Ahmad b. Ali, who bears the nicknames al-Mahalli (with reference to his native town al-Mahalla al-kubra in Lower Egypt), al-Shafii, al-Munajjim (the astrologer), and al-Rammal (the geomancer), is commonly referred to “Ibn Zunbul”. However, many manuscripts suggest the reading “Ibn Zanbal.”
An old historiographical tradition depicts I.Z. as a member of the inner circle of Mamluk sultan Qansuh al-Gawri (r. 906-922/1501-16) and as a witness of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 923/1517. C. Brockelmann refers to I.Z. as a “civil servant at the war division” indicating that he was receiving a salary from the diwan al-jaysh under al-Gawri. F. Babinger and, following him, S.M. Es-Seyyid and E. İhsanoğlu depict him as the astrologer of the sultan, who attended the latter’s military campaigns. M.M. Ziyadeh describes him as a contemporary of Ibn Iyas (d. shortly after 29 Zilhicce 930/28 October 1524) and states that he received a salary from the Ottoman army office (diwan al-jaysh) in 951/1544. Although all these authors agree that I.Z. must have died after 960/1552, D. Behrens-Abouseif argues that he lived much later and composed his chronicle at the beginning of the 17th century.
Since Brockelmann, Babinger and Ziyadeh do not cite their sources, it is difficult to ascertain the origins of their arguments. The idea that I.Z. followed al-Gawri at war certainly comes from the fact that his chronicle describes in detail the sultan’s expedition in 922/1516, even though there is no proof that he was then following the Mamluk army, especially since he was clearly not the geomancer whom, in his chronicle, al-Gawri consults in order to know who will rule after himself. The first person narrative style he employs on at least one occasion in the text does not imply that he was an eye-witness to the events but is intended to give more authority to his own account. Moreover, the reference in his great encyclopedia Qanun al-dunya to a dream in which the ghost of al-Gawri appears to him and justifies his political deeds can be considered a hint that the sultan never actually spoke to him. Finally, one should not trust the later Turkish chronicles depicting I.Z. as a contemporary of al-Gawri. In his Turkish adaptation of I.Z.’s chronicle, completed in 1038/1628 or shortly thereafter, Ahmed Süheyli depicts him as the geomancer and astrologer of al-Gawri, and it is him that the sultan consults in order to know who will be his successor. Ta’rih-i Misr, which Hallaq completed in 1130/1717 or shortly after, argues the same way. The idea that I.Z. was a contemporary of al-Gawri, therefore, appears to have developed during the 17th-18th centuries, although it did not appear in 16th-century sources.
On the basis of the general character of the account as well as the attribution of the title of qa’immaqam to Osman Beg, who was the provisional governor of Egypt in 1012/1604, D. Behrens-Abouseif dates the chronicle to the beginning of the 17th century. However, the fact that the first argument is vague, and the reference to Osman Beg is a later addition to the original text leaves no reason to think that I.Z. was still alive at the beginning of the 17th century. Yet, Behrens-Abouseif is right in suggesting that I.Z. practiced divination after the rule of al-Gawri: she refers to a passage from Hallaq’s Ta’rih-i Misr in which Mahmud Paşa, the governor of Egypt (gov. 973-975/1566-67), consults I.Z. after a terrible nightmare. Although Hallaq gives I.Z.’s Qanun al-dunya as his source, the fact that the latter was written before 970/1563, makes it more likely that his source was the Turkish adaptation of the text completed by qadi Abdurrahman in 983/1575.
Mahmud Paşa was not the only governor of Egypt I.Z. served. His employers included Husrev Paşa (gov. 941-943/1535-36) as well as others in much later periods. Both in Qanun al-dunya and Kitab al-maqalat fi [or: wa] hall al-mushkilat, one of his geomancy treatises, he states that he sojourned in Istanbul on two occasions. During his first stay (Rebiülevvel 944/August-September 1537 until 945/1538), I.Z. displayed his talent as a geomancer to the chancellor (nişancı) Celalzade Mustafa (d. 975/1567). His entrance in the Ottoman power circles was probably facilitated by his good relations with al-Gawri’s son Muhammad, who had developed a friendship with Selim I (r. 918-926/1512-20) in Egypt in 923/1517, and was brought to Istanbul by him. Although Muhammad returned to Egypt in the company of the Grand Vizier İbrahim Paşa (d. 942/1536) in 931/1525, he was again in Istanbul in 945/1538, giving the two Egyptians the opportunity to see each other in the Ottoman capital.
I.Z. went to Istanbul for a second time in 962/1554-55. He states that he was, just like in 944-945/1537-38, hosted by Ahmed, who was the agha of the janissaries during I.Z.’s first visit and grand vizier during the second. This fact indicates that it was Qara Ahmed Paşa, the “conqueror of Temeşvar” (Temeşvar fatihi), who was put to death on 14 Zilkade 962/28 September 1555.
The Turkish adaptation of the Qanun al-dunya indicates that I.Z. was still alive between 981-983/1573-75 when Abdurrahman composed it as the latter claims to have worked at the request of Murad, who was prince before ascending the Ottoman throne in 982/1574. I.Z. was obviously known in the Ottoman court since his first visit in Istanbul, and perhaps even from earlier on.
Although it is not clear whether I.Z. began to work on Infisal al-awan in Egypt or in Istanbul, and when he finished it, it is known that he was working on it while in Istanbul in 945/1538. Devoted to the Ottoman-Mamluk war of 922-923/1516-17, Infisal opens with the departure of the Mamluk army from Cairo (Qahire) in Rebiülahir 922/May 1516, narrates the tensions within the Mamluk camp, describes the escalation of the conflict with the Ottomans, and culminates with the victory of Selim I and the death of al-Gawri in Marj Dabiq (Mercidabıq) in Receb 922/August 1516. This section constitutes approximately one-sixth of the text, while the description of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt, defended by the new Mamluk sultan Tomanbay (r. Ramazan 922-Rebiülevvel 923/October 1516-April 1517) makes up two-thirds of the work. After the conquest, the description of events becomes much more succinct, even though the chronicle gives much detail about the 927/1520-21 revolt of Janbirdi al-Gazali (d. 927/1521), a Mamluk emir who had been appointed Ottoman governor of Damascus (Şam). The Ottoman victory over the Knights of Rhodes in 929/1522, thanks to the help of Egyptian troops, is quickly related. This appears to be the original end of the work, although very short notes bring some manuscripts up to the governorship of Ali Paşa (956-961/1549-53). Except for a very limited number of important events, such as al-Gawri’s departure for Syria, the Battle of Marj Dabiq, the election and hanging of Tomanbay, the death of Selim I, and the death of Janbirdi al-Gazali, Infisal almost never gives dates. Furthermore, the chronological organization is shaky: on various occasions the text returns to the past or jumps into the future.
The chronological weakness is not surprising if one considers that the text concerns itself with “high deeds” rather than events: it is a “romance of chivalry.” Infisal tells with unending detail of the heroic charges of the Mamluk cavalry and of the Ottoman counterattack with the use of artillery. Solemn proclamations, sometimes insulting the enemy, are made on the battlefield. Combat carries over to the Ottoman imperial council and turns into debate, where brave Mamluks, such as the amirs Shadbak (d. 923/1517) and Kurtbay al-Wali (d. 923/1517), and Sultan Tomanbay, who were held prisoners by the Ottomans and were awaiting their upcoming death, then face Selim I in a last confrontation, this time a verbal one: the debate centers on the legitimacy of war and power. Thus the epic feeds political polemic. Infisal opposes two methods of fighting, two political systems, two civilizations; the confrontation is awe-inspiring and total. I.Z. takes neither the Mamluk nor the Ottoman side, but rebukes at length the Mamluk amirs Hayrbak (d. 928/1522) and Janbirdi al-Gazali as traitors responsible for the Ottoman victory.
This work is one of fiction as much as of history, and U. Haarmann saw it as the end product of the Literarisierung process taking place in Arabic historiography during the last centuries of the middle ages. In a recent study Robert Irwin went further and considered I.Z. not as a historian proper, but as a historical novelist, maybe the Arab world’s first true one: he noted Infisal’s “readiness to sacrifice factual accuracy to narrative drive.” I.Z.’s imagination no doubt played an essential part in the composition of the text. I.Z. does obviously not rely on any written source, but claims to have been inspired by Muhammad b. al-Gawri, when he states in Qanun al-dunya that “It is because of Sayyidi Muhammad, son of the sultan al-Malik Qansuh al-Gawri that I wrote” Infisal al-awan. It is in the same text that I.Z. states that he paid little attention to the testimony, which is hostile to al-Gawri, of Ali, son of the sultan al-Mu’ayyad Ahmad (r. 865/1461), whom he met during his first visit to Istanbul. However, in Infisal, he mentions as informants the qadi Asil al-Tawil, who knew Tomanbay, and the Mamluk amir Arazmak Nashif (d. 930/1524), besides, of course, Muhammad b. al-Gawri (d. ?).
I.Z.’s text was a major success. No other narrative of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt had such an audience during the Ottoman period, and it is only in the 20th century that Ibn Iyas’s Bada’i al-zuhur exceeded its fame. There are eight manuscripts of the chronicle in Paris, five in Gotha and, in total, dozens of manuscripts copied between the 17th and the 19th centuries. There seems to be no manuscript clearly datable to the 16th century, or any manuscript bearing the title Infisal al-awan wa ittisal dawlat Bani Utman (Separation of the Moments and the Advent of the Fortune of the Ottoman Family), which is only known through I.Z.’s encyclopedia. The manuscripts bear various, and even contradictory, titles: Ta’rih Misr al-mahrusa (History of the Well-Protected Cairo); Fath Misr (Conquest of Cairo); Ta’rih Gazawat sultan Salim Han ma al-sultan al-Gawri (Wars of Sultan Selim Khan against Sultan al-Gawri); Waqiat al-Gawri huwa wa’l-sultan Salim (War of al-Gawri and of Sultan Selim); Waqiat al-sultan Salim (War of Sultan Selim); Kitab Sirat al-Jarakisa wa ma waqaa baynahum ma al-sultan Salim Han (Romance of the Circassians: What Happened Between them and Sultan Selim Khan). Such contradictions should be attributed to the strength of a text that is both history (ta’rih) and romance (sira), depicting both the Mamluk and the Ottoman sides.
The number of the manuscripts gives only a partial idea of the text’s popularity, as it was also orally transmitted. I.Z. appears in the text on many occasions: “the historian said” (qala al-mu’arrih), “the author said” (qala al-mu’allif), “the narrator said it excellently” (wa laqad ajada al-qa’il), “the transmitter reported” (qala al-rawi, qala al-naqil). These are probably the words of professional storytellers. Furthermore, the language of the work is not literary, but rather stands halfway between written and spoken language. Action is often expressed not with verbs, but rather through active participles, following the practice of Arabic dialects. It is likely, therefore, that the extant manuscripts are oral versions which were written down in order to be, at a later point, once again used for the oral performance of the story. The conditions of transmission of this chronicle are probably similar to those, in the 18th century, of the “military” chronicles (or “chronicles of al-Damurdashi group”), and the latter indeed share some of the stylistic characteristics of Infisal. Yet it would be a mistake to consider Infisal as the first “military” chronicle, since it is the work of a very cultured man of letters who had ties with the Egyptian Paşas and the Ottoman court, rather than that of a low-ranking officer.
I.Z.’s chronicle has been used by Arabic Egyptian chroniclers Ibn Abi’l-Surur and al-Jabarti (d. 1241/1825-26). Ahmed Süheyli adapted it into Turkish, adding a very short extension (zeyl) down to 1038/1628. The Turkish adaptation by Süheyli, under the title Ta’rih-i Misr-i cedid, was printed by İbrahim Müteferriqa in Istanbul in 1142/1730. Hallaq’s Ta’rih-i Misr, the most complete manuscript of which brings the narrative down to 1130/1717, gives a Turkish adaptation of I.Z.’s chronicle when it discusses the Ottoman conquest of Egypt. Babinger points out one further Turkish adaptation of I.Z.’s chronicle, that of Yusuf Milevi, although it is quite possible, as J. Hathaway suggested, that Hallaq and Milevi (or Mallawi, or Mallawani) are indeed the same man. One should finally point out that the narrative of the Ottoman conquest of Egypt the Jewish Cairene chronicler Yosef Sambari provides in his Hebrew chronicle, which he completed in 5433 anno mundi/1673, is a shortened version of Infisal.
I.Z. is the author of a geographical encyclopedia written in three stages. Having began with the oldest and shortest version entitled Muhtasar al-jugrafiya, I.Z. later expanded this work into Tuhfat al-muluk wa’l-raga’ib li-ma fi l-barr wa-l-bahr min al-aja’ib wa’l-gara’ib, and finally wrote the most complete version, Qanun al-dunya. Bringing together a wide array of information, the work not only integrates geographical data with historical knowledge pertaining to the places described, but also devotes significant space to astronomy and the explanation of phenomena using geomancy. Among numerous treatises on occult sciences, primarily on geomancy, I.Z. composed Kitab al-maqalat fi [or: wa] hall al-mushkilat, which he completed before the death of Süleyman I in 974/1566.
1) Infisal al-awan wa ittisal dawlat Bani Utman
Manuscripts: A list of more than 30 manuscripts is given by Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1937-49 [first edition: 1898-1902], vol. 2, 298, Supplementband 2, 409. The present writer omitted some references he could not check while adding others:
(1) Alexandria, University Library, collection of Dr. Atia Sorial (according to Amir, Ahirat al-mamalik, 74). [not mentioned in Fihrist mahtutat jamiat al-Iskandariya (Cairo, 1994), 2 vols]. (2) Cairo, Dar al-kutub, Ta’rih 44/2, 208 fol., dated 1068/1657. (3) Cairo, Dar al-kutub, Ta’rih -m 124, 18 fol. (4) Cairo, Dar al-kutub, Ta’rih 129, 126 fol. (5) Cairo, Dar al-kutub, Ta’rih Taymur 376, 237 fol., 16 lines, taliq, dated 1065/1654. (6) Cairo, Dar al-kutub, Ta’rih Taymur 714, 303 pages, 15 lines, dated 1209/1795. (7) Cairo, Dar al-kutub, Ta’rih Taymur 1776 (Fihrist al-kutub al-arabiya al-mahfuza bi-l-kutubhana al-hidiwiya al-misriya, vol. 5 (Cairo, 1308/1890-1891), 21, 23, 174 ; Amir, Ahirat al-mamalik, 73-74). (8) Cambridge, University Library, Or. 175/Qq 136, 52 fol., 26 lines, taliq, not dated. (Edward G. Browne, A Hand-list of the Muhammadan manuscripts including all those written in the Arabic character preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1900), 29). (9) Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, Ar. 5272, 80 fol., dated 1075/1664. (Arthur J. Arberry, The Chester Beatty Library. A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts, (Dublin, 1964), vol. VII, 87). (10) Glasgow, University Library, Or. 155, 136 fol., 19 lines, dated 1028/1619. (J. Young and P. Henderson Aitken, A catalogue of the manuscripts in the library of the Hunterian Museum in the University of Glasgow (Glasgow, 1908), 477). (11) Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Ar. 1669, 187 fol., 11 lines, nash. (12) Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Ar. 1670, 87 fol., 25 lines, taliq. (13) Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Ar. 1671, 101 fol., 20-23 lines, nash. (14) Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Ar. 1672, 69 fol., 21 lines, nash. (15) Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Ar. 1673, 39 fol., 23 lines. (Wilhelm Pertsch, Die Arabischen Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha (Gotha, 1881), 275-277). (16) Hyderabad, Oriental Manuscripts Library and Research Institute (formerly Asafiya Library). (C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1937-1949) [first edition 1898-1902], Supplementband 2, 409, seems to refer to Kutubhana-i Asafiya-i Sarkar-i Ali (Hyderabad, 1308/1900), I, 186 (312). (17) Leiden, University Library, 980/2619 (Cod. 1684). (M. J. de Goeje, Catalogus codicum orientalium bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae, vol. 5 (Leiden, 1873), 205; M. J. de Goeje and Th. W. Juynboll, Catalogus codicum orientalium bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae, editio secunda (Leiden, 1907), 97). (18) London, British Museum, Sup. 565 (Or. 3031), 46 fol., 23 lines, nash, dated 1156/1743. (19) London, British Museum, Sup. 566/1 (Or. 2811/1), fol. 2b-88a, 19 lines, nash, dated probably 17th c. (Charles Rieu, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1894), 355-56). (20) Manchester, John Rylands Library, Ar. 275, 130 fol., 15 lines, nash, dated 1241/1825. (A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, Manchester (Manchester, 1934), col. 438-440). (21) Medina, Arif Hikmat Library, Ta’rih 97, 102 fol., double columns of 21 lines, nash (Ahmad Farid al-Mazidi (ed.), Ta’rih Gazwat al-sultan Salim ma Qansuh al-Guri, ta’lif Ahmad b. Ali b. Zunbul (Beirut, 2004), 6). (22) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Ar. 411, 139 fol., 15 lines, dated 1034/1625. (23) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Ar. 412, 10 fol., 21 lines, dated 1053/1643. (24) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Ar. 413, 93 fol., 23 lines, dated 1081/1670.(25) Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Ar. 414, 25 fol., 34-36 lines, dated 1081/1670. (Joseph Aumer, Die Arabischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen (Munich, 1866), 164-166). (26) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bruce 21, dated 1083/1673. (27) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1832, fol. 1-117b, 17-19 lines, one script from 17th c., the other from 1198/1783-84. (28) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1833, 139 fol., 17 lines, dated 1030/1620-21. (29) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1834, 168 fol., 13 lines, dated 1066/1655-56. (30) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1835, 81 fol., 21 lines, dated 1083/1672. (31) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1836, 194 fol., 17 lines, dated 1179/1765-66. (32) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1837, 73 fol., 25 lines, dated 1186/1772-73. (33) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 1838, 132 fol., 14 lines, dated 1809. (34) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 4612, 117 fol., 23 lines, dated 1264/1848. (35) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Ar. 5818, fo. 1-65b, dated 1265/1848-49. (De Slane, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes de la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris, 1883), 332-333; E. Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Nouvelles acquisitions (Paris, 1925), 120). (36) Patna/Bankipur, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, 1074, 83 fol., 19 lines, nash, dated 1114/1703. (Maulavi Muinuddin Nadwi, Catalogue of the Arabic and Persian Manuscripts in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore, vol. XV (Arabic MSS.), History (Calcutta and Patna, 1929), 157-58.) (37) Rampur, Raza Library, 4400, 99 fol., 21 lines, nash, dated before 1129/1716 (Imtiyaz Ali Arshi, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in Raza Library, Rampur, vol. VI History, Biography Travels and Geography (Rampur, 1977), 96-97.) (38) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Or. 928, 80 fol., 21 lines, nash, dated 1109/1697. (39) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Or. 929, 80 fol., 13 lines, nash. (40) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Or. 930, 60 fol., 11 lines, nash. (Gustav Flügel, Die Arabischen, Persischen und Turkischen Handschriften der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien (Vienna, 1865), vol. 2, 156-57.) (41) Yale, University Library, Ar. 1329, 85 fol., dated 1753. (Leon Nemoy, Arabic Manuscripts in the Yale University Library (New Haven, 1956), 142).
The Institute of Arabic Manuscripts of the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (Cairo), has microfilms of several MSS from Dar al-kutub (Cairo), the Coptic Patriarchate and Raza Library (Rampur).
Editions: (1) Ta’rih al-sultan Salim Han b. al-sultan Bayazid Han ma Qansuh al-Guri sultan Misr wa-amaliha (Cairo, 1278/1861-62). Lithographic edition. (2) Abdulmunim Amir (ed.). Ahirat al-mamalik aw waqiat al-sultan al-Gawri ma Salim al-Utmani, ta’lif Ibn Zunbul, al-shayh Ahmad al-rammal (Cairo, 1962). Republished with a foreword by Abdurrahman al-Shayh (Cairo, 1998). (3) Ahmad Farid al-Mazidi (ed.). Ta’rih gazwat al-sultan Salim ma Qansuh al-Guri, ta’lif Ahmad b. Ali b. Zunbul (Beirut, 2004).
Translations: (1) Ahmed Süheyli. Ta’rih-i Misr-i cedid (Istanbul, 1142/1730) [Turkish translation]. French translation of the Turkish translation by Avenel de Beauville  in Ahmed Süheyli. Ta’rih-i Misr-i cedid. Ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Supplément Turc 839, f. 1-403a. (2) J.-P. Tercier [1754?]. Histoire de la conquête de l’Egypte par le sultan Sélim, traduite de l’arabe. Ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Français 22494 [French translation].
General bibliography: Carl Brockelmann. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1937-1949) [first edition 1898-1902], vol. 2, 43, 298-99, Supplementband 2, 409-10. Franz Babinger. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (Leipzig, 1927), 56-58, 162. Herbert Jansky. “Die Chronik des Ibn Tulun als Geschichtsquelle über den Feldzug Sultan Selims I. gegen die Mamluken.” Der Islam, 18 (1929), 24-33. Mohammed Mostafa Ziyadeh. al-Mu’arrihun fi Misr fi l-qarn al-hamis ashar al-miladi (al-qarn al-tasi al-hijri) (Cairo, 1949), 55, 75-76. David Ayalon. Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom: A Challenge to a Mediaeval Society (London, 1956), 86-97. Muhammad Anis. Madrasat al-tarih al-misri fi l-asr al-utmani (Cairo, 1962), 18. André Raymond. “Essai de géographie des quartiers de résidence aristocratique au Caire au XVIIIe siècle.” JESHO, 6/1 (1963), 58-103, 63-65. Muhammad Sayyid Kilani. Al-Adab al-misri fi zill al-hukm al-utmani 922-1220 / 1517-1805 (Cairo, 1984) [first edition 1965], 297-99. Peter M. Holt. “Ottoman Egypt (1517-1798): An Account of Arabic Historical Sources.” Studies in the History of the Near East, ed. Peter M. Holt (London, 1973), 153 [first edition in Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt, ed. Peter M. Holt (London, 1968)]. Ulrich Haarmann. Quellenstudien zur frühen Mamlukenzeit (Freiburg im Br., 1970), 165. Felix Klein-Franke. “The Geomancy of Ahmad b. Ali Zunbul. A study of the Arabic corpus hermeticum.” Ambix, 20/1 (1973), 26-35. Barbara Flemming. “Drei türkische Chronisten im osmanischen Kairo.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3-4 (1979-1980), 227-235. Jane Hathaway. “Sultans, Pashas, Taqwims, and Mühimmes: A Reconsideration of Chronicle-Writing in Eighteenth Century Ottoman Egypt.” Eighteenth Century Egypt. The Arabic Manuscript Sources, ed. Daniel Crecelius (Claremont, 1990), 51-77. Doris Behrens-Abouseif. Egypt’s Adjustment to Ottoman Rule. Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo 16-17th centuries (Leiden, 1994), 9, 134-36. Benjamin Lellouch. “Ibn Zunbul, un Égyptien face à l’universalisme ottoman (seizième siècle).” Studia Islamica, 79 (1994), 143-55. Anonymous. “İbn Zunbul.” Osmanlı Astronomi Literatürü Tarihi, ed. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (Istanbul, 1997), vol. 1, 183-84. Seyyid Muhammed Es-Seyyid. “İbn Zünbül.” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 20 (1999), 474-76. Anonymous. “İbn Zunbul.” Osmanlı Coğrafya Literatürü Tarihi, ed. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (Istanbul, 2000), vol. 1, 28-29. Jane Hathaway. A Tale of Two Factions. Myth, Memory and Identity in Ottoman Egypt and Yemen (Albany, 2003), 127-28. Benjamin Lellouch. Les Ottomans en Égypte. Historiens et conquérants au XVIe siècle (Paris, 2006), 241-248, 273-278. Robert Irwin. “Ibn Zunbul and the Romance of History.” Writing and Representation in Medieval Islam. Muslim Horizons, ed. Julia Bray (London - New York, 2006), 3-15.