Muslim al-Andalus and its Roman Past

While Middle Eastern Arabic-Islamic scholars were copying and occasionally developing the early standard narrative in the course of the ninth and tenth centuries, scholars from al-Andalus began to acquire new information on the history of the Roman Empire. Living in a region that featured various vestiges of the Roman past, Andalusian Muslims could hardly ignore the Iberian Peninsula’s Roman heritage^8

Andalusian interest in the Roman past did not only become manifest in casual encounters with the Roman heritage, but also in the translation of relevant Latin works into Arabic. Primarily, this concerns the Historiae adversuspaganos, written by the presbyter Orosius of Braga (d. c.417). Its Arabic version, the kitab Hurushiyush, was produced in late ninth- or tenth-century al-Andalus^9 and consists of a reworked Arabic translation of Orosius’ Latin text. It contains translated excerpts of other Latin works, including the cosmography of Julius Honorius (fl. 4th-5th cent.), the Chronica, the Etymologiae, and the Historia Gothorum of Isidore of Seville (d. 636) as well as one or several of his continuators.i5° This work’s importance for the disclosure of western Roman history cannot be overesti- al-Batr lq al-ma'ruf bi-Ibn al-Farrash al-Misr i batr lk kursi Marqus bi-l-Iskandariyya wa-qad shahadnahu bi-Fustat Misr intaha bi-tasnifihi ila khilafat al-Radi wa-kitab Athanayus al-rahib al-misri rattaba fihi muluk al-Rum wa-ghayrihim min al-umam wa-siyarihim wa-akhbarihim min Adam ila Qustantin b. Hilam wa-raaytu li-ahl al-mashriq min al-'ibbad kitaban li-Ya'qub b. Zakariyya' al-Kaskari al-katib wa-qad shahadnahu bi-ard al-'Iraq wa-l-Sham yashtamil 'ala anwa' min al-'ulum fi hadhihi al-ma'ani yazid 'ala ghayrihi min kutub al-nasara wa-kitab al-ya'qubiyya fi dhikr muluk al-Rum wa-l-Yunaniyyin wa-falasafatihim wa-siyarihim wa-akhbarihim allafahu Abu Zakariyya5 Dankha al-Nasrani wa-kana mutafalsifan jadilan nazzaran jarat bayni wa-baynahu munazarat kathira bi-Baghdad fi l-janib al-gharbi bi-qatl'at Umm Ja'far wa-bi-madinat Tikrit fi l-kanisa al-ma'rufa bi-l-khadra' fi l-thaluth wa-ghayrihi . . .’, trans. Carra de Vaux, pp. 212—13.

  • 147 al-Mas'udl, muruj, ed./trans. Pellat, § 910—22, pp. 145—52 (AR), pp. 343—8 (FR).
  • 148 See the beginning of Chapter 2.2.1.
  • 149 Levi della Vida, ‘Traduzione’ (1954), pp. 260—2; Badawi, Urusyus (1982), pp. 10—14; Molina, ‘Orosio’ (1984), pp. 66—71; Penelas, Author’ (2001), pp. 113—35; kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, pp. 27^2 (introduccion); Penelas, ‘Traducciones’ (2009), pp. 223—51; Branco, Storie (2009), pp. 143—58.
  • 15° kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, p. 16 (AR), pp. 47—66, 99—119 (introduccion); Daiber, ‘Orosius’ (1986), pp. 202^9; Penelas, ‘Islamization’ (2006), p. 106 with n. 17.

mated. It provided Arabic-Islamic scholars with the transcription of various Latin names, the translation of various Roman concepts as well as a terminological alternative to the ethnonym ‘al-Rum’. It now offered the possibility of distinguishing between ‘Romans of the past’ (al-Rumaniyyun) and ‘Romans of the present’, i.e. Byzantines (al-Rum).[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

The kitab Hurushiyush may have served the Andalusian historiographer Ahmad b. Muhammad al-RazI (d. 344/955). However, definite evidence is hard to come by, given that his work can only be reconstructed on the basis of passages cited in later Arabic-Islamic historiography as well as a fourteenth-century Castilian chronicle entitled Cronica del moro RasisW2 Its exact relation to the Classes of Physicians and Wise Men (tabaqat al-atibba wa-l-hukama) by the Andalusian scholar Ibn Juljul (d. after 284/994) is difficult to defined53 It was certainly used—directly or indirectly—by later Arabic-Islamic historiographers, ranging from al-BakrI (d. 487/1094) in al-Andalus, al-HimyarI (13th-l4th cent.) in the Maghreb, Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406) in the Maghreb and later in Egypt, and to al-Qalqashandl (821/1418) and al-MaqrIzI (d. 845/1442) in Egypt.154 However, information on the Roman Empire may also have become available to Andalusian scholars from other sources.

The works of three Andalusian scholars with a completely different approach to Roman history provide an impression of how much information was available about the Roman history of the Latin West in al-Andalus of the eleventh century. The historiographical compendium al-muqtabis by Ibn Hayyan (d. 469/1076), for example, contains two chapters dedicated to the Roman and Visigothic history of Toledo. Since not all volumes of his oeuvre are extant, it is difficult to assess if these two chapters are representative of his entire knowledge on Roman history. Notwithstanding, they provide insight into how a historiographer interested in the history of a specific locality approached the Roman past of al-Andalus. The chapter on Roman history is based on the account of 'Is a, the son of the aforementioned Ahmad b. Muhammad al-RazI, and thus reproduces data already available in the tenth century. It contains substantial information about Roman Hispania ‘before the rule of the Caesars’ (qabla dawlat al-qayasira). It refers to the beginnings of the Roman expansion to the Iberian Peninsula, opposing ‘the leaders of Rome’ (quwwad Ruma) to ‘the Africans’ (al-Afariqa) in an abbreviated description of the Punic Wars. 155 It describes the Lusitanian rebellion against Roman rule led by

Viriatus {Barbdi).lb6 Finally, it mentions the abolition of the Roman republic at the hands of Julius Caesar, claiming that he was ‘the first of the emperors who abolished the names of the leaders’.157 All these topics are also treated in the kitab Hurushiyush N* Ibn Hayyans account, however, focuses on the local history of Toledo and is much shorter. The fact that Ibn H ayyan uses a different orthography for Roman names suggests that he did not have direct access to the parallel accounts in the kitab HurushiyushW9

A different abbreviation of Roman history is provided by Sa'id al-Andalusi (d. 462/1070) in a treatise entitled Classes of Nations (tabaqat al-umam) that classifies peoples of the world according to their intellectual achievements.160 On the one hand, Sa'id al-Andalusi drew on information known from the developed variant of the early standard narrative. Copying al-Mas'udi’s kitab al-tanbih, he claims that the Romans (al-Rum) belonged to the third of, all in all, seven primeval peoples, made up of Greeks, Romans, Franks, Slavs, and others, who lived in the northwestern quadrant of the inhabited world.m On the other hand, he provides a concise macro-historical overview on Roman history. Although its ethno- and geographic terminology may seem confusing to the modern reader, it not only fully acknowledges the role played by the Roman West, but also clearly distinguishes between ‘ancient Romans’ alias ‘Latins’ (al-Latiniyyun) and ‘modern Romans’ alias ‘Byzantines’ (al-Rum).

As concerns the fifth nation [to have cultivated science], these are al-Rum. This is a people of great power and glorious kings; their territory neighboured the territories of the ancient Greeks (al-Yunaniyyun), but their languages differed completely: the language of the Greeks was Greek (al-Ighriqiyya) while that of al-Rum was Latin (al-Latiniyya). To the south, the lands of al-Rum bordered on the Mediterranean (bahr al-Rum), which extends longitudinally from east to west, between Tangier and Syria (al-Sham). To the north, they bordered on some of the polities of the northern peoples such as the Rus, the Bulgarians and others, as well as on a segment of the great western sea known by the name Uqyanus. To the east, they bordered on the lands of the Greeks, and to the west, at the extreme end of al-Andalus, they bordered on the western sea known as Uqyanus. This polity consisted of three parts that differed from one another; the first was to the east, close to the Greek and Armenian territories, in the middle were the lands of France (Ifransa), and the last was al-Andalus, which is to the extreme west, at the end of the inhabited world. The capital of this entire kingdom was the great city of Rome in the territory of Almania. It was founded by Romulus the Latin (Rumanush al-latini) and was named after him. He was the first known Roman [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

ruler. Rome was built some 754 years before the birth of the Messiah. The realm of the Latins (mulk al-Latiniyyin) was confined to this limited sovereign territory (mamlaka) for 725 years following the construction of Rome, that is, until the advent of Augustus, the first of the emperors (muluk al-qayasira). Then this Augustus seized power over the Greeks and joined their territory to his own, thus forming a single and great polity. Its length from east to west, that is, from Armenia to the end of al-Anda- lus, amounted to about one hundred days journeys. Rome became the capital of these two adjoined empires (mamlakatayn) and remained as such for 335 years, until Constantine, the son of Helena (Qustantin b. Hilani), embraced Christianity, rejected the Sabean religion, and built a city on the bay that bears his name and is known as Constantinople, right in the middle of the lands of the Greeks. He settled in this city which, from this time on, was the capital of the rulers of al-Rum until the present.[12]

Thus, Said al-Andalusl described the rise and fall of an originally western empire defined as ‘Latin’, which incorporated the ‘Greek’ sphere in the times of Augustus, shifting its centre of power to the east in the times of Constantine I. In his interpretation, the polity of the ‘Rum’ emerges from the fusion of the Greek and Latin spheres.

Sa'id al-Andalusl does not mention his sources. It is clear, however, that the term ‘Latins’ did not yet figure in Middle Eastern texts, but was still confined to the kitab Hurushiyush and dependent Andalusian historiography when he wrote his treatise. Other facts, e.g. Augustus’ eastern conquests as well as the foundation of Rome at the hands of Romulus, he already knew from al-Mas'udl’s kitab al-tanbih. Sa'id al-Andalusl describes the separation of the Roman Empire into an eastern and a western half in similar terms, dating it, as does al-Mas'udi, to the year 340/951-52. Again, a governor of Rome dares to wear royal insignia, thus provoking an armed reaction on the part of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII

Porphyrogennetos, who is eventually forced to accept the facts. Nonetheless, Said al-Andalusi introduced important modifications. Whereas al-Mas'udi credits ‘the Franks’ with this ‘secession’, Sa'id al-Andalusi credits ‘the Latins’. Whereas al-Mas'udl does not address events that led up to the secession, Sa'id al-Andalusi explains that it constituted the last of several secessions from Constantinople, during which peoples such as the Slavs, the ‘Burjan’, and others became powerful enough to found independent polities. In this way, he betrays a diffuse understanding of the early medieval period of migrations. Moreover, Sa'id al-Andalusi is more explicit as concerns the secession’s effects. From this time on, he claims, the kingdom of the Latins developed independently from its Greek counterpart whose western borders were pushed close to Constantinople. Eventually, the two territories were separated by hordes of Turks (firaq al-Turk) who reduced communications between Constantinople and Rome to sea transport.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] In this way, Sa'id al-Andalusi synthesized material taken from Andalusian and Middle Eastern sources, proffering a clear-cut macro-historical narrative, which—because of its synoptic character—is decidedly original.

The Andalusian scholar al-Bakri (d. 487/1094) provides a third approach to Roman history in his Book on Routes and Realms (kitab al-masalik wa-l-mamalik). Since this genre is characterized by a mixture of geo-, ethno-, and historiographical information,^4 al-Bakri’s account conflates numerous traditions and is much less coherent than the examples dealt with so far. Instead of merging data on the Roman Empire into a single straightforward narrative, he dispersed it all over his work.

In line with the early standard narrative, al-Bakri supplies data about the Romans’ genealogical origins in several chapters about the biblical fathers Noah and Esau.165 Two chapters dealing with Persian^ and Greek rulersTh7 respectively, provide more information. His main treatment of Roman history takes place in a chapter dedicated to the rulers of the ‘Rum’.i6® This chapter begins with Augustus’ conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt and reproduces data known from earlier texts written by Middle Eastern Arabic-Islamic scholars. Al-Bakri obviously has recourse to Ibn Khurdadhbah, when he claims that Rome had been the residence of twenty-nine rulers, was then abandoned for Nicomedia by the two following rulers, who were succeeded by two other rulers, who again resided in Rome.169 He cites al-Mas'udi when he states that Rome was founded 400 years before the rule of its first king.i70 But as opposed to earlier Arabic-Islamic lists of Roman emperors produced in the Middle East, the narrative is not divided into chapters and, even more important, contains additional data taken from the kitab

Hurushiyush, a work cited repeatedly in various contexts.[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Al-Bakri mentions the thousandth anniversary of the city of Rome during the reign of the emperor Philippus.172 He reproduces the story of Constantine’s vision already known to the Middle Eastern scholar al-Ya'qubi. Like al-Mas'udl, he also relates that Constantine may have converted under the influence of a Roman bishop who cured him of leprosy.173 Moreover, al-Bakri provides new details on the reign of Theodosius I who, because of his Hispanic origin, carries the sobriquet ‘al-Andalusi’. He mentions the emperor’s victory over Roman usurpers with the miraculous help of the wind,m as well as the conflictual relationship between Goths and Romans, the ensuing sack of Rome at the hands of Alaric, and the Visigoths’ settlement in Gaul and Spain. 175 Following this digression, and without mentioning the emperors in between, al-Bakri jumps to the reign of Heraclius, which is correlated with the history of early IslamTh6 He then leads the chapter up to his own time around the year 458/1065_66 without attaching much importance to a complete documentation of Byzantine emperors.177

In the geographical sections of his book dedicated to North Africa and the city of Carthage,178 al-Bakri provides an account of the Punic Wars, which also contains a description of the Roman republic’s form of government. According to al-Bakri, the Romans (ahl Ruma) were not ruled by a sovereign during this period, but appointed seventy nobles (sab*in rajulan min kaba irihim) to administer their affairs. These elders appointed twelve leaders (qa idan) every year who divided the various territories held by Rome among themselves by casting lotsV9 An abbreviated account of the Punic Wars leads up to the destruction of Carthage: Hannibal (Anbil) had defeated the Romans (al-Rumaniyyun) several times in different places, killing their nobles (ashraf and leaders (quwwad). Fighting in Italy for sixteen years, he seriously threatened the city of Rome and its surroundings.[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] The Roman leader Scipio (Shibyun) amassed troops in Sicily and crossed the sea to Africa (Ifriqiya), leaving Hannibal stuck around Rome (balad Ruma). When Scipio roamed pillaging through Africa, the population of Carthage sent messengers to Hannibal who came to the conclusion that the divine being in heaven (ilah al-sama) did not approve of his effort to extirpate the Roman name. On his return to Africa, Scipio defeated Hannibal in several battles. Finally, the people of Rome destroyed the city of Carthage.m

In the geographical section dedicated to the Iberian Peninsula, al-Bakri addresses Constantine’s provincial reorganization of the Iberian Peninsula, thereby mentioning the seven cities of the Roman province of Septimania and an Arabic term for ‘Gaul’ (Ghalish).i82 Supplemental information about Roman Spain features in chapters dealing with Seville and Toledo. Concerning Seville, al-Bakri does not only draw on the kitab Hurushiyush. In accordance with the latter, he credits Octavian (Uktabyan) with the foundation of the city,i83 but also mentions that others ascribed its origins and many of its buildings to the initiative of Julius Caesar (Yulyush qaysar). Moreover, he cites ‘experts of the Latin language’ (ahlal-ilm bi-l- lisan al-latini) who claimed that the city’s name derived from a legendary figure called ‘Ishbal’ and meant ‘the gay city’ (al-madina al-munbasita)}^ Such experts must also have informed him about the ‘Latin’ pronunciation of ‘Toledo’ (mana Tulaytula bi-l-latini Tulazu), a city said to have been built by the Caesars.i85

Up to the twelfth century, no other extant work of Arabic-Islamic scholarship can rival al-Bakri’s description of the Roman West. It brings together information from three narrative traditions, i.e. the early standard narrative, a narrative based on the Latin sources of the kitab Hurushiyush, and finally the knowledge of ‘local experts’ on the history of the Iberian Peninsula. However, al-Bakri’s exposition of Roman history has the ‘flaw’ that it forces readers to piece together a coherent narrative from numerous fragments dispersed in various parts of the work. Notwithstanding, al-Bakri manages to convey an understanding of Rome’s western origins as well as its impact on the western Mediterranean.

In conclusion, the availability of new data, in particular the kitab Hurushiyush and local sources, allowed Arabic-Islamic scholars from al-Andalus to draw an enlarged picture of Roman history which included data on Rome’s republican past, the Punic Wars, as well as the empire’s western extension. This new data was employed according to context, to provide the basis for local and regional history in the extant fragments of Ibn H ayyan’s work, a macro-historical approach consid?ering the major developments in the Mediterranean basin of Antiquity in the treatise of Sa id al-Andalusi, or a chronologically and geographically enlarged version of the early standard narrative in al-Bakri’s version. All three works prove that Arabic-Islamic scholars from eleventh-century al-Andalus had clearly understood essential trends of Roman history from the beginnings up to the period of Late Antiquity.

  • [1] The kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 52v/110, p. 162, and fol. 83v/166, pp. 241—2, also usesthe term ‘al-Rum’ for ancient Greeks such as the Lacedaemonians, specifying them as ‘al-Rumal-gharIqiyyIn’.
  • [2] kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, pp. 70—1 (introduccion). See Chapter 5.2.2.
  • [3] On the basis of references to Orosius, Isidore of Seville, and possibly Jerome, Fu ad Sayyid (IbnJuljul, tabaqat, ed. Sayyid, p. ^J, pp. 36, 41) claims that Ibn Juljul was the first scholar to have madeuse of the kitab Hurushiyush. Mayte Penelas (kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, pp. 71—2) is more reservedgiven the lack of definite textual parallels. But see Ibn Juljul’s evaluation of the kitab Hurushiyush asrecorded by Ibn Abl Usaybi'a, tabaqat al-atibba, ed. Rida, p. 494.
  • [4] kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, pp. 73—81.
  • [5] Ibn Hayyan, al-muqtabis V, ed. Chalmeta and Corriente, p. 272.
  • [6] Ibid., pp. 272—3.
  • [7] Ibid., p. 274: ‘awwal al-qayasira alladhi qata'a asma’ al-quwwad’.
  • [8] kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 162—4, pp. 239—41 (Punic Wars), fol. 174—6, pp. 254—6,and fol. 203, p. 296 (Viriatus), fol. 115r/223, p. 327 (Caesar).
  • [9] Viriatus, for example, is transcribed ‘Furyat’ in the kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, p. 296, and‘Barbat’ in Ibn Hayyan, al-muqtabis V, ed. Chalmeta and Corriente, p. 273. In this case, however,orthographic changes could also be due to a scribal error, i.e. the exchange of ‘ba’’ (_,) for ‘fa’’ (_s) and‘ba’’ (_._) for ‘ya’’ (_,_).
  • [10] Cf. Martinez-Gros, ‘Histoire’ (1991), pp. 200—17.
  • [11] Sa'id al-Andalusi, tabaqat al-umam, ed. Bu 'Alwan, p. 38; al-Mas'udi, al-tanbih, ed. de Goeje,p. 77.
  • [12] Sa id al-Andalusi, tabaqat al-umam, ed. Bu Alwan, pp. 96—8: ‘wa-amma al-umma al-khamisawa-hiya al-Rum fa-umma dakhmat al-mamlaka fakhmat al-muluk; wa-kanat biladuhum mujawirali-bilad al-Yunaniyyin wa-lughatuhum mukhalifa li-lughatihim: fa-lughat al-Yunaniyyin al-Ighriqiyyawa-lughat al-Rum al-Latiniyya. wa-kana hadd bilad al-Rum min jihat al-janub al-bahr al-rumial-mumtadd tulan min al-maghrib ila l-mashriq ma bayna Tanja ila l-Sham, wa-hadduha min jihatal-shamal bad mamalik al-umam al-shamaliyya min al-Rus wa-l-Burghar wa-ghayrihim ma'a taifamin al-bahr al-maghribi al-azam al-muhit al-ma'ruf bi-Uqyanus. wa-hadduha min jihat al-mashriqtukhum bilad al-Yunaniyyin, wa-hadduha min jihat al-maghrib fi aqsa al-Andalus al-bahr al-maghribial-ma'ruf bi-Uqyanus. wa-kanat hadhihi al-mamlaka thalath qita' tatamayyaz ba'duha min bad:fa-awwaluha min jihat al-mashriq mimma yutakhim bilad al-Yunaniyyin bilad A[l]maniya. fa-minawsatiha bilad Ifransa thumma akhiruha bilad al-Andalus fi aqsa al-maghrib wa-taraf al-ma'mur.wa-kanat qa'idat hadhihi al-mamlaka kulluha madinat Rumiyya al-'uzma min bilad A[l]maniya,wa-kana baniha Rumanush al-Latini wa-ilayhi nusibat, wa-huwa awwal mashhur min muluk al-Rum.wa-kana bunyan Rumiyya qabla mawlid al-masih bi-saba'a miat sana wa-arba'a wa-khamsin sana,fa-ittasala mulk al-Latlniyyln fi hadhihi al-mamlaka al-mahduda ba'da bunyan Rumiyya bi-saba'amiat sana wa-khamsan wa-'ashrin sana ila qiyam Aghustus, awwal muluk al-qayasira, thummataghallaba Aghustus hadha ala mulk al-Yunaniyyln wa-adafa mamlakatahum ila mamlakatihi fa-saratmamlaka wahida rumiyya 'azima al-shan tuluha min al-mashriq ila l-maghrib nahwa miat marhalama bayna tukhum bilad Arminya ila aqsa bilad al-Andalus fi l-maghrib. wa-sarat Rumiyya qa'idathatayn al-mamlakatayn ma'an wa-makathat ka-dhalik thulthumiat sana wa-khamsa wa-thalathinsana ila an qama Qustantin b. Hilani bi-din al-masih wa-rafada din al-Saiba, wa-bana madina alakhalij al-mansuba ilayhi al-ma'rufa bi-l-Qustantiniyya fi wasat bilad al-Yunaniyyin, wa-istawtanaha,fa-sarat min hina idhin qa'idat mulk al-Rum ila waqtina hadha.’ Adapted from Science in the MedievalWorld, trans. Salem and Kumar, p. 31.
  • [13] Sa'id al-Andalusi, tabaqat al-umam, ed. Bu Alwan, pp. 98—9; al-Mas'udi, al-tanbih, ed. deGoeje, pp. 181—2, trans. Carra de Vaux, p. 246.
  • [14] On this genre, see Miquel, Geographie (2001), vol. 1, pp. 85—92, 267—85.
  • [15] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 89, p. 88; § 121—2, p. 108.
  • [16] Ibid., § 442, p. 285; § 451, p. 291.
  • [17] Ibid., § 476, p. 303; § 479-80, p. 303; § 484, p. 306.
  • [18] 168 Ibid., § 485-515, pp. 306-19.
  • [19] 169 Ibid., § 797, p. 474; cf. Ibn Khurdadhbah, al-masalik, ed. de Goeje, p. 104.
  • [20] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 495, p. 310; cf. al-Mas'udi, muruj, ed./trans.Pellat, § 717, p. 34 (AR), p. 270 (FR).
  • [21] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, pp. 18—23 (Introduction); e.g. § 812, p. 482;kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, pp. 73^ (introduccion).
  • [22] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 493, p. 310; cf. kitab Hurushiyush, ed.Penelas, fol. 125v/244, p. 361; Orosius, Historiae, ed./trans. Arnaud-Lindet, lib. VII, cap. 20,1, p. 55.
  • [23] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 498, p. 312; al-Mas'udi, al-tanbih, ed. deGoeje, pp. 137—8; cf. kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 128r/249, p. 369, and pp. 60—1 (introduccion). See Schilling, ‘Konstantinslegende’ (2009), pp. 339—73, on other Arabic-Islamic sources dealingwith this conversion narrative.
  • [24] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 502, p. 313; cf. Orosius, Historiae, ed./trans.Arnaud-Lindet, lib. VII, cap. 17—20, pp. 67—71. The part of the kitab Hurushiyush on Theodosius isnot extant. According to late antique Roman sources, Theodosius won the so-called ‘Battle of theFrigidus’ against the pagan contender Eugenius thanks to the miraculous help of the wind, cf. Cameron, Pagans (2011), pp. 112—17.
  • [25] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 502—03, pp. 313—14. This data on the Gothsalso seems to be based on the kitab Hurushiyush. Unfortunately, the corresponding passages are lost.The only extant manuscript breaks off in the period of Valens’ death in connection with the Goths andtheir conversion to Arian Christianity, see kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 102v/254, p. 377. However, given the fact that Orosius’ original work reacted to the sack of Rome at the hands of the Gothsunder Alaric, this event is already mentioned by the way in earlier passages, cf. fol. 45r/87, p. 129; fol.52r/109, p. 159, etc. See Chapter 5.2. and 5.3.1.
  • [26] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 507, p. 315.
  • [27] Ibid., § 507-16, pp. 315-19. 178 Ibid., § 1176-8, pp. 700-2.
  • [28] 179 Ibid., § 1177, p. 701. The kitab Hurushiyush deals with the republican system several times, cf.
  • [29] kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 5r/5, p. 13; in particular fol. 50v/100, p. 147 (fragmentary); fol.81v/162, pp. 236-7; fol. 110r/207, p. 302, but—at least in these passages—not in the exact termsused by al-Bakri.
  • [30] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 1177, p. 701, MS > ‘mudayyiqan c alayhawa- ala nawahiha’. According to the other MS, Hannibal was only active around the city of Rome.
  • [31] Ibid., § 1177—8, pp. 701—2. As to be expected, the kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 73r/145_fol. 87r/173, pp. 211—52, is much more elaborate on the topic.
  • [32] 182 al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 1488, p. 891; cf. Vallve Bermejo, Division(1986), pp. 210-23.
  • [33] kitab Hurushiyush, ed. Penelas, fol. 116r/225, p. 330.
  • [34] al-Bakri, al-masalik, ed. van Leeuwen and Ferre, § 1513, pp. 902-3.
  • [35] Ibid., § 1521, p. 907.
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >