybars's treaty of I27I with the Hospitallers deals only with the payment of duty by the owners of jetsam. In Qalawiun's treaties with the Templars and the lady of Tyre the provisions resemble those in the treaty with Acre. Another clause of the treaty with Acre- forbids the imposition of extraordinary duties on merchants entering or leaving the territories of the two states, and assures their security by an escort on arrival and departure. Finally, in a clause which is found in all versions of the treaty, the sultan makes certain concessions in regard to Nazareth, which had been sacked by Baybars in I263. The church and four houses nearby were set aside for the use of Christian pilgrims, whose security was guaranteed, but dilapidations of the church were not to be repaired.

The concluding clauses of the treaty bind the two parties to adhere to it until the end of the prescribed period, and their

i. Prawer, ii. 525, n. 73, believes that this clause demonstrates the existence of serfdom among Christian and Muslim peasants in both Islarnic and Frankish territories.

8I2 QALAWfUN' S TREATY WITH ACRE IN I283 October

successors are also bound, so that the treaty will not lapse because of the death of a ruler or the change of a grand master. On the expiry of the due term or the earlier abrogation of the treaty, both parties are to allow forty days of grace, and to make proclamation that aliens are to leave 'so that people may return to their homes in safety and security, and not be prevented from travelling by either party.' These final provisions (which are not found in Tashrijf) end with a note that the two parties swore to keep the truce, followed by the motto 'God grants success', which is probably the mark of attestation of the chancery clerk.

The oaths of ratification referred to in the clerk's note are given by al-Qalqashandi, again from Ibn al-Mukarram, in a separate section in the thirteenth volume of his work. The text is also given by Ibn al-Furat, whose version has been translated by Quatremere and more recently by Gabrieli.1 The oaths are long and elaborate. The sultan bound himself, if he broke his oath, to make thirty pilgrimages to Mecca, barefoot, bareheaded and fasting. In the Frankish oath, the corresponding sanction is to make thirty pilgrimages to Jerusalem and to release a thousand Muslim captives.

In conclusion, this treaty, like the others concluded between Mamluk sultans and authorities in the Frankish states casts a good deal of light on their relations, and (a less obvious but more impor- tant consideration) suggests influences exerted by the latter, in spite of military weakness, upon the former. Al-Qalqashandi's observations upon the drafting of such treaties is a clear instance of this. Another may be the provisions concerning theft and homicide, which seem to reflect European usages rather than the procedures followed in the Islamic Near East. The treaties may well yield further evidence of the synthesis (or rather symbiosis) of Frankish and Muslim institutions which is a real yet elusive aspect of the history of the Crusades.

The School of Oriental and P. M. HOLT

African Studies, London

i. Qalqashandi, xiii. 3II-I4; Zurayq, vii. 270-2; Quatremere, II. i. 232-5; Gabrieli, pp. 33I-3.