BLACK SLAVES IN MAML K NARRATIVES : REPRESENTATIONS OF TRANSGRESSION

In Dh lijja or Dh l-Qa‘da of 849/February, 1446, a group of black slaves assembled in Giza, outside of Cairo and elected their own Sultan. What subsequently ensued, whether viewed as a carnivalesque theatre or an open rebellion, is the subject of at least three different narratives by Maml k historians. Two of these historians, Ibn Taghr bird and Badr al-D n al-‘Ayn , were contemporary to the event, and the third, Ibn Iy s, was born some years afterwards. While a great deal of scholarly attention has been paid to the white military slaves and freedmen in the Mamluk Empire (12501517), the black slaves (‘ab d) have often been overlooked. In Egypt, Mamluk society, especially military society, was marked by a profound racial discourse that privileged white over black. This was by no means the only ethnic/racial categorization of people and groups, nor was it the only mechanism of privilege. But the definition of black slaves as the subaltern had social, economic and political ramifications that can not be ignored. Such definitions are especially evident in accounts of black slaves who are perceived to violate existing boundaries. My purpose in this paper is to explore the ways in which six Mamluk historians construct often mutually contradictory narratives of transgressive black slaves.

The three narratives contain important differences in detail and, in the case of that of Ibn Iy×s, a dramatically different plot and conclusion.It may be impossible to construct an exact account of what the black slaves actually did.It is worthwhile, however, to examine the ways in which three Mamlùk historians represented what they all perceived to be an event that was very much out of the ordinary (ç×ditha gharêba).Such an examination may bring us closer to an understanding of the complex representation of the black slave in Mamlùk society and of the broader representation of subaltern groups in ninth/fifteenth century Cairo.
The renowned historian and legal scholar Badr al-Dên al-'Aynê (762/1361-855/1451) was in his eighties when the incident of the black slaves took place. 1 His account is quoted at length in al-Sakh×wê's (830/1427-902/1497) Kit×b al-tibr al-masbùk fê dhayl al-sulùk.Al-Sakh×wê was nineteen when the slave court was convened but he does not present his own independent version of events, although he does comment on al-'Aynê's account.
A very strange event (ç×ditha gharêba jiddan) occurred in this year.A large group of black slaves ('abêd) 2 assembled in the plain of Giza during the days of spring pasturage (ayy×m al-rabê') 3 and appointed a Sultan from among themselves.They set up a pavilion for him and furnished it with carpets.Inside it, they Al-Qan÷ara (AQ) XXVIII 2, julio-diciembre 2007, pp.435-464 ISSN 0211-3589 put up a platform (dikka) and other things [related to] what is put in place for a king in all his doings.They cut in half at the waist a number of black slaves who opposed them.Their Sultan appointed one of them to [rule over] the domain of Syria and another to [rule over] the domain of Aleppo.It happened that a black slave belonging to one of the Sultan's mamlùks ran away.His master went out looking for him and was guided to him.When he [the mamlùk] came to them [the slaves], permission was requested for him to enter the sitting place of the leaders (q×'idat al-ru'as×'), permission was granted to him and he entered.He saw such a dreadful and awe inspiring presence (hayba muhawwila) 4 that he was afraid.When he stood before that 'abd [the slave Sultan], the [slave Sultan] said to him "What do you seek, oh mamlùk?"He responded, "I seek a black slave of mine here.He has entered your army (dakhala fê 'askarikum)."The [slave Sultan] said to someone who was standing there to serve him, "Bring this one his slave."So they brought in the black slave in chains.The [slave Sultan] said to the [mamlùk], "Is this your black slave?"The [mamlùk] responded, "Yes."Then, he [al-'Aynê] said that they cut him [the black slave] into two pieces.His master was overcome by fear and he asked permission to depart.Then the [slave Sultan] said to him "What is the price of your slave?"He [the mamlùk] said, "I bought him for twenty five dên×rs."[The slave Sultan] then lifted up the corner of the cushion on which he was sitting and there was a pile of gold.He then measured out for him [the mamlùk] the amount that he had specified and said to him, "Take this sum and buy yourself a black slave to replace him."When he had taken the money, [the mamlùk] requested from him [the slave Sultan] that he would send someone with him to bring him to a place where he would be safe ('il× mawÝi' ma'manihi).So he [the slave Sultan] sent someone with him [the mamlùk] who brought him to the tents set up for the spring pasturage.Then he left him.This mamlùk then went up to the Sultan [Jaqmaq, r. 842/1438-852/1453] and told him what had happened.The Sultan said "Have they disturbed anyone from amongst the subjects?"The mamlùk said "No."So the Sultan said, "Leave them to kill one another.My opinion is that their deed is done on a whim and I consider their affair to be of little consequence (fi'luhum dhalik 'al× wajh al-miz×j wa istahwana amrahum)."I [al-Sakh×wê] say, that if it were not for the killing, then it would be a simple matter, despite my hesitation concerning the affair of the master of the black slave.But this is what al-'Aynê narrates.And he [al-'Aynê] says that it was something the likes of which has never happened and that a king like him [the black slave Sultan] has never been heard of.Then he [al-'Aynê] is silent. 5he reason for al-Sakh×wê's hesitation regarding al-'Aynê's account is somewhat unclear.Did the episode concerning the mamlùk and the fugitive slave, especially the story of the execution of the fugitive, seem implausible to al-Sakh×wê?Is this because he could not imagine such a reversal of roles and of legal hierarchy?Ibn Taghrêbirdê, (812/1409-874/1470) was thirty-seven when the slave "Sultanate" was enacted.In his •aw×dith al-duhùr fê mad× al-ayy×m wa-l-shuhùr, he presents an account that is very close to and may be derived from that of al-'Aynê.There are, however, some noteworthy differences in detail.
And during this month [Dhù l-•ijja] a strange event (ç×ditha gharêba) occurred.The black slave grooms (al-ghilm×n al-'abêd)6 were in the spring pasturage (fê l-rabê') in the land of Giza and Munb×ba.When they went there with the horses of their masters, they stayed there for a short time and then set up among themselves a black slave and made him Sultan.They appointed for him officials of the state and holders of offices and had him judge among them as he wished.They set up a throne (takht) for him that he could sit on.This aforementioned black slave began to do as he pleased.No one could oppose him until another man from among the black slaves went against him.Each one of them gathered their followers and they fought with one another.The one who had been made Sultan was victorious and he had a number from the opposing faction cut in half at the waist.The master of the black slave who was killed could say nothing. 7It is said that he [the master] went there and spoke with the black slave who had been made Sultan.There are those who say that the black slave [Sultan] also wanted to cut in half the mamlùk, the master of the [executed] slave.And some say that he [the black slave Sultan] recompensed him [the mamlùk] for the price of the black slave.This reached the Sultan [Jaqmaq] and they told him that he [the slave Sultan] had appointed a viceroy of Syria and a viceroy of Aleppo and that they [the black slaves] were continuing [to behave] in this manner.The Sultan remained silent.One of the great men of the regime (ak×bir al-dawla) said, "this is a foolish affair of little consequence (amr fashrawê). 8When the spring Al-Qan÷ara (AQ) XXVIII 2, julio-diciembre 2007, pp.435-464 ISSN 0211-3589 438 SHAUN MARMON pasturage has been depleted, they will disband and each one will go back to his appropriate station.For they do this on a whim ('al× ÷arêq al-miz×j)" This is what happened and the affair ended.This was a thing that had not been heard of in past ages. 9e historian Ibn Iy×s (852/1448-930/1524), unlike al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê, was not alive when the black slaves gathered in Giza to set up their slave "Sultanate," an event that occurred some two years prior to Ibn Iy×s's birth.This historian gives us a very different version of the narrative.He sets the event as having occurred in Dhù l-Qa'da as opposed to Dhù l-•ijja.According to Ibn Iy×s, the black slaves (al-'abêd al-sùd) deliberately went to Giza to set up their court.
In this [month], a strange event (ç×ditha gharêba) occurred.A group of black slaves went to the land of Giza and took up residence there.They set up a tent there for themselves and hung a standard (sanjaq) over it.They appointed for themselves a Sultan, a wazêr, and a daw×d×r.Their Sultan would sit on his platform (dikka) and judge among the black slaves.He would have brought before him any one from among the black slaves who was hostile to them [the Sultan's party] and he would have him cut in half at the waist in his presence.Then their Sultan appointed for them a grand amêr (amêr kabêr) and a chief chamberlain (ç×jib al-çujj×b).He [the slave Sultan] appointed a number of them to offices.This one was the governor of Syria, this one was governor of Aleppo, this one was governor of Tripoli.Thus, they divided up the kingdom of Egypt and Syria.Their affair became known among the people.When this reached the Sultan, he was greatly vexed.The black slaves began to commit highway robbery and to loot the farmland.They would take the khar×j and the Ýiy×fa of the people they waylaid. 10

439
Everett Rowson for referring me to Humphrey Davies.I would also like to thank Dr. Davies for sending me additional information on the term, fashrawê.In a footnote to his edition of Ibn Taghrêbirdê's, •aw×dith al-duhùr fê mad× al-ayy×m wa-l-shuhùr, Cairo, 1990, 1, n.º 1, 89, Façêm Muçammad Shaltùt cites al-Shartùnê's, Aqrab al-maw×rid fê fuóaç al-'arabêya wa-l-shaw×rid, Tehran, 1995-6, 4, 165-166 for the definition of "fush×r" as a colloquial word meaning al-hadhy×n, "buffoonery."Shaltùt also goes on to say that it is possible that, in the context of this passage from the •aw×dith, fashrawê means "the play (tamthêlêya) that is put on by the black slaves."Since I have found no evidence of the latter, I consider tamthêlêya to be an unlikely meaning.It is clear from the citations provided by Dr. Davies, that al-Shartùnê is drawing on al-Fêrùzab×dê, 2:110 (personal communication from Dr. Davies).Neither Shartùnê nor al-Fêrùzab×dê give the word in the form fashrawê.However, Yùsuf al-Shirbênê uses the word in this form more than once. 9•aw×dith, 1, 87-88.Ibn Taghrêbirdê does not mention the slave court under his entry for the year 849/1446 in his al-Nujùm al-z×hira fê mulùk Miór wa l-Q×hira, Cairo,  1929-1972, 16 vols.Given that the Nùjùm is an abbreviated version of the •aw×dith for the period of Ibn Taghrêbirdê's own lifetime, this is not surprising.
They [the mamlùks] went to them [the black slaves] by boat.They [the mamlùks] fought with them and defeated their Sultan and scattered them.They [the mamlùks] imprisoned a number of them and the rest fled.Then the Sultan proclaimed in Cairo that anyone who had an adult black slave should bring him up to B×b al-Silsila and receive his price.So whoever went up [to B×b al-Silsila] with a black slave received 4000 dirh×ms.When a large number of them [the black slaves] had been gathered together the Sultan ordered them to be imprisoned and to be sent by ship to the port of Alexandria and from there to the lands of Ibn 'Uthm×n.Thus the ruffian black slaves (al-'abêd al-shan×tira) 11 were uprooted from Egypt. 12 In all three accounts, the authors describe the story of the slave court as a "strange event" (ç×ditha gharêba).The slave Sultan, like the legitimate Sultan, has the power to judge his subjects and to put them to death.These executions are, however, not only a subversion of real royal authority, they are transgressive in that they violate the law and the established social order.The executed slaves are, after all, property.In al-Aynê's account and in that of Ibn Taghrêbirdê (although to a lesser degree), the killing of the mamlùk's runaway slave is a dramatic illustration of the authority of the slave Sultan.
Like the majority of the successful Mamlùk Sultans, the slave Sultan is chosen by his peers.He has the authority to designate individuals to offices that mimic those of the Mamlùk court and to appoint fictive governors for the provinces of Syria.In all three narratives, the slave Sultan appropriates the symbols of royal authority.A pavilion is set up for him like the pavilions that are erected for the legitimate Sultan when he goes down from the Citadel.A military standard, sanjaq, flies over the pavilion.The slave Sultan sits on an elevated platform (dakka, mas÷aba) or throne (takht).In al-'Aynê's account, the pavilion is described in more detail.A carpet is spread inside the pavilion and the black slaves do for their Sultan "what is put in place for kings in all their comings and goings."So successful is the recreation of royal space that the mamlùk in al-'Aynê's narrative is overcome with fear by the hayba, the awe inspiring presence of the slave Sultan.
One of the striking differences in Ibn Iy×s's account, compared to those of his predecessors, is that he omits the story of the executed slave and the mamlùk.This story is central to the account of al-'Aynê and reappears in the account of Ibn Taghrêbirdê, although the latter presents an alternative ending, the near execution of the mamlùk.In these two earlier versions, the slave Sultan destroys the property of others when he has his fellow slaves killed, as he does in the narrative of Ibn Iy×s.However, in the narratives of Ibn Tahgrêbirdê and especially of al-'Aynê, the execution of the runaway slave in the presence of the mamlùk serves as a dramatic illustration of the slave Sultan's appropriation of royal authority and his disdain for the laws of property.The real master of the executed slave, the royal mamlùk, can do nothing to stop the execution.
In the normal order of things, the mamlùk, a light-skinned "Turk" and one of the Mamlùk Sultan's own military slaves or freedmen, would enjoy a much higher status than that of the black slave who is playing the role of Sultan.In the mock court of the black slaves, however, this hierarchy is turned upside down.In Ibn Taghrêbirdê's account, the mamlùk's slave appears to have been executed because he belonged to the group that rebelled against the slave Sultan.The text, however, is not completely clear.In al-'Aynê's account, we are never given a reason for the execution.The event seems to be a kind of theatre, a demonstration for the mamlùk of the slave Sultan's arbitrary power as a ruler.The demonstration succeeds.The light skinned mamlùk is placed in the position of a supplicant.He is overcome with fear (al-'Aynê); barely escapes execution at the hands of the slave Sultan (Ibn Taghrêbirdê); and must petition the slave Sultan for safe conduct (al-'Aynê).
The slave Sultan's payment of compensation, in the accounts of Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê, is not an act of compliance with the normative order but a manifestation of the slave Sultan's authority in this mimetic court.Ibn Taghrêbirdê refers to the payment of compensation as one of the two possible conclusions to the story.In al-'Aynê's ac-count, the payment is a theatrical event which, like the entire narrative, has a distinctly literary flavor not far removed from popular tales.By killing the mamlùk's slave, the slave Sultan demonstrates his power.By paying compensation that equals the price that the mamlùk paid for the slave, the slave Sultan appears to be following or even exceeding the sharê'a, which sets the diya for a slave as the value of his or her depreciated market price.In this case, however, since the individual who ordered the execution is himself a slave, the individual responsible for paying the diya should be his master.The latter also has the option of surrendering his slave to the master of the slave who was murdered. 13But the slave Sultan, by his payment of compensation, appropriates the role of his own master and inverts the legal and social hierarchy between master and slave.In al-'Aynê's narrative, the payment of compensation by the slave Sultan, is the real denouement of the story.It confirms the fantastic quality of the entire event.
In Ibn Iy×s's account, we are told, as in the other two chronicles, that the slave Sultan judged his subjects and executed those who opposed him.However, unlike the accounts of Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê, Ibn Iy×s's version of the story does not make the narrative of the runaway slave, the mamlùk and the payment of compensation central to the story.The 'abêd in Ibn Iy×s's account perpetuate violence against one another and, more importantly, against society as a whole.The denouement, in this case, is not a curious tale but a violent act of racial cleansing.
In all three accounts, the slave court is an undefined anomaly.It is the responsibility of an accepted figure of authority, the Sultan, as in the accounts of al-'Aynê and Ibn Iy×s, or one of the ak×bir al-dawla, "the great men of the regime," as in the account of Ibn Taghrêbirdê, to render this anomaly harmless.In the narratives of al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê, the Mamlùk military elite, personified by Sultan Jaqmaq or by one of the grand amirs (ak×bir al-dawla), does not construct the black slaves' actions as subversive.Their "court" is set up on a whim.It is a fashrawê matter, a piece of silliness, a burlesque that is linked in some way to the spring season of pasturage.Despite the fact that the black slave Sultan is destroying the property of Muslims when he executes the other slaves, Sultan Jaqmaq dismisses the bloodshed, "leave them to kill one another."Thus, the slave court is removed from the category of the subversive and the black slaves are relegated to the category of the comic and the expendable.
Ibn Iy×s dramatically alters the existing narrative.The black slaves' mock court is not just a threat but a present danger to the social and political order.When the Mamlùk Sultan finds out about the slave court, he takes it very seriously indeed.In this narrative, he should.The black slaves when they take to highway robbery, violate one of the çudùd (divine laws) of Islam.They pillage farmland, a dangerously disruptive crime in an agrarian economy.They rob travelers of revenue that is due to the state.After the defeat of the black slaves, Sultan Jaqmaq issues a decree that anyone who has an adult male black slave in Cairo should bring him to the Citadel and receive compensation for him.After a large number of black slaves have been assembled, the Sultan then imprisones them and subsequently has them transported to Alexandria and from there sent to Ottoman lands, far away from the domain of the Mamlùks.
We expect accounts of the same event by different historians to vary in detail.But one does not expect such a radical reworking of events as we find in Ibn Iy×s's account of the slave court.All three narratives, especially those of al-'Aynê and Ibn Iy×s, have the literary qualities of a good story.If we assume, however, that there is a historical reality behind these stories, it seems logical to accept the accounts of al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê to be more authoritative than that of Ibn Iy×s.Al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê, unlike Ibn Iy×s, were adults when the slave court was enacted and they both enjoyed a privileged access to the Mamlùk court.
Badr al-Dên al-'Aynê, historian and legal scholar, had close ties with the Mamlùk court. 14Fluent in Turkish, he was the translator and mentor for Sultans al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh, Ía÷ar and Barsbay.In 849/1446, when the slave court was enacted, al-'Aynê simultaneously held the offices of muçtasib, "inspector of the markets," chief Hanafê judge, and superintendent of pious foundations.Given al-'Aynê's intimate ties with the Mamlùk elite, we can presume that he would most likely have had first hand knowledge of an event so out of the ordinary (gharêba jiddan) that it was brought to the notice of the Sultan.
Ibn Taghrêbirdê, al-'Aynê's younger contemporary and his student, was the son of a commander in chief of the Mamlùk army.Ibn Taghrêbirdê's parentage gave him an elite status and access to a range of informants, both from his family and from his father's fellow mamlùk freedmen, his khùshd×shêya.Himself an amêr, Ibn Taghrêbirdê also had ties to the Mamlùk court and was an intimate of more than one Sultan.The historian maintains that he wrote al-Nujùm al-z×hira for Sultan Jaqmaq's son. 15Like al-'Aynê, Ibn Taghrêbirdê was well placed to hear the news of the Sultan's response to the black slave court.It is certainly possible that Ibn Taghrêbirdê derived his narrative from that of his teacher al-'Aynê, for whom he had a high regard; but the differences in detail, the allowance for two possible endings and the hearsay quality of Ibn Taghrêbirdê's account indicate that he may have relied on his own informants.Unlike al-'Aynê, Ibn Taghrêbirdê allows for the possibility that there is more than one possible ending to the story of the mamlùk and the black slave Sultan.
Ibn Iy×s was the grandson and great grandson (on his maternal side) of mamlùk amêrs, but his life, unlike that al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê, is poorly documented.We know little about him, as Brinner points out, outside of what Ibn Iy×s tells us in his own chronicle.This may be due to the "relatively unimportant position" of Ibn Iy×s or, as Brinner posits, to the "decline of historical writing in Egypt."16However, we do know that Ibn Iy×s studied under al-Suyù÷ê.It is hard to believe that Ibn Iy×s, having been trained in history, would have been unaware of the works of such authoritative historians as al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê.Ibn Iy×s even includes a brief biography of the latter in the Bad×'i. 17If so, why did Ibn Iy×s, writing many years after the event, choose to represent the convening of the black slave court as a sinister event?Why does Ibn Iy×s's narrative, unlike those of his predecessors, end with the ruthless punishment of the black slaves in question?Ibn Iy×s's narrative of the slave court reappears in modern scholarship.Bernard Lewis, in what remains the signal monograph on racial attitudes in pre-modern Muslim societies, Race and Slavery in the Middle East, An Historical Enquiry, refers to the incident of the slave court. 18e appears to rely solely on the account of Ibn Iy×s.In a footnote, Lewis does acknowledge the existence of other "slightly variant accounts" but does not comment on their contradictions. 19Lewis also cites Poliak who, in his 1934 article, "Les Révolts populaires en Égypte á l'époque mamelouk et leurs causes économiques," draws exclusively on Ibn Iy×s's version of the story.In the relevant footnote, Poliak also cites Ibn Taghrêbirdê (whose version Poliak does not make use of in the text of his article) but does not comment on the contradictions between the two accounts. 20Ira Lapidus in Muslim Cities in the Late Middle Ages gives an account of the black slave court that is similar to that of Ibn Iy×s.In his footnote, Lapidus cites Ibn Iy×s's Bad×'i' as well as al-Sakh×wê's Dhayl duwal al-isl×m, Ibn Taghrêbirdê's •aw×dith and Ibn al-Éayrafê al-Jawharê's (819/1416-900/1495) Nuzhat al-nufùs wa-l-abd×n fê taw×rêkh al-zam×n.Unfortunately, Lapidus does not specify which source or sources he is drawing on for his own account. 21ore recently, 'Alê al-Sayyid 'Alê, in an essay entitled "Thawrat al-'abêd al-sùd fê l-'aór al-mamlùkê," also makes use of Ibn Iy×s's narrative to further his thesis that the black slaves, resentful of the higher status of white slaves, were staging a real social and political revolution in 849/1446.'Alê maintains that the enactment of the slave court during the season of pasturage was a conscious attempt on the part of the black slaves to strike at the mamlùks who were, of course, dependent on their horses.However, there is no indication in any of the accounts that the black slaves appropriated the horses or did anything to harm them; nor is the Mamlùk Sultan represented as expressing concern for the horses.The latter were presumably let free to graze during the season of pasturage.Since 'Alê does not make use of the accounts of al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê (in which the slave court is not perceived of as revolutionary), his thesis is hard to sustain. 22Ira Lapidus's comments about the slave court are more compelling."Perhaps in the slaves' mind there was magic in imitating the state, not for any political purpose, but to ease the inchoate yearning of men isolated and abandoned to find some solidarity, belonging, and dignity." 23f we follow Ibn Iy×s's narrative, the story of the slave court does indeed fit into the category of a "révolte populaire" in the sense in which Poliak uses the term.The way in which the anomaly of the slave court is resolved demonstrates the futility of such a revolt.More importantly, perhaps, Ibn Iy×s manifests a familiar theme in discourses of racial difference.The black slaves are not only "other," they are the dangerous, criminal other who cross established boundaries and threaten the moral order.
The narratives of al-'Aynê and Ibn Taghrêbirdê and that of Ibn Iy×s show a range of possible responses to transgressive black slaves.In his chronicle, Ibn Iy×s frequently complains about gangs of armed black slaves who engaged in criminal activity in the streets of Cairo.Could Ibn Iy×s's rewriting of an event that took place before he was born have been influenced by the threat the black slave gangs posed in his adulthood?Disruptive gangs of 'abêd had, however, long been a feature of life in fifteenth century Cairo.The Cairene historians of the later Mamlùk period all include accounts of the violent, antinomian actions of the black slave gangs. 24The 'abêd were even known to at-  22 'Alê al-Sayyid 'Alê, "Thawrat al-'abêd al-sùd fê l-'aór al-mamlùkê", al-RafÝ wa-l-ihtij×j fê l-mujtam'a al-miórê fê l-'aór al-'uthm×nê, N×óir Ibr×hêm (ed.), Cairo, 2004, 43-48.The author does make use of the few lines of al-Jawharê's account that exist in the edited version but then goes on to quote Ibn Iy×s whom 'Alê incorrectly describes as "the contemporary historian" (al-mu'arrikh al-mu'×óir). 23Lapidus, Muslim Cities, 172. 24For a discussion of the black slave gangs in the broader context of "lumpen proletariat violence", see Lapidus, Muslim Cities, 170-184.tack the officials responsible for maintaining order, such as the muçtasib. 25The historians complain as frequently, however, and with equal vehemence about the unruly julb×n, the Sultan's recently imported mamlùk recruits who frequently descended from the Citadel barracks to wreak havoc in the city.Both the 'abêd and the julb×n are portrayed as engaging in riots, robbery and assaults.Ibn Iy×s lists the 'abêd, the zu'ar26 and the julb×n as three equally disruptive and antisocial groups. 27Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê (and, for that matter, al-Sakh×wê), also lived in times in which the black slave gangs were perceived to be a threat to the social order.However, unlike Ibn Iy×s, they did not envision a "racial cleansing" in Cairo as the conclusion to the story of the slave court of 849/1446.This does not mean that al-Sakh×wê and al-'Aynê were more willing than Ibn Iy×s to concede agency to a subaltern group.Nor does it mean that they were any less influenced by the racial discourse of Mamlùk society.Unlike Ibn Iy×s, however, the literary strategy of Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê (and perhaps the real strategy of Sultan Jaqmaq), was not the destruction of the slave court but its disempowerment through ridicule.
In all three texts, the appropriation of the symbols and powers of the Sultanate has a carnivalesque quality.The black slaves had indeed turned the world upside down.But it is difficult to relegate this strange event, ç×ditha gharêba, to the category of carnival.As Bakhtinian as the slave court might appear to be, it does not fit comfortably into Bakhtin's definitions of "ritual spectacle."On the one hand, the slave court can indeed be described as a "second world and a second life outside of officialdom," but it is not "organized on the basis of laughter." 28Similarly, unlike most carnivals, the slave court is an isolated event.The black slaves do not parody the Sultan's court every spring when they go out to the verdant pastures near Giza.Although the black slaves do mimic the offices and rituals of the Mamlùk Sultan's court, their mimicry lacks a comedic aspect.Similarly, the slave court does not level hierarchy but soberly reenacts it.The slave court might appear to outsiders as a burlesque (fashrawê), but it is a serious business for the black slaves, some of whom lose their lives.For them, there is no "ritual laughter." The slave Sultan does not resemble the carnival "rulers" of pre-modern Europe. 29Nor does the slave Sultan resemble the amêr nawrùz, the comic "misruler" of the rowdy Cairene festival of Nawrùz. 30In contrast, the slave Sultan is a dignified and powerful personage.He has the power of life and death over his subjects and orders real executions, the manner of which, cutting in half at the waist, mimics the executions ordered by the Mamlùk Sultan. 31Similarly, the slave Sultan, in the account of Ibn Taghrêbirdê, comes to power through real as opposed to symbolic warfare, not unlike many of the Mamlùk Sultans.The slave Sultan has a real army.In al-'Aynê's account, the mamlùk who comes before the slave Sultan as a petitioner says, "I seek a slave here who belongs to me and who has entered your army (dakhala fê 'askarikum)."Like any royal court, the slave court can be understood as a kind of theatre.The slave court is a mimetic enactment of the enactment of the Mamlùk Sultan's court.But the slave court does not, in any way, correspond to the genre of popular theatre in the Mamlùk period, a genre that was not unconnected to carnival.As S. Moreh has demonstrated, the representation of figures of authority (frequently q×Ýês) in popular theatre was always satirical. 32The black slaves who gathered in Giza were not mocking the Sultan's authority, they were reproducing it.

Black Slaves and Carnival in Aydín
An event that is somewhat similar to the black slave court of Giza, but which more neatly fits into the category of "carnival," is a festival of black slaves that apparently took place in Anatolia in the early sixteenth century, during the Ottoman period.According to Soraiya Faroqi, in 938/1576 in the city of Aydín, an order from the Sultan (Mur×d III) notified local officials that black slaves and freedmen were in the habit of assembling on a yearly basis for a raucous festival.Apparently, the black slaves would come together and choose mock officials (a bey, a kadi and a kethüda) and engage in a rowdy celebration for three days.The slaves were accused of a number of disorderly acts.
Overt hostility was expressed against those Africans who refused to participate, and against slave owners who did not permit their slaves to attend.Apart from other iniquitous acts contrary to the seriat, participants in these revelries had apparently murdered local Muslims and stolen sheep and other foodstuffs. 33 the command of the Sultan, masters were to be ordered to forbid their black slaves from participating in this event and black freedmen were to be ordered not to assemble.
Unlike the slave court of Giza, the assembly in Aydín occurs annually and appears to fit more easily into the category of "carnival."Like the slave court, the Aydín festival also involves the mimetic appointment of figures of authority.The slaves of Aydín do not, however, attempt to recreate the Sultan's court.They elect mock local officials who preside over the festivities and disorderly actions.The black slaves of Aydín are also accused of killing local Muslims.In contrast, in the accounts of Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê of the slave court of 849/1446, the black slaves, unlike those of Ottoman Aydin, do not engage in ritualized acts of disorder.They do not riot or pillage and the only individuals they kill, as al-'Aynê indicates, are each other.Ibn Iy×s's account of marauding black slaves is closer to the description of the Aydín festival in that the slaves do engage in acts of violence.However, the violence of the black slaves of Aydín is far less threatening than that of the black slaves of the slave court of Giza.The violence that occurs during the annual festival in Aydín is confined to three days out of the year.In Ibn Iy×s's narrative of the black slave court, the violence of the black slaves is a criminal uprising that is not confined by ritual or by time.

An 'Alid Revolt
If the slave court outside of Mamlùk Cairo is not a "carnival" and is a unique event, can we make sense of it in the context of other examples of transgressive behavior by black slaves in the Mamlùk period?One of the most interesting narratives is set in the early Mamlùk period and presented by al-Maqrêzê (766/1364-845/1442), who was born over a hundred years after the alleged incident.According to al-Maqrêzê, shortly after Sultan Baybars came to power in 658/1259, while Cairo was still subject to the political uncertainty caused by the transition from the Ayyùbids to the Mamlùks, a revolt of blacks (sùd×n), rak×bd×rêya 34 and grooms (ghilm×n) involved a deadly and serious appropriation of authority.This event, as it appears in al-Maqrêzê's narrative, is much more of a révolte populaire of the subaltern than is the slave court of 849/1446 or the Ottoman festival in Aydín.According to al-Maqrêzê, the blacks (sùd×n), the rak×bd×rêya and the grooms revolted (th×rù) and went through the streets of Cairo while shouting "Oh people of 'Alê" (y× ×l 'Alê.)They broke into the shops of the sword makers, armed themselves and then went to the stables of the soldiers (ió÷abl al-ajn×d) and seized horses.
The instigator of the revolt was a man named al-Kùr×nê, of unspecified ethnicity, who was know for his asceticism (zuhd), who carried a rosary (subça) in his hand and lived in a cave in the mountains.The holy man urged the ghilm×n (and, presumably, the sùd×n and rak×bd×rêya) to go against the rulers (ahl al-dawla).He gave the rebels deeds for iq÷×', or Al-Qan÷ara (AQ) XXVIII 2, julio-diciembre 2007, pp.435-464 ISSN 0211-3589 450 SHAUN MARMON 34 The rak×bd×rêya were the servants of the Rak×b Kh×n×h where the tack for the royal horses was kept in the Citadel.According to al-Qalqashandê, the rak×bd×rêya also carried the gh×shêya, a lavishly decorated saddle cloth, before the Sultan during festival processions.See al-Qalqashandê, Kit×b óubç, 4:7, 12. On the gh×shêya see Stowasser, K., "Manners and Customs of the Mamluk Court", Muqarnas, 2 (1984), 19.Stowasser defines rak×bd×rêya as "stirrup holders.""Stable hands" might be a better translation.Even though the rak×bd×rêya do not work in the Royal Stables, these servants care for the horses' tack as stable hands would do.tax farms, just like the ones the mamlùks received from the Sultan.However, according to al-Maqrêzê, the revolt lasted for less than a day.The Mamlùk army was sent out against the rebels and, by morning, they were crucified outside of B×b Zuwayla.The revolt ended, but Sultan Bayb×rs was so shaken that he did not process through Cairo at the end of the year with the emblems of sovereignty, as was the custom. 35his event not only involved "the blacks," whom we can presume were slaves or freed slaves, but the ghilm×n and the rak×bd×rêya, all of whom were subaltern groups who served in low status positions in the Cairo citadel.In terms of their relative status to one another, Ayalon argues that the ghilm×n in the service of the mamlùks were white and freeborn and thus were automatically, by virtue of their skin color, of superior status to the 'abêd. 36This assumption may be problematic since the relative status of black slaves to white low-status servants has not been an object of study.We have seen in Ibn Taghrêbirdê's narrative of the slave court that black slaves ('abêd) could also serve as ghilm×n.However, the status of the ghul×m as a freeborn but low status servant would seem to be supported by al-Qalqashandê who maintains that ghul×m formerly meant "boy" or "slave" but now means a servant who cares for horses and that the ghul×m is called by this name because "of his low status in the eyes of the people." 37However, in al-Maqrêzê's narrative of the revolt of 658/1259, the ghilm×n and rak×bd×rêya are distinguished from the sùd×n, so we can assume that the former were white.
Lewis argues that this revolt was in favor of the F×÷imids. 38However, in 658/1259, some eighty-eight years had elapsed since the fall of the F×÷imid dynasty.The Mamlùks had usurped power from the Ayyùbids.It seems more probable that, at least in al-Maqrêzê's representation, some sort of messianic 'Alid ideology, coupled with the leadership of a charismatic holy man, served as the motivating structure for a popular revolt in which three groups of disadvantaged people united, regardless of skin color. 39he Black Slave as Holy Man Another Mamlùk account, narrated by Ibn Taghrêbirdê, al-Sakh×wê and Ibn Iy×s, tells the story of the subversive actions of a black holy man, a slave or former slave. 40This account is placed, like the narrative of the slave court, during the reign of Sultan Jaqmaq.In Éafar of 854/ 1450, Ibn Taghrêbirdê, who was forty-one at the time of the incident, tells us that the Sultan ordered the governor of Cairo to beat, display and imprison a black slave named Sa'd×n, the slave of the deceased sub-district governor (k×shif), Q×sim. 41Ibn Taghrêbirdê describes Sa'd×n as al-'abd al-mu'taqad, "the black slave who was revered as a holy man." 42The Sultan's orders were carried out.However, the events that preceded the black slave's downfall were unusual enough for Ibn Taghrêbirdê and other historians to narrate them.
The story of this black slave, Ibn Taghrêbirdê tells us, was a strange one (wa-hik×ya hadh× 'abd gharêba).When Sa'd×n's master died, he left money, property and children.The ust×d×r (majordomo) Zayn al-Dên Yaçy× attempted to seize the dead man's property.Sa'd×n, the 'abd of the dead k×shif, repulsed the ust×d×r and spoke harshly to him, "according to the manner of the Sùfês of the Açmadêya." 43Sa'd×n, Ibn Taghrêbirdê tells us, went to extremes and mounted the ust×d×r's platform (dikka).According to some reports, Sa'd×n cursed Zayn al-Dên.According to others, Sa'd×n knocked Zayn al-Dên's turban off of his head.The outraged ust×d×r than sent emissaries to arrest Sa'd×n.However, when these emissaries attempted to seize the black slave, they were stricken with paralysis.Ibn Taghrêbirdê adds an aside here that the story of the paralysis is what was related (qêla) but that he himself had not been able to confirm it from a trustworthy source.Continuing with the narrative, Ibn Al-Qan÷ara (AQ) XXVIII 2, julio-diciembre 2007, pp.435-464 ISSN 0211-3589 Taghrêbirdê tells us that when the ust×d×r heard of the paralysis of his emissaries, he immediately returned the property of the dead man, the 'abd's master.The account of these events spread through the streets of Cairo and Sa'd×n became famous."People came from every side for pilgrimage [to Sa'd×n] and to petition for blessing (baraka)."The sick also came to Sa'd×n to be healed.Eventually, the crowds became so dense that it was practically impossible to approach the holy man.His fame spread to the grand amêrs and to the notables of the regime, the dawla, and they too began to visit Sa'd×n.
According to Ibn Taghrêbêrdê, this situation went on for ten days until Sultan Jaqmaq heard of Sa'd×n's following.The Sultan ordered the governor of Cairo and the amêr Tanibak, the ç×jib al-çujj×b or grand chamberlain, to seize Sa'd×n and have him beaten.However, when these two officials confronted Sa'd×n, the amêr Tanibak was so overcome with fear that he did not dare to approach the holy man.The Sultan, outraged, ordered the exile of Tanibak to Damietta. 44nce again, the Sultan sent the governor of Cairo to seize Sa'd×n, this time accompanied by the eunuch Khushqadam.Sa'd×n was apprehended, beaten and imprisoned.His followers from among the common people assembled outside the gate of the prison in protest and they too were either beaten or imprisoned.On the seventh of Rabê' I, the Sultan ordered the release of Sa'd×n.The latter was told that he could go wherever he wanted but that he could not remain in Cairo. 45l-Sakh×wê, who was twenty-three when the incident took place, states that the black slave came to peoples' attention on the second of Éafar of 854/1450, that his name was Sa'd All×h or Sa'd×n and that he was a freedman ('atêq) of Q×sim the k×shif.In terms of the story of the rapacious ust×d×r, Sa'd×n's confrontation with him and the former's ultimate victory, al-Sakh×wê presents a similar narrative to that of Ibn Taghrêbirdê, although the former places greater emphasis on the slave's desire to protect his master's children.Unlike Ibn Taghrêbirdê, al-Sakh×wê does not specify paralysis as the cause of the failure of the ust×d×r's emissaries but implies some kind of impotence."He [the ust×d×r] sent one of his emissaries to seize him [Sa'd×n] and he [the emissary] could not do it (m× asta÷×')."Al-Sakh×wê also describes the crowds that gathered around Sa'd×n and claims that the large assembly of people, initially riffraff (ghawgh×'), women and turks and ultimately amêrs, officials and jurisprudents, led to "evil deeds [the number of which] only God knows."It was these assemblies and the reprehensible things that went on during them, al-Sakh×wê tells us, that led the Sultan to order the beating and imprisonment of Sa'd×n.In al-Sakh×wê's narrative the officials sent to punish Sa'd×n on the eleventh of Éafar were Tanibak the ç×jib al-çujj×b, the governor of Cairo, the muçtasib J×nibak and the eunuch Khushqadam al-Açmadê.Tanibak hesitated but the others beat Sa'd×n over eighty strokes.Al-Sakh×wê's account also includes the disgrace and exile of Tanibak, the protest of Sa'd×n's supporters outside the door of the prison and their subsequent punishment.In al-Sakh×wê's version, as opposed to that of Ibn Taghrêbirdê, the Sultan ordered Sa'd×n to be crucified and displayed on a camel.This, al-Sakh×wê tells us, greatly distressed Sa'd×n supporters who included most of the common people (al-'aw×mm).However, when Sa'd×n was paraded through the streets to be crucified, a messenger came from the Sultan and rescinded the order.As in Ibn Taghrêbirdê's account, Sa'd×n is told that he may go wherever he pleases but that he can not remain in Cairo.46 Ibn Iy×s, who was less than two years old at the time of the incident, also describes the event as occurring in Éafar of 854/1450.He gives the name of Sa'êd to the slave, omits the story of the attempted confiscation of the dead master's estate and only makes a brief reference to the black slave's renown as a holy man.Ibn Iy×s simply tells us that the 'abd manifested piety (ûahara lahu óal×ç) and that the people, even women, thronged to him.In Ibn Iy×s's account, the reason for the Sultan's anger is that Sa'êd predicted that one of the amêrs would obtain the Sultanate.Jaqmaq sends T×nê Bak 47 and the eunuch Khushqadam al-Açmadê to apprehend Sa'êd and bring him before the Sultan.Sa'êd was apprehended and beaten in the presence of the Sultan.The latter then ordered the 'abd's imprisonment.However, Ibn Iy×s tells us, the Sultan learned that T×nê Bak took pity on Sa'êd (raqqa lahu) and had hesitated to send him to prison.The eunuch Khushqadam then took over and had the slave imprisoned.Ibn Iy×s includes the story of the disgrace and exile of T×nê Bak but makes no reference, unlike Ibn Taghrêbirdê or al-Sakh×wê, to the rioting of Sa'êd's followers.In Ibn Iy×s's narrative, Sa'êd only spends a few days in jail and is then released.There is no mention made of his exile.48 Ibn Iy×s, in this case, presents a story line that is similar to that of his older contemporaries, Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-Sakh×wê.There are, however, some remarkable differences.In the accounts of Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-Sakh×wê, the story of Sa'd×n's confrontation with the ust×d×r, the paralysis or impotence of the latter's deputies and Sa'd×n's ultimate victory over the ust×d×r are the catalysts of the narrative, even if Ibn Taghrêbirdê expresses reservations about accepting the report of paralysis.Both Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-Sakh×wê provide detailed descriptions of the crowds that gather in Sa'd×n's neighborhood, of the special powers that are attributed to him, of the devotion of his followers and of the riot that follows his arrest.Once the narrative is stripped of these elements, as in Ibn Iy×s's account, Sa'd×n's agency is dramatically curtailed.
In all three accounts, however, Sa'd×n's downfall appears to be inevitable.Unlike the anonymous slaves who enacted the slave court of Giza some four years earlier, Sa'd×n is not mimicking figures of authority, he is directly confronting one, an official of the state.Sa'd×n speaks to the ust×d×r like a Sufi of the well known Açmadêya order, thus appropriating for himself a certain kind of religious capital.At the same time, as a loyal freedman, Sa'd×n is displaying the appropriate devotion towards his dead master's children, an expression of the bonds of loyalty that arise out of the clientage of manumission.The actions of the ust×d×r are, after all, unjust.Despite Sa'd×n low status as a black slave or freedman, his piety, miraculous powers and defiance of authority elevate him to the position of a popular saint and legitimize him, at least in the eyes of his numerous followers.
Al-Sakh×wê and Ibn Iy×s give reasons for the Sultan's suppression of Sa'd×n: his subversive prophecy or the reprehensible acts that take place in the crowds that surround him.In contrast, Ibn Taghrêbirdê apparently does not see the need for providing a reason.It is enough that Sa'd×n has attracted a large following.
In the accounts of Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê of the slave Sultan and his court of 849/1446, the actions of the black slaves are not read as subversive by the legitimate authority but as unimportant.However, in all three accounts of the story of Sa'd×n, Sultan Jaqmaq takes direct repressive actions against the black holy man.Like the black slave Sultan and his retinue, Sa'd×n must be transformed and degraded by the Sultan.In Sa'd×n's case, however, this is not done by dismissing his actions as being done on a whim ('al× ÷arêq al-miz×j) or as a burlesque (fashrawê) but by the use of corporal punishment, public humiliation (Ibn Iy×s), imprisonment and exile (Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-Sakh×wê).Unlike the black slave Sultan, Sa'd×n's transgressive behavior occurs, not in the pasturage of Giza, but inside the city of Cairo.His following includes a broad range of the Sultan's subjects, not just black slaves.The devotees of Sa'd×n include people from all social strata, commoners as well as elite.The threat that Sa'd×n poses is rendered even more disturbing by the failures of the ust×d×r Zayn al-Dên and the ç×jib al-çujj×b, Tanibak, both of whom yield to Sa'd×n's charismatic powers.In the case of Tanibak, this high ranking official disobeys a direct order from the Sultan.Sa'd×n has indeed turned the world upside down in a very real way and must be punished, degraded and read as a fraud, someone who, in al-Sakh×wê's words, "claimed piety" (za'ima al-óal×çêya), rather than as a real holy man. 49

Black Slaves and Firearms
Some forty-five to fifty years after the enactment of the slave court and the rise and fall of Sa'd×n, black slaves play a significant role in episodes in the narratives of two historians, one a native of Cairo and the other of Damascus.This time, however, the 'abêd are not appropriating the symbols of authority or claiming access to power through piety.Instead, their royal masters are conferring upon them a new role that can be perceived of as violating the racial hierarchy of Mamlùk military society.Two different Sultans, al-N×óir Muçammad b.Q×'itb×y (901/1496-904/1498) and the last Mamlùk Sultan, al-Ashraf Íùm×nb×y (923/1517) attempted to transform their 'abêd into a corps of infantrymen, armed with arquebuses. 50Armed black slaves, outside the law, were nothing new in Cairo.The 'abêd who are described as engaging in criminal activities in Cairo were armed.However, the official arming of black slaves by the Sultan had not occurred previously in the Mamlùk period. 51In one account, by the Syrian historian Ibn al-•imóê, this introduction of a new role for the black slaves by Sultan al-N×óir was viewed by the white mamlùks as an insult and as a dangerous threat to the racial hierarchy.
David Ayalon in his landmark book, Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom, relies upon the accounts of Ibn Iy×s and of Ibn al-•imóê to prove the racial and technological bias of the mamlùks.According to Ayalon's well known thesis, the Mamlùks' disdain for firearms as well as their hostility to the black arquebusiers led to the Ottoman defeat of the Mamlùks in 1517.Ayalon's firearms thesis has  50 I am following David Ayalon and translating a range of technical terms for firearms as "arquebuses" in the context of the discussion of the black slave corps while acknowledging that these terms may also refer, in some cases, to artillery.See Ayalon, Gunpowder, 67.For a biography of al-N×óir Muçammad b.Q×'itb×y, see Holt, P. M., "al-N×óir Muçammad ibn Q×'itb×y", EI 2 , 7:63a-b.For Íùm×nb×y, see idem, "Íùm×nb×y", EI 2 , 10:621a-622b. 51On the earlier existence of black military slaves in Egypt and Iraq, see Bacharach, J., "African Military Slaves in the Medieval Middle East: the Cases of Iraq (869-955) and Egypt (868-1171)", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 13, 4 (1981), 471-495.During the Mamlùk period, the militias maintained by the sharêfs of Mecca and Madina were composed of Ethiopian slaves.In the semi-autonomous •ij×z, during the Mamlùk period, where so many of the members of the ruling elite were the children of Ethiopian concubines, attitudes towards skin color appear to have been different from those that prevailed among the elite in Mamlùk dominated Egypt and Syria.
52 Irwin, R., "Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Sultanate Revisited", in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.),Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, Boston, 2003, 117-139.Irwin argues that the Mamlùks, from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards, were not, in fact, adverse to firearms."The Mamluk sultanate made significant use of handguns from the late fifteenth-century onwards and it was ahead of the Ottomans and Safavids in doing so."According to Irwin, (p.136) the Mamlùk defeat at Marj D×biq was due, not so much to their failure to use firearms, but to the facts that they were outnumbered, that their eighty year old Sultan and commander died during the battle, that there were bitter tensions between veterans (qar×nisa) and recently imported royal mamlùks (julb×n) and that the Mamlùk cavalry indulged in ill-disciplined looting of Ottoman supplies.Irwin further argues that the Mamlùks were, in fact, well equipped with firearms at Rayd×nêya (p.138).Irwin challenges Ayalon's use of Ibn Zunbul's (d. after 960/1552) dramatic account of the victory of the Ottomans as an authoritative source.recently been challenged by Robert Irwin. 52Given that Ayalon does not resolve the conflicts between the narrative of Ibn Iy×s and that of Ibn al-•imóê, one might argue that there was perhaps more complexity to the story, from a racial perspective, than Ayalon represents.
The ill-fated teenage Sultan, al-N×óir Muçammad ibn Q×'itb×y, introduced a corps of black slave arquebusiers sometime before 903/1498.According to Ayalon, this corps was doomed from the start because of the mamlùks' combined racial and technological hostility.Ayalon asserts, in fact, that the low opinion the mamlùks had of Sultan al-N×óir was due to his introduction of the armed black slave corps as much as to his reputed bad character and to his lack of support among the great amêrs. 53ccording to Ibn Iy×s, in Rabê' II of 903/1498, when Ibn Iy×s was fifty, the young Sultan rode through the streets of Cairo in a lavish procession (mawkib ç×fil).
He placed in front of him drums and horns and black slaves who were firing before him with firearms (nufù÷) after the fashion of the governors of sub-districts (kushsh×f).He has disgraced the honor (çurma) of the kingdom.Never did any of the sons of kings commit such vile deeds as did this al-N×óir. 54 Jum×d× II of the same year, Ibn Iy×s reports that the Sultan ordered that all the shops and residences that faced the streets of Cairo be illuminated with lamps.The Sultan then began riding out with his paternal cousins and "before him were a number of black slaves who were armed with handguns (makh×çil naf÷)."If the Sultan saw anyone in the street, the unfortunate person would have his nose and ears cut off or even be cut in half at the waist.If a shopkeeper had neglected to put up lanterns, the Sultan would have him crucified and oversee the crucifixion himself.A number of people, Ibn Iy×s tells us, were killed in this fashion.
And all of this is frivolity and heedlessness.He (al-N×óir) disgraced the honor of the kingdom in his days.He did not follow the path of past sultans in maintaining the honor of the Sultanate and he behaved like a police captain (wa ó×ra 'al× ÷arêqa walê l-shur÷a). 55-Qan÷ara (AQ) XXVIII 2, julio-diciembre 2007, pp.435-464 ISSN 0211-3589  In the same month in which the Sultan initiated his evening processions, in Ibn Iy×s's narrative, the Sultan's personal guard, the kh×óóakêya, the mamlùks who should have been the most loyal to him, kidnapped and killed one of his favored black slaves, Faraj All×h (muqarriban 'indahu 'il× al-gh×ya), because "at this time they [the mamlùks] were seeking evil against the Sultan because of the deeds (al-af'×l) that he had committed." 56yalon argues that the preceding comments by Ibn Iy×s and the killing of Faraj All×h are representative of a general sense of outrage on the part of the mamlùks at the introduction of firearms and the arming of the despised black slaves. 57However, if we look at the larger narrative, it is hard to tell if Ibn Iy×s's outrage is directed at the privileging of black slaves, the use of firearms or at the Sultan's unjust behavior.When Ibn Iy×s refers to al-N×óir's use of his black arquebusiers in other contexts, such as during his battles against Q×nóùh Khamsmi'a, the historian expresses no criticism. 58Similarly, Ibn Iy×s, repeatedly and without criticism, refers to the use of various kinds of firearms, including cannons, during this civil war.At the same time, as Ayalon notes, Ibn Iy×s repeatedly condemns al-N×óir for his immoral behavior and his injustice.59Ibn Iy×s's comparison of the Sultan's processions to those of a walê l-shur÷a or to a k×shif might imply that the latter functionaries did process with armed black slaves.It might also be that the Sultan's arbitrary acts of injustice were similar to those of a police chief or to those of a governor of a subdistrict.There is no doubt, however, that Ibn Iy×s's descriptions of al-N×óir's processions are meant to portray the young Sultan in a negative light.
When we look at Ayalon's second source, the chronicle of Ibn al-•imóê, we find a dramatically different narrative than that of Ibn Iy×s.The latter initially give us a pejorative description of Sultan al-N×óir's processions with his black arquebusiers.But it is difficult to ascertain the reason for Ibn Iy×s's negative attitude.In the chroni-cle of Ibn al-•imóê, however, we find a well developed and unambiguous story of racial transgression, punishment and the restoration of appropriate hierarchies.
Ibn al-•imóê al-Anó×rê (841/1437-934/1527) was approximately sixty in 903/1498.Unlike Ibn Iy×s, Ibn al-•imóê spent most of his life in his native Syria.In his distinctly different account of the story of the black arbusquiers, 'abêd b×rùdêya in Cairo, he gives Faraj All×h, referred to as "the chief of the black slave arquebusiers in the Citadel" (kabêr al-'abêd al-b×rùdêya bi l-qila'), a prominent role as a representative of the violation of racial and social boundaries.In Ibn al-•imóê's narrative, on the twenty-seventh of Jum×d× II of 903/1498, the Sultan's bestowal of honors on Faraj All×h caused a violent confrontation between his mamlùks and his black slaves.The Sultan married Faraj All×h to a white Circassian concubine who had belonged to his father, Sultan Qa'itb×y (surrêya min sar×rê w×lidihi Q×ytb×y bayÝ×' jarkasêya).The Sultan also presented Faraj All×h with a short sleeved sall×rê tunic, a kind of mamlùk "uniform." 60Outraged, the royal mamlùks armed themselves and did battle with the black slaves (who numbered some five hundred).The 'abêd retreated to the towers of the Citadel and fired on the mamlùks.The latter, however, were victorious and killed fifty of the black slaves, including Faraj All×h.The Sultan was then reprimanded by his maternal uncle (Q×nóùh al-Ashrafê, who was the real power behind the regime) and by the amêrs.They told al-N×óir that if he did not change his ways, they would prefer for him to go into exile with his black slaves.Chastened, the Sultan replied that he would reform and that the black slaves would be sold to the Turcomans. 61bn Iy×s's earlier narrative of the black slave court in Giza in 849/1446 and Ibn al-•imóê's narrative of the defeat of the black slave corps of al-N×óir in 903/1498 share certain structural similarities.Both begin with a scenario in which black slaves threaten the existing moral and social order.Both include a battle in which the mamlùks restore that order by defeating the black slaves.Both narratives con- clude with the Sultan arranging for the black slaves to be sent/sold to a faraway place.One of the important differences, however, is in the representation of the figure of the Sultan.In Ibn Iy×s's account of the slave court, Sultan Jaqmaq is not himself a transgressor.He does nothing to call into question the racial and social hierarchy of Mamlùk military culture.Instead, Jaqmaq, like a good ruler, recognizes the threat posed by the black slaves and acts quickly to neutralize that threat.In contrast, Sultan al-N×óir, in Ibn al-•imóê's story of the black arquebusiers, himself crosses appropriate boundaries and creates a crisis by inappropriately bestowing a mamlùk uniform and a white, Circassian bride on a black slave.In this story, it is not the Sultan, but the mamlùks themselves, acting on their own, who set things right.As representatives of the normative order, the mamlùks then reproach their ruler and force him to remove the transgressive black slaves from Cairo.
When we compare Ibn Iy×s's account of the processions of the black slave corps in 903/1498 to that of Ibn al-•imóê's, the racial discourse of Ibn Iy×s seems to be very different from that of Ibn al-•imóê.The only feature that the two narratives have in common is the death of Faraj All×h.But the reasons given for his death are very different.It is only in Ibn al-•imóê's account that Faraj All×h is the chief of the black slave corps.The sall×rê tunic (mamlùk uniform), the white Circassian slave girl, the battle between mam×lêk and 'abêd and the selling off of the black slaves do not appear in Ibn Iy×s's narrative.
Unlike Ibn al-•imóê, Ibn Iy×s was actually a resident of Cairo.The portion of Ibn Iy×s's chronicle that covers the years of his adulthood is exceptionally detailed.It seems highly unlikely that Ibn Iy×s would fail to mention a battle between black slaves and mamlùks that occurred when he was fifty.It is certainly possible that Ibn al-•imóê created the narrative of the battle with the black slave arquebusiers, as Ibn Iy×s may have done in the case of the black slave court, in order to reassure his audience that some social, racial and political boundaries were, in the long run, impermeable.Ibn Iy×s's descriptions of the processions of Sultan al-N×óir are clearly hostile to the Sultan.Do these descriptions also represent Mamlùk outrage at the presence of the black slave arquebusiers?The same historian's representations of the black slave arquebusiers under Sultan Íùm×nb×y (r.922-3/1516-17) further complicates the reading of their prior representation under Sultan al-N×óir.When he described al-N×óir's processions, Ibn Iy×s accuses the young Sultan of having "disgraced the honor of the kingdom."In contrast, Ibn Iy×s repeatedly praises Íùm×nb×y 62 and describes in detail his twice weekly-processions through Cairo as na'ib al-ghayba, at the time when Íùm×nb×y was the de facto Sultan."In front of him there were a great number from the army and from the high ranking amêrs (al-umar×' al-muqaddamên) and before him there were [also] his emissaries and the black slave arquebusiers who were firing shots from their handguns." 63On another occasion, Ibn Iy×s refers specifically to the 'abêd naf÷êya marching in procession with Íùm×nb×y's mamlùks. 64Ibn Iy×s also refers to the black slaves again when he describes the parade of the expeditionary force that Íùm×nb×y prepared for the battle of Rayd×nêya. 65In his description of the battle, Ibn Iy×s tells us that after the disorderly retreat of the Mamlùk army, Íùm×nb×y stood his ground with only a small number of his mamlùks and 'abêd and continued to fight the Ottomans. 66Thus, in this narrative by Ibn Iy×s, the majority of the mamlùks behave in a cowardly fashion and desert their Sultan.It is the Sultan's loyal mamlùks and black slaves who stay by his side and continue to fight.
Ayalon comments on what he perceives to be a changing attitude towards firearms represented by Ibn Iy×s between the reigns of al-N×óir and of Íùm×nb×y. 67But what about racial attitudes?As we have seen above, Ibn Iy×s's apparent opposition to the black arquebusiers of al-N×óir could be based less on his odium towards black slaves and firearms and more on his hostility towards the son of Q×'itb×y. 68Clearly, for Ibn Iy×s, the figure of authority who armed the black slaves (Íùm×nb×y vs. al-N×óir) was more important than the act of arming them itself.For Ibn al-•imóê, in contrast, the empowerment of Faraj All×h by al-N×óir was not just an example of al-N×óir's iniquity.It was also the catalyst of a story of the reversal of racial hierarchy (including a threat to sexual boundaries) that must be put right through violence and expulsion.
Why did Ibn Iy×s view the black arquebusiers of his adulthood as less of a threat than he did the 'abêd who set up the slave court in Giza before he was born?The answer may lie in the context of the danger represented by the black slave court versus that represented by the black arquebusiers.The arquebusiers, unlike the black slave Sultan and his retinue, did not exercise their own agency nor did they appropriate symbols of authority.Any elevation of their status that came with bearing arms was granted by their master, the Sultan.In Ibn Iy×s's account of the armed black infantry during the brief reign of Sultan Íùm×nb×y, there is no implication that the Sultan uses his black slaves to violate a social and racial hierarchy.Ibn Iy×s's negative attitude towards the processions of Sultan al-N×óir seems to be consistent with the historian's outrage at the arbitrary cruelty of al-N×óir himself.But in no way does Ibn Iy×s indicate that he sees the black arquebusiers, even under al-N×óir, as presenting the kind of danger that the black slave court presented.For Ibn Iy×s, the black slaves court's mimetic enactment of the legitimate Sultan's court was far more subversive than was the arming of black slaves by their royal masters.
By looking at different and differing Mamlùk narratives of transgressive black slaves, I have tried to demonstrate the complexity both of the narratives themselves and of the social milieu from which they emerged.In each of these accounts, the black slaves become sites for the exploration of questions of race, authority and legitimacy.The ways in which the various authors represent and attempt to resolve these questions in their historical works are by no means uniform and frequently offer conflicting truth claims.The dramatic differences that we find, for example, between Ibn Iy×s's representation of the events in Giza in Dhù al-•ijja of 849/1498 and the representations of those same events by Ibn Taghrêbirdê and al-'Aynê, should make us cautious, as modern historians, about uncritically approaching Mamlùk chronicles as repositories of facts.These disparate accounts of the same event, if they are read together, may allow us to make some kind of judgment about a histori-cal reality.More importantly perhaps, the cross reading of these texts gives us a window into understanding the different ways in which educated people of the Mamlùk period understood the relative danger posed by a subaltern group, the 'abêd.