Having obtained these dates, we have first to observe that to fill up the period from Ayúma to Dhu Yazan, the presumed ancestor of the Séfuwa, and even known as such to Abú'l Fedá as well as to Makrízi, and whose age (as being that of a man who predicted the coming of the prophet) is fixed beyond all doubt, only six generations are left. This is the circumstance which I mentioned above as speaking greatly in favor of the authenticity of this chronicle and its genealogies, even with regard to the more remote times; for, if it had not been necessary to preserve scrupulously a well-established line of succession, how easy would it have been to introduce a few more individuals in order to fill up this blank, as has been done in the other list (b), instead of admitting the palpable nonsense of attributing to the two oldest kings a reign of from 250 to 300 years. Even Séf and Ibrahim, the first two princes of the line, are, I think, quite historical persons, whose existence was so well established that a conscientious chronicler could not change any thing in the number of years attributed to the length of their reigns.

Following, therefore, the hints given to us by the chronicle itself, we fix the foundation of the dynasty of the Séfuwa in Kánem about the middle of the third century after Mohammed, or a little before the year 900 of our era. We shall afterward re

turn to this circumstance.

Now we shall first see how triumphantly the authenticity of the chronicle is confirmed in every respect by the occasional remarks made by Makrízi and Ebn Batúta with regard to the history of Bórnu.

Unfortunately, the oldest date which Makrízi (on the authority, as it would seem, of Eb'n S'aíd) mentions with regard to Kánem,* namely, an expedition made by its king into the fertile districts of Mábiná in the year H. 650, can not be used as a sufficient test of the authenticity of the chronicle, as the historian does not mention the name of the king; but the deed itself harmonizes exceedingly well with the warlike and enterprising character of Dúnama Díbalámi, whose reign, according to our chronicle, falls between the years 618 and 658. Just the same * Hamaker, Specimen Catal., p. 107.

is to be said of the fact mentioned by E'bn Khaldún, who, in his valuable history of the Berbers, which has been recently made accessible to all, relates* the interesting fact that, among other valuable presents, a giraffe was sent by the King of Kánem (to whom, even at that early date, he gives the title of "Master of Bórnu") to Abú 'Abd-Allah el Mostánser, the King of Tunis, in the year of the Hejra 655. The same historian, in another passage of his work, referring to the year 656, mentions again the King of Kánem as having caused the death of a son of Kárakosh el Ghozzi el Modáfferi, the well-known adventurous chieftain who had tried to establish himself in Wadán.†

But, fortunately, we have other data which afford us a very fair test. According to Makrízi,‡ not long after the close of the seventh century of the Hejra (fi hedúd sennet seb'a mayet), the king of Kánem was Háj Ibrahim; after him reigned his son, El Háj Edrís-the historian does not say that he immediately succeeded his father; then Dáúd, the brother of Edrís, and another son of Ibrahim; then 'Omar, the son of Dáúd's elder brother, Háj Edrís; and then 'Othmán, the brother of the former, and another son of Edrís. Makrízi adds that this last-named king reigned shortly before A.H. 800; and then he states that the inhabitants of Kánem revolted against the successors of Ibrahím, and made themselves independent, but that Bórnu remained their kingdom.

All these dates given by Makrízi, as may be seen from the few most important events which I have extracted from the chronicle, are in most surprising harmony with the information conveyed in a dry and sterile but uncorrupted way by the latter. Notwithstanding the slight discrepancy in the order of succession of the later kings, whose reign was of very short

* E'bn Khaldún, ed. Macguckin de Slane, Algér., 1847, vol. i., p. 429. With regard to the friendship existing between the Bení Háfis and the kings of Kánem, see E'bn Khaldún, vol. i., p. 263.

+ E'bn Khaldun, vol. i., p. 300, transl. vol. ii., p. 96. .E'bn Khaldun, according to his own statement, follows here the authority of the sheikh Abu-Mohammed, e' Tijáni. Compare Journal Asiatique, 4me série, vol. xx., p. 158.

+ Makrízi, Hamaker, Specimen Catal., p. 206. Makrízi is mistaken in supposing Kánem to be a town and the capital of Bórnu.

EBN BATUTA AND MAKRIʼZI.

23

duration, and whose relationship is rather perplexing, is it possible to find a harmony more complete than this, if we take into consideration the only way in which Makrízi could have obtained his information, that is to say, from merchants or pilgrims visiting Egypt on their way to Mekka ?*

We now come to E'bn Batúta; and we again find the same surprising harmony between the fact regarding Bórnu, as mentioned by him, and the dates of the chronicle. The famous and

enterprising traveler of Tangiers, on his return-journey from his visit to Western Sudán, left the capital of Mélle or Máli (that is, Mungo Park's Jára) the 22d of Moharrem, 754, and, proceeding by way of Timbúktu or Túmbutu, and thence down the I'sa or Niger to Gágho or Gógo, and thence to Tekádda,† in speaking about the copper found in the mines near this town,

Makrizi has two other interesting statements with regard to the kings of Kanem, which, although they certainly can not lay claim to absolute accuracy, nevertheless have evidently reference to certain facts which the diligent historian, placed at such a distance from the object of his inquiry, has not rightly understood. The first of these passages (Hamaker, p. 206) states that Mohammed the son of Jíl (so--the name is to be read, instead of the absurd Jebl or Jabal), that is, most probably, Jíl Shikomémi, the founder of the dynasty of the Bulala, was the first of them who accepted the Mohammedan creed: this statement evidently regards the dynasty of the Bulála, who, at the time when Makrízi wrote, had driven the Bórnu dynasty out of Kánem, and it does not at all affect the statement of the chronicle, which calls Humé the first Moslim king of Bórnu. The second passage of the celebrated historian of Egypt (Quatremère, Mémoires sur l'Egypt, t. ii., p. 28; Burckhardt, Travels in Nubia, 2d edit., App. iii., p. 456, f.) is very remarkable; and, although we are not yet able to understand perfectly its real purport, nevertheless it seems to refer to some circumstance of great interest; for, according to this statement, the Islám was introduced into Kanem by Hády el 'Othmáni, a pretended descendant of the Khalif 'Othman, even before the period of the Séfuwa, or the Yazaníyín (descendants of Dhu Yazan). Here the excellent inquirer has most probably confounded the successors of Humé with the Dúguwa, forgetting that even the dynasty of the pagan Dúguwa belonged to the Séfuwa. In other respects this statement is in perfect harmony with the common tradition of the Bórnu people—that the Islám was brought to the Séfuwa, when they were still settled in Búrgu, by a special messenger of the Prophet.

+ See vol. i., p. 365. I will here only mention that the forty days' journey stated by Ebn Batuta to intervene between Tekádda and Bórnu are to be counted, as it seems, to Njímiye, the old capital of Kanem; Bírni, or rather Ghasréggomo, at least, not being founded at that time.

relates that the bars made of it were exported to Góber and Rágha (or rather Ragháy), and also to Bórnu, and then adds the interesting fact that the name of the ruling king of the latter country was Edrís.

Now, if we follow implicitly the dates of the chronicle, Edrís ben Ibrahim (Nikále) ascended the throne in that very year (753) when, according to this precious and unimpeachable testimony of the illustrious and intelligent traveler, he actually occupied the throne.

The very remarkable and really surprising harmony here shown to exist between the chronicle and the dates which have come to our knowledge from other sources will, I hope, give to any unprejudiced mind some degree of confidence in the authenticity of that document, and will make him aware of its superiority over the information of a man like Leo Africanus, or rather Hasen Ebn Mohammed el Wasás, who, though he undoubtedly has, and will always have, the merit of having given to Europe a clear general view of the political and linguistic groups of Central Africa, yet, on account of the manner in which his report was drawn up (merely from memory, after the lapse of many years), can not be a decisive authority on any special circumstance. Hence, when he states that the name of the King of Bórnu, at the time when he visited the country, was Abraham (Ibrahim), we may confidently assume that he is wrong, and that he speaks of the illustrious conqueror 'Alí ben Dúnama, who restored peace and glory to that distracted country, and, on account of his warlike character and his various expeditions, obtained the surname El Gházi. I shall return to this subject in the chronological table, in speaking of the reign of 'Ali ben Dúnama.

As for the document mentioned above as No. 5, it contains a few valuable dates with regard to those Bórnu kings who reigned near the time when the author obtained his information in Tripoli, while for the older times, about which the people could only inform him "par tradition de leurs pères," his information is of little value. The most important dates which it contains are those which have reference to the time of the accession

ACCURACY OF THE CHRONICLE.

25

to the throne of the three Bórnu kings, 'Abd-Allah ben Dúnama, Háj 'Omar, and Háj 'Ali; and these vary but little from the dates computed from the chronicle, and serve, therefore, to confirm its accuracy.

However, it is not my design to vindicate this chronicle from all possibility of error; but my object is to show that its general character, dry and meagre as it is, has the strongest claim. to authenticity. Indeed, I am sure that it can be fully relied upon, all uncertainty being reduced to a space of one or two years; I may therefore be allowed to assert that the chronological table, which I shall give in the Appendix, is something more than a mere fairy tale. But in this place, I think it well to offer a few general remarks on the characteristic features of the history of Bórnu.

I have first to speak of the origin of the Séfuwa or Dúguwa. We have already seen that the chronology of the Bórnu people, if palpable absurdities be left out of consideration, does not carry their history further down than the latter half of the ninth century of our era. Accordingly, there can be no further question as to whether Séf was really the son of the celebrated Dhu Yazan, and identical with Séf Dhu Yazan, the last native ruler of the Himyaritic kingdom, who celebrated his accession to the throne in the famous castle of Gumdán, and with the assistance of Khosru Parvis liberated Yeman from the dominion of the Abyssinians. I frankly confess that, while Ibrahím the son of Séf, as “father of the king" (as he appears to have been entitled occasionally), seems to me to have a really historical character, I entertain sincere doubts whether Séf be not a mere imaginary personage, introduced into the pedigree expressly in order to connect it with Yeman. Indeed, in one short list of Bórnu kings which I possess, several princes are mentioned before Séf, whose names, such as Futírmi, Hálar Sukayámi, Halármi, Bunúmi, Rizálmi, Mairími, have quite a Kanúri character. As the reader will see, I do not at all doubt of some connection existing between the ruling family of Bórnu and the Himyaritic or Kushitic stock, but I doubt its immediate descent from the royal Himyaritic family.