Discussion regarding Bada'i' al-zuhur fi waqa'i' al-duhur from the Encyclopedia of Islam
In the first published versions
in three volumes (Cairo, 1301-06/1884-88; reprinted
Bulak, 1311-12/1894), the history of Egypt from the
beginning to the year 815/1412 is covered in the first
volume, the second deals with the years 815-9o6/
1412-1501, the end of the reign of al-'Adil Tuman
Bay, and the third with the years 922-8/1516-22,
the reign of the last Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf
Tuman Bay, omitting the reign of Sultan al-Ghawri
(906-21/1501-15). This brief resume both indicates the
disproportionate coverage allotted to various periods
and points to the problem whether the entire work
is to be attributed to Ibn lyas. The account of al-Ghawri's reign, while missing from the manuscripts
on which the Cairo - Bulak editions were based, is
found in other manuscripts and was included in a
re-edition of the parts of the work dealing with the
years 872-928/1467-1522, i.e., that period of which
Ibn lyas was an eyewitness observer (3 vols. ed. by
P. Kahle, M. Mostafa, M. Sobernheim, Bibliotheca
Islamica, v, 1931-39; revised ed., M. Mostafa, 1960-
63). While earlier portions of the work (from the
reign of Ka'it Bay) are written in a brief, almost
vernacular style, the final section, from 922/1516
onwards, is not only fuller and more detailed, but
also more finished and polished in style, leading K.
Vollers (in Revue d'Egypte, 1895, 544-73) to the
conclusion that Ibn lyas may not have been the
author of this later section, a view disputed by M.
Sobernheim (El1, ii, 414), who saw in this difference
in style the possible conflation of two versions or the
combination of a personal diary with a court circular.
These later portions include detailed reports on life
in Cairo, especially at the Mamluk court, obituaries
of famous men, poems (many of them by the author)
in honour of scholars as well as men in power,
accounts of civil calamities, records of prices and
market trends, as well as details on causes celebres
of the day. The work is of great value, therefore, on
a number of levels. As an eyewitness account, and,
moreover, by a writer close to the ruling circles,
it is similar to the work of Ibn Taghribirdi half
a century earlier, although Ibn lyas certainly
lacks the historical sense and the style of the earlier
author. It is of great value as an attempt by a contemporary observer to evaluate and explain the
defeat of the Mamluks by the Ottoman Turks. The
author is highly critical of Sultan al-Ghawri, whom
he blames for the financial plight of the state, and
seems aware that corrupt administration, internecine
strife in Mamluk circles, and the neglect of artillery
all contributed to the Mamluk defeat. Finally, the
language of portions of the text, reflecting the vernacular in Cairo of the author's day, is of value to
students of Arabic dialectology.
