The Rediscovery of Samuel Lyde’s Lost Manual for Shaykhs

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Societyhttp://journals.cambridge.org/JRA

Additional services for Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Rediscovery of Samuel Lyde's Lost Nuayrī Kitāb al-Mashyakha (Manual for Shaykhs)

BELLA TENDLER KRIEGER

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society / FirstView Article / October 2013, pp 1 - 16DOI: 10.1017/S135618631300059X, Published online: 30 October 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S135618631300059X

How to cite this article:BELLA TENDLER KRIEGER The Rediscovery of Samuel Lyde's Lost Nuayrī Kitāb al-Mashyakha(Manual for Shaykhs). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/S135618631300059X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JRA, IP address: 129.98.198.247 on 30 Oct 2013

The Rediscovery of Samuel Lyde’s Lost Nus.ayrı Kitab

al-Mashyakha (Manual for Shaykhs)

BELLA TENDLER KRIEGER∗

Abstract

The K. al-Mashyakha is a manual for Nus.ayrı shaykhs. Its significance as a window into the otherwisesecret world of Nus.ayrı ritual was augmented by the role it played in the formation of Nus.ayrı studies: in1860, it served as the basis for the first monograph on the Nus.ayrı religion, Samuel Lyde’s posthumouslypublished Asian Mystery. However, for over 150 years, the K. al-Mashyakha has been missing. Thisarticle announces its rediscovery in two identical manuscripts and identifies two additional works basedon this text, the well-known Nus.ayrı catechism, K. Taʿlım diyanat al-nus.ayriyya, and the recentlypublished K. al-Mashyakha issued by the Lebanese press, Dar li-ajl al-maʿrifa. In solving the mysteryof its disappearance and rediscovery in two copies, this article provides new insight into the nineteenth-century Nus.ayrı world from which the K. al-Mashyakha emerged, as well as that of the Europeanorientalists who pioneered this field.

The dogma of religious secrecy, famously observed by members of the Nus.ayrı religion,has traditionally made it difficult for western scholars wishing to study the faith to obtainprimary sources. Like many esoteric and gnostic groups before them, Nus.ayrıs believe thatreligious knowledge must be hidden from the masses and only be revealed to the worthyafter a rigorous process of initiation involving many stages. According to this doctrine,the disclosure of religious truths to outsiders is one of the most fundamental crimes abeliever can commit and new members are made to swear not to transgress this law. Itis therefore not surprising that as much misinformation as accurate detail can be foundin the reports of the pre-modern Islamic heresiographers who first described the Nus.ayrıreligion. In their accounts, rumour, polemical slander and surprisingly precise detail are soseamlessly interwoven that it is often difficult to distinguish fact from speculation. Since the

∗Acknowledgements: Many have helped in the researching of this project and in the acquisition of manuscripts.I would like to specifically acknowledge Frances Willmoth at the Old Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, ElizabethGow at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, Marie-Genevieve Guesdon at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France,and Kenneth Dunn at National Library of Scotland. I would like to additionally thank Nicolas Barker at the RareBooks School for his advice on the Bibliotheca Lindesiana and Ron Naiweld and Udi Engelsman for their helpobtaining manuscripts. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Meir Michael Bar-Asher, Luke Yarbrough,and my doctoral advisors Michael Cook and Patricia Crone for their invaluable comments on several versions ofthis paper.

JRAS, Series 3, page 1 of 16 C© The Royal Asiatic Society 2013doi:10.1017/S135618631300059X

2 Bella Tendler Krieger

nineteenth century, disentangling this web has been the project of several western scholarswho have sought to describe this religion more accurately by analysing actual Nus.ayrı worksof literature. This endeavour has proceeded piecemeal as each new Nus.ayrı manuscript tofall into the hands of western scholars has filled out another element of the picture and,often, even overturned previously held assumptions.

Thus from its inception, the western study of the Nus.ayrı religion has been intimately tiedto the search for sources. This began in the nineteenth century when European travellers andmissionaries first became aware of the Islamic sectaries living in the mountains of northernSyria and sought to collect any books of theirs they could find. The earliest scholarlyarticles were often simply descriptions of new Nus.ayrı manuscripts, and it is these samemanuscripts, now housed in major libraries of western Europe, which remain our primarysources of information on the Nus.ayrı religion.

In view of the scarcity of sources, the loss of a Nus.ayrı manuscript can be disastrous. Manyof the most important and interesting works are only known from single copies. This wasthe case with the K. al-Mashyakha, a manual for Nus.ayrı shaykhs, which has been missingfor over 150 years. The intrinsic value of this work as a window onto the otherwise secretworld of Nus.ayrı ceremonies was augmented by the historical role it played in the formationof Nus.ayrı studies. In 1860 the K. al-Mashyakha served as the basis for the first book-lengthmonograph on the Nus.ayrı religion. This book, The Asian Mystery Illustrated in the History,Religion and Present State of the Ansaireeh or Nusairis of Syria, was written by the ReverendSamuel Lyde, an Anglican missionary who worked among the Nus.ayrıs in Latakia. It wasthus a major misfortune, often deplored, that Lyde was the last-known scholar to inspectthis manuscript, and in the century and a half following the publication of his book thismanuscript was regarded as missing.

The K. al-Mashyakha in Lyde’s possession was quite distinctive. From the descriptionsLyde provided in his Asian Mystery we know that it consisted of 188 pages 12mo and wasdivided into 32 chapters.1 We also know that although Lyde called his entire manuscript theK. al-Mashyakha, the document in fact comprised an original book bearing this title andthree further texts, probably appended by the copyist. These additional texts were writtenby the same copyist but in a worse hand, and in his closing remarks he excused himself forthis, blaming the poor quality of his ink. The K. al-Mashyakha proper was a prayer manual.Of the appended texts, the first two related to initiation and the third was a sermon on theproper behaviour of believers during religious gatherings.

Reflecting this division in the manuscript between the K. al-Mashyakha on the onehand and the appended texts on the other, the copyist wrote three colophons, one at theconclusion of the K. al-Mashyakha, another after the appended texts on initiation and thensome final closing remarks after the sermon. In the first colophon the copyist, a certainShaykh Muh. ammad of Bishraghı, provides his lineage and the date and occasion of themanuscript’s transcription, which Lyde reports was the initiation of his nephew ʿAlı b. ʿId in1239/1824.2 In the second colophon the copyist attributes the appended texts on initiation

1Samual Lyde, The Asian Mystery: The Ansaireeh or Nusairis of Syria (London, 1860), p. 233.2Ibid., pp. 233, 256, 264. Lyde’s statement of the relationship between the scribe and novice is erroneous, as

will be explained below.

The Rediscovery of Samuel Lyde’s Lost Nus.ayrı Kitab al-Mashyakha (Manual for Shaykhs) 3

to a Shaykh H. asan b. Ramad. an, and then repeats that the occasion for its transcription wasthe initiation of ʿAlı b. ʿId.3 One can assume that it was this milestone in his relative’s life thatled the copyist Muh. ammad of Bishraghı to append the chapters on initiation to the originaltext of the K. al-Mashyakha. In the concluding remarks following the sermon, the copyistrepeats the occasion of transcription and apologises for the bad handwriting in which themanuscript was written, blaming it on the poor quality of the ink.4

Lyde was not the first scholar to inspect the K. al-Mashyakha. Earlier mention of itappeared in the July 1848 issue of the Journal Asiatique in a letter written by the Syrian-Christian, Joseph Catafago on 26 June 1848. At the time Catafago was employed as theofficial interpreter of the Prussian consulate in Beirut but had acquired a reputation amongEuropean orientalists by publishing notices from time to time in the scholarly periodicals ofnew Nus.ayrı manuscripts that had come into his possession. In fact, only a few months earlier,in February 1848, Catafago had published the first description of al-T. abaranı’s Majmuʿ al-Aʿyad [Collection of Feasts] that to this day is considered one of the most important Nus.ayrıtreatises to have been brought to light.5 Amid the celebration over his article Catafago wrotea short letter in which he thanked his learned colleagues for their response to his discoveryand then described another work he had found which he claimed was “no less interestingthan the Majmuʿ al-Aʿyad” and which he intended to translate and publish forthwith.6 Thetitle of the work was K. al-Mashyakha, and from his list of the subject headings it is clearthat it contained the same subject matter as the book later known to Samuel Lyde. Catafagonever got around to publishing his intended translation of the K. al-Mashyakha and did notinclude the book in his 1876 bibliography of Nus.ayrı texts.7

Twelve years later, in 1860, the K. al-Mashyakha resurfaced in Samuel Lyde’s Asian Mystery,which, as mentioned above, was the first book-length monograph to be written about theNus.ayrıs. Of all the European scholars to write about the Nus.ayrıs, Samuel Lyde had perhapsthe greatest first-hand experience with the sect. From 1852 to his death in 1860 he served asthe first Anglican missionary to the Nus.ayrıs.8 As the only European to live among them, he

3Ibid., p. 264.4Ibid., pp. 233, 264.5Joseph Catafago, “Notice sur les Anseriens,” Journal Asiatique February (1848), pp. 149–168. Catafago only

published the table of contents and some extracts from the Majmuʿ al-Aʿyad in this article. A critical edition ofthe full text was first printed a century later in Rudolph Strothmann, “Festkalender der Nusairer”, Der Islam,XXVII (1944–1946). In 2006 the Lebanese press Dar li-Ajl al-Maʿrifa published a new edition of the Majmuʿal-Aʿyad in a volume dedicated to the works of al-T. abaranı; see Abu Musa and al-Shaykh Musa (eds), Rasa’ilal-H. ikma al-‘Alawiyya, Silsilat al-turath al-ʿAlawı 3 (Diyar ‘Aql, Lebanon, 2006), pp. 207–412. A chapter analysingthe antinomian elements of the Majmuʿ al-Aʿyad entitled “The Nus.ayrı Calendar: Allegorical and Antinomianinterpretation of Muslim festivals” can be found in Meir M. Bar-Asher and Aryeh Kofsky, The Nus.ayrı-‘AlawıReligion: An Enquiry into its Theology and Liturgy (Leiden, 2002), pp. 111–151.

6Joseph Catafago, “Lettre de M. Catafago”, Journal Asiatique, July (1848) pp. 72–78.7Idem, “Nouvelles Melanges”, Journal Asiatique, July (1876), pp. 523–525. Although this article has been used

as a catalogue of all available Nus.ayrı works, it was not actually intended as such. It was merely a description ofa particular collection Catafago had occasion to examine on a recent trip to Syria. Catafago describes it as “acollection, the likes of which does not exist in any part of the world” that includes “almost all of the rare andlittle-known books of the Nus.ayrı religion”. This particular collection apparently lacked a K. al-Mashyakha, whichis why this title was excluded from the list.

8Lyde ran a mission school in the village of B’hamra, several miles east of Latakia, which he later bequeathedto R. J. Dodds and J. Beattie of the American Reformed Presbyterian Church. (See Evangelical Christendom [themagazine of the World Evangelical Alliance] XVI (1875), p. 189). This mission was hardly the only one activeamong the Nus.ayrıs in the nineteenth century. Various western churches and the H. anafite Ottoman state competed


was uniquely well placed to study the community from within. It was his hope eventually towrite a scholarly monograph on their religious beliefs based on a large collection of originalmanuscripts that would do “for the Ansaireeh what De Sacy has already effected for [ourunderstanding of] the Druses”.9 Unfortunately, his worsening health forced him to moderatehis ambition. Knowing that he did not have long to live, he began to write his book afterhaving examined only one original Nus.ayrı manuscript, the K. al-Mashyakha, which alongwith his personal experiences among the sect, oral reports from Nus.ayrı acquaintances andthe few articles available at the time, comprised the entirety of his information on the Nus.ayrıreligion.

In the preface to his Asian Mystery Lyde writes that he had acquired his copy of the K.al-Mashyakha “from a Christian merchant in Ladikeeh for the sum of £10, having come intohis hands during the troublesome times of Ibrahim Pasha, when the Ansaireeh were drivenfrom their homes”.10 The unrest surrounding Ibrahim Pasha’s invasion of Syria occurredin the 1830s,11 and if the merchant’s report is to be trusted, one must assume that themanuscript had been in the latter’s possession ever since. How then was Catafago able todescribe the manuscript in 1848? Lyde, who recognised the identity of his text with thatpreviously described by Catafago, suggests that the self-same merchant might have lent theK. al-Mashyakha to Catafago, but that Catafago never actually owned the manuscript.12 Hecould have transcribed the manuscript however, and in fact, he probably did, as we will laterlearn.

Lyde died in Alexandria on 1 April 1860 at the age of 35, just after completing hisdraft of the Asian Mystery. Time had not allowed him the opportunity to expand on hisfootnotes or to settle his affairs. It was only through the dedication of his brother that thebook was published later that year in London by Lomgmans and Green and made availableto the general public. For a long time, at least until 1900 when Rene Dussaud wrote hisHistoire et religion des Nos.airıs, Lyde’s work, and by extension the K. al-Mashyakha, remainedthe main source of information on the Nus.ayrı religion.13 Unfortunately, no one knew

with each other for Nus.ayrı converts. See Douwes, Dick. “Knowledge and Oppression; the Nus.ayriyya in theLate Ottoman Period”, in Convegno Sul Tema: La Shıʿa Nell’impero Ottomano, (Rome, 1993) pp. 150–169; SelimDeringil, “The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire”, Comparative Studies in Societyand History XXXV, no. 1 (1993), pp. 3–29; Yvette Talhamy, “American Protestant Missionary Activity among theNusayris (Alawis) in Syria in the Nineteenth Century.” Middle East Studies XLVII, no. 2 (2011), pp. 215–236;Necati Alkan, “Fighting for the Nus.ayrı Soul: State, Protestant Missionaries and the ʿAlawıs in the Late OttomanEmpire.” Die Welt des Islams LII (2012), pp. 23–50. Lyde’s historical significance is not limited to his evangelical andscholarly work. In 1856 he accidentally shot and killed a beggar in Nablus, triggering a large anti-Christian riot.He was later forced to stand trial for the murder, but was acquitted due to inadmissible evidence. See James Finn,Stirring Times: or Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853–1856. Vol. II. (London, C. Kegan Paul & Co.,1878), pp. 427–438.

9Lyde, Asian Mystery, p. v. The work referred to is Antoine Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, Expose de la religion desdruzes, tire des livres religieux de cette secte, et precede d’une introduction et de la Vie du khalife Hakem-biamr-Allah, 2 vols.(Paris, L’Imprimerie royale, 1838).

10Lyde, Asian Mystery, p. vii.11On this period in Nus.ayrı history see Stefan Winter, “La revolte Alaouite de 1834 contre l’occupation

Egyptienne: perception Alaouites et lecture Ottomane”, Oriente Moderno LXXIX, 3 (1999), pp. 61–71; YvetteTalhamy, “Conscription among the Nusayris (ʿAlawis) in the Nineteenth Century”, British Journal of Middle EasternStudies XXXVIII, 1 (2011), pp. 23–40.

12Lyde, Asian Mystery, p. vii.13See Rene Dussaud, Histoire et Religion des Nos.airıs. (Paris, Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1900). This work did

not employ Lyde’s text and was instead based on Sulayman al-Adhanı’s K. al-Bakura al-sulaymaniyya fı kashf asrar


what had become of Lyde’s manuscript, and while generations of scholars acknowledgedthe importance of his text for elucidating the ways in which the secret Nus.ayrı rituals wereconducted, the fact that only excerpts from the K. al-Mashyakha appeared to have beenpreserved, and these only in translation, precluded a proper analysis of the text. The lossof this manuscript was lamented most recently in the works of Meir Bar-Asher and AriehKofsky, and in that of Yaron Friedman.14

Yet Lyde’s manuscript is still extant. It is available in the Old Library of Jesus College,Cambridge, where it has been housed since 1 March 1860. It seems that foreseeing hisimminent demise, Lyde sent the manuscript, as well as several other Arabic texts, to JesusCollege, Cambridge. In the 1922 Supplementary Hand-List of manuscripts held at CambridgeUniversity, Lyde’s K. al-Mashyakha is given the shelf mark “MS Cambridge 1422 Jesus, No.17” and described as “a ‘Manual of Nusayri Shaykhs’ bought in Sept. 1859 for £10 froma merchant of Latakia, and bequeathed to Jesus College by S. Lyde on 1 March 1860. Itcomprises 32 sections and 188 pages. The substance of the book is incorporated in Lyde’sAsian Mystery, Ch. ix, published in 1860 by Longmans and Green”.15

It is not surprising that Lyde would have donated his manuscript to Jesus College. Beforemoving to Syria in 1852, his entire adult life had been spent at that institution. Accordingto the Alumni Cantabrigienses, Lyde was admitted to Jesus College at the age of 18 on 9April 1842. He matriculated the following year, completing a BA in 1848 and an MA threeyears later, at which point he took holy orders, and was hired as a fellow of Jesus Collegein 1851.16 It was only his worsening health that led him to seek employment in 1852 inthe warmer clime of Syria, where he established his mission house and eventually acquired

al-diyana al-nus.ayriyya (Beirut, 1863). An apostate from Nus.ayrism, al-Adhanı is known to have converted to SunnıIslam, Greek Orthodoxy, Judaism, and then Protestantism (of the Associate Reformed Church), before publishingthis expose of the Nus.ayrı religion in the hope of promoting the Protestant cause among his former coreligionists.It is conventionally assumed that the Nus.ayrıs murdered al-Adhanı for revealing their secrets, although there areconflicting reports as to how he met his demise. (Live burial, burning, and strangulation are some suggestions: seeHenry H. Jessup, The Women of the Arabs. (New York, Dodd and Mead, 1873), p. vii; Muh. ammad Ghalib al-T. awıl,Tarıkh al-ʿAlawiyyın. second ed. (Beirut, Dar al-Andalus, 1966), p. 448; Matti Moosa, Extremist Shiites: The GhulatSects, (Syracuse, 1988) pp. 260, 503.) Jessup provides the only death date I have been able to find as 1871. It shouldbe noted that al-Adhanı did not die a Protestant, as generally supposed. Several letters written by Jessup between theyears 1862 and 1865 and published in The Missionary Herald, the annual newsletter of the Associate Reform Church,mention al-Adhanı by name and provide important new details about his life, conversion, and works. Significantly,they mention that a year after the publication of his book, in 1864, he defected from the Protestant Church andreverted to Greek Orthodoxy in order to marry the daughter of a Greek priest in Latakia. They also mention thatin 1865 he wrote a second book denouncing Protestantism and promoting Greek Orthodoxy. While I have not yetlocated this second polemic, it is obvious that al-Adhanı’s story is also far from told. (See Kamal Salibi and Yusuf K.Khoury, eds., The Missionary Herald: Reports from Ottoman Syria, 1819–1870, vol. V (Amman, 1995), pp. 59–61, 87,97, 117. Also see Samer Traboulsi’s forthcoming article “The American Missionaries and the Nus.ayrıs: The Caseof Sulayman al-Adhanı” in AUB: A Century and a Half” which promises to deal with al-Adhanı’s life).

14Bar-Asher and Kofsky, Nus.ayrı-‘Alawı Religion, p. 165; Yaron Friedman, The Nus.ayrı-ʿAlawıs: an Introductionto the Religion, History, and Identity of the Leading Minority in Syria (Leiden, 2010), p. 271.

15Edward G. Brown, A Supplementary Hand-List of the Muh. ammadan Manuscripts, Including all Those Written inthe Arabic Character, Preserved in the Libraries of the University and Colleges of Cambridge, (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press,1922), pp. 237, 309. This information can also be found at the conclusion of the actual MS in adedicatory inscription written by Samuel Lyde that reads: “March 1, 1860. I bequeath this book to Jesus CollegeCambridge. – Samuel Lyde. Coll. Jesus Cantab: Socius.” An anonymous notice follows this inscription: “M. Lydedied in Alexandria on the 1st April 1860. The substance of this manual is translated in M. Lyde’s book entitled “theAsian Mystery” Chap IX.” The page is not numbered but it would correspond to p. 190 in the MS.

16J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses: A Biographical List of all Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office atthe University of Cambridge, from the Earliest Times to 1900, Part 2, vol. IV (Cambridge, 1951), p. 243.


his manuscript. Lyde’s affiliation with Jesus College has always been known. In fact, it isannounced on the title page of his Asian Mystery where he is styled “the Rev. Samuel Lyde,M.A.; fellow of Jesus College: Author of The Ansyreeh and Ismaeleeh”.17 But nowhere in thebook is it mentioned that he had sent his manuscript to his old college, which may be whyno one thought to look there.

An examination of the manuscript reveals additional information regarding its provenancethat Lyde did not mention. Significantly, it allows identification of some of the namesassociated with this manuscript. First among these is the novice in whose honour theK. al-Mashyakha was copied. Lyde had simply referred to him as ʿAlı b. ʿId, but in themanuscript his name is given in greater detail as ʿAlı b. al-shaykh ʿId b. al-shaykh Ah.mad.18

From this fuller lineage, he is identifiable as the Nus.ayrı shaykh ʿAlı b. ʿId b. Ah.mad b.Mus.t.afa, born in Bishraghı, a town near Jablah in Latakia, in 1217/1802.19 His nisba is listedas Bishraghı Mah. rizı, i.e. of the Mah. ariza, a Nus.ayrı clan living in the area of Safita whoclaimed Hashimite descent through the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt.20 According to an internaltradition, the Mah. ariza’s name and royal pedigree derive from a certain Mah. riz al-Jayshı, aFatimid amır, said to be a grandson of the Caliph al- Muʿizz, who migrated with his familyto Syria in the fourth/tenth century.21 The Basharigha, to whom our novice belonged, werea lineage within this clan based in Bishraghı.

Fortuitously, there is quite a large amount of information about the Mah. ariza, andparticularly the family of ʿAlı b. ʿId around the time that the K. al-Mashyakha was copied.This is because of the existence of a rare biographical dictionary, the K. al-Nasab, written byYusuf b. ʿAlı al-Aʿraj (b.1275/1858) of a related Nus.ayrı family.22 Yusuf, who was orphanedas a child, came to Bishraghı at the age of 17 to live with and probably be initiated by ʿAbdal-H. amıd the son of ʿAlı b. ʿId.23 In his K. al-Nasab, Yusuf al-Aʿraj pays particular attentionto the family of his shaykh, which is why any details of the life of this provincial figure havesurvived.

17This title refers to Lyde’s travelogue of his original journey to Latakia in 1852: Samual Lyde, The Ansyreeh andIsmaeleeh: a Visit to the Secret Sects of Northern Syria; with a View towards the Establishment of Schools (London: Hurstand Blackett, 1853).

18MS Lyde 17, (Cambridge: Old Library, Jesus College), p. 106.19Dıb ʿAlı H. asan, Aʿlam min al-madhhab al-jaʿfari al-ʿalawi , 3 vols. (Damascus, 1997), I pp. 75, 77, 106. This

birth date would have made him 22, which is quite old, at his initiation in 1239/1824, when the K. al-Mashyakhawas copied. Initiation generally occurs between the ages of 16 and 18. I wonder if the rasm referred to in themanuscript is not initiation but a more advanced ceremony, celebrating a man’s consecration as a shaykh. I havenot found any descriptions of such a ceremony, but it would explain both the advanced age of the novice and thetranscription of a K. al-Mashyakha for the occasion. It is intended for shaykhs and certainly would not have beenpresented to a newly initiated youth.

20See al-T. awıl, Tarıkh al-ʿalawiyyın, pp. 410, 430–433. See also Gizela Prochazka-Eisl and Stephen Prochazka,The Plain of Saints and Prophets: the Nusayri-Alawi Community of Cilicia (Southern Turkey) and its Sacred Places(Wiesbaden, 2010), p. 53.

21See ʿIsa Abu ʿAlush, S. afah. at majhula min thawrat al-shaykh s.alih. al-ʻalı (Latakia: Dar Dhu al-Fiqar lil-T. ibaʿawa-al-Nashr waʾl-Tawzıʿ, 2006), p. 14. Elsewhere, the one to emigrate from Egypt is Mah. riz’s son, Abu ʿAbd AllahMuh. ammad b. Mah. riz al-Jayshı; see Kamil ʻAlı Ibrahım Bays.ın, H. aqaiʾq al-tabyın fı nasab al-muslimın al-ʻalawiyyın(Beirut, 2006), pp. 225–228. For an analysis of the (likely spurious) Mah. rizı claim to Fatimid descent see H. asan,Aʿlam, II, pp. 56–59. Another derivation for the name of the Mah. ariza clan from a certain Mah. riz b. ʿAbd Allahal-Ans.arı can be found in some of the entries in Dıb Alı H. asan’s biographical dictionary, including that of Alı b. Id.(H. asan, Aʻlam, I, p. 75.) I have not been able to identify this man and wonder if the inclusion of the name mightbe an attempt to bolster the Islamic legitimacy of the sect by tracing their origin to the ans.ar.

22This work is not published but is the major source of information for Dıb ʿAlı H. asan’s Aʿlam.23H. asan, Aʻlam, I, pp. 105–106.


An inspection of MS Lyde 17 also reveals additional information about the scribeMuh. ammad of Bishraghı. In the manuscript his full name is given as “Muh. ammad b. al-shaykh [sic] b. al-shaykh Jabir b. al-shaykh Jumʿa from the town of the people of Bishraghıal-Jirana who is descended from the shaykh Farras al-H. ammam (the Lion of al-H. ammam)”.24

The expression ibn al-shaykh is written twice in a row which can either be understood as anaccidental repetition, in which case the scribe’s name is simply Muh. ammad b. Jabir b. Jumʿa,or as an accidental omission of the father’s name from the lineage. The latter is in fact thecase, for in Yusuf al-Aʿraj’s K. al-Nasab there is mention of a certain Jumʿa b. Muh. ammadb. ʿAlı b. Jabir b. Jumʿa who was born in Bishraghı in 1220/1805 and who is thus likely tobe the copyist’s son.25 Moreover, this Jumʿa is reported to descend from the shaykh Farrasal-Jirana (the Lion of al-Jirana), and our copyist Muh. ammad of Bishraghı, traced his lineagein the manuscript to the shaykh Farras al-H. ammam. Al-H. ammam and al-Jirana are the samelocation, the present day H. ammam al-Qarah. ila, a town adjacent to Bishraghı.26 The factthat both men claim descent from this shaykh confirms their relationship and allows us todefinitively state that the scribe’s name was Muh. ammad b. ʿAlı, even though this patronymicdoes not appear in the manuscript.

In terms of the relationship between the scribe and the novice, it should be noted thataccording to the manuscript ʿAlı b. ʿId was not the nephew of Muh. ammad of Bishraghı, asLyde claimed but rather his paternal cousin. The terms used in the manuscript are ibn ʿammand walad ʿamm, which literally mean son of the paternal uncle, or paternal cousin.27 It isnot clear why Lyde chose to translate the term as nephew, especially considering that hetranslated it as cousin in the case of the author of the chapters on initiation, Shaykh H. asanb. Ramad. an, whom the scribe describes as ibn al-ʿamm al-ʿazız, the dear paternal cousin.28

From their lineages, we know that the scribe and novice were not biological first cousinsbut may have been more distant relatives. Alternatively, Muh. ammad of Bishraghı may simplyhave used the expression ibn ʿamm as a figurative endearment for a friend or co-religionist.One might also suggest that the term was employed here in its technical sense relatingto Nus.ayrı initiation. In nineteenth-century Nus.ayrı literature the initiating shaykh in themaster–disciple relationship was often called a ʿamm.29 So it is possible that when Muh. ammadof Bishraghı wrote that he transcribed the K. al-Mashyakha in honour of the consecration ofhis ibn al-ʿamm ʿAlı b. ʿId, he meant that he copied it in honour of the initiation of his ownmaster’s son. Further biographical information for these men will be required to settle thisambiguity.

The last point relating to the provenance of the K. al-Mashyakha that Lyde did not mentionis that there is a short note written on one of the blank leaves following the manuscript.30

24MS Lyde 17, p. 156.25H. asan, Aʻlam, I, p. 38.26In fact, this town is often referred to by both names as al-H. ammam al-Jirana. See ibid., pp. 27, 38, 63, 80,

104. See also al-T. awıl, Tarıkh al-ʿAlawıyın, p. 529. In one instance this shaykh is referred to by both names as Farrasal-H. ammam al-Jirana. See H. asan, Aʻlam, I, p. 104.

27MS Lyde 17, pp. 178, 188.28Ibid., p. 178.29See, for example, al-Adhanı, K. al-Bakura, pp. 2,7, translated in Edward Salisbury, “The Book of Sulayman’s

First Ripe Fruit disclosing the mysteries of the Nosairian religion”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, VIII(1864), pp. 229, 233.

30The page is not numbered but would correspond to MS Lyde 17, p. 190.


Due to its colloquialisms and scrawling script, the note is very hard to read but likely containsimportant information relating to the history of the text. The legible portions refer to aceremony attended by an uncle ‘Id (possibly the father of the novice ‘Alı b. ‘Id), witnessedby one Muhanna b. ʿAbud and one ʿAjıb b. Ayyub, during which a half measurement ofwheat kernels were donated as endowment (waqf) to the saint al-Khid. r. The handwriting ofthe note differs from that of Muh. ammad of Bishraghı and is signed by the son of a certainJah. jah. Ismaʿıl who claims to have inspected the manuscript. This could be a presentationinscription commemorating the occasion of the gifting of the book, but it is difficult to saywhether it is for the initial presentation or some later transfer of the ownership of the text.

The story of Lyde’s manuscript, so neatly resolved by the notice in the Cambridgecatalogue, does not however end there for, if previously we had a missing manuscript,now we have two extant ones: there is a second copy of Muh. ammad of Bishraghı’s K. al-Mashyakha in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, where it has been housed since 1901.This manuscript was examined by scholars in the field but was never positively identifiedwith Lyde’s lost text. In the 1934 catalogue of Arabic manuscripts of the John RylandsLibrary it is labelled MS 124 and given the provisional title “The Liturgy and Prayer book ofthe Nus.airıs”.31 The description is extremely detailed and even includes the Arabic text ofthe colophon which says, in agreement with Lyde’s own introduction, that the Mashyakhawas completed in 1239/1823 [4] by Muh. ammad of Bishraghı in honour of the initiationof ʿAlı b. ʿId. The same texts are appended, along with the closing remarks in which thecopyist credits his chapters on initiation to the teachings of H. asan b. Ramad. an and blameshis bad handwriting on the quality of his ink. The colophon, closing remarks and subjectheadings suffice to identify MS 124 as identical to that in Lyde’s possession. In fact, had I notdiscovered Lyde’s manuscript in Jesus College, Cambridge, I would simply have presumedthis document to be Lyde’s lost text.

How are we to account for this copy? A book of the significance of the K. al-Mashyakhamight well have existed in several copies, but the fact that Jesus 17 and Manchester 124have identical colophons is strange. In theory, colophons are unique. They are the personalautographs in which the copyist provides his name and the completion date of his particulartranscription. How then did these two copies come to have the same colophon? Which ofthe two manuscripts is the original? And how did Manchester 124 also manage to make itto Great Britain and elude recognition as the lost K. al-Mashyakha?

The answer to the question of their relative chronology emerges from a comparison of thetwo texts. While internally identical, the Cambridge and Manchester manuscripts displayseveral extrinsic differences. The most obvious is that the Manchester manuscript is writtenwith fifteen lines per page while Lyde’s has only eleven, so that Lyde’s text has many morepages than Manchester 124: 94 fols (188 pp.) as opposed to the 62 fols of the Manchestertext. In Lyde’s manuscript, moreover, each appended text begins on a new page, whereasin the Manchester MS one proceeds directly into the other. Both features could reflect adesire to save paper, but the second could also indicate that Lyde 17 was the original inwhich each appendix was still seen as a distinct text, while in Manchester 124 the entire

31A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester, ManchesterUniversity Press, 1934), pp. 202–204.


content was already perceived as a uniform body of literature. Another telling difference isthat Manchester 124 includes an Arabic table of contents that is absent from the Cambridgemanuscript.32 Lyde wrote his own English table of contents at the conclusion of his text,but he did not have an Arabic one to work with.33 The lack of an Arabic table of contentsreinforces the suspicion that Lyde’s manuscript is the earlier, less-developed, text.

The handwritings of the two manuscripts are not identical but they are quite similar,both being written in a clear Syrian Nashkhı script. As Lyde pointed out, in the Cambridgemanuscript this script worsens in the last appended text and the copyist apologises for thechange with reference to the poor quality of his ink.34 In Manchester 124 the handwritingremains pretty much the same throughout. However, in the paragraph containing the apologythe handwriting suddenly worsens and remains obviously bad for the remainder of themanuscript.35 It is as if the copyist of the Manchester manuscript, reading the apology forthe poor penmanship in the original, sought to make the statement apply to his copy as well!

While none of these differences are conclusive on their own, together they suggest thatLyde’s text was the earlier of the two. But the most telling indication that Manchester 124was a later copy is that the scribe’s lineage in the colophon is written as Muh. ammad b. al-shaykh Jabir b. al-shaykh Jumʿa.36 As noted above, Lyde’s text had an additional ibn al-shaykhdue to the scribe’s omission of his father’s name from the lineage.37 Whoever copied theManchester MS from the original clearly assumed that the second ibn al-shaykh in the namewas superfluous and left it out.

Who might this copyist have been? One suggestion emerges from an examination of thetext’s arrival at the University of Manchester. Before coming to the John Rylands Librarythe manuscript was part of the Bibliotheca Lindesiana, a private collection of rare booksand manuscripts compiled by the British Earls of Crawford. In its time, the BibliothecaLindesiana was one of the most important private libraries in Britain. It was begun in thelate sixteenth century and was expanded in the nineteenth century by James Ludovic Lindsay,the 26th Earl of Crawford, exactly at the time when interest in Nus.ayrism first began. In1901 this entire collection, including the K. al-Mashyakha, was sold to the John RylandsLibrary in Manchester, where it has remained to this day.

An examination of the 1898 catalogue of Oriental manuscripts in the BibliothecaLindesiana reveals that while the K. al-Mashyakha was indeed owned by Lord Lindsay, itwas incorrectly identified as an Ismaʿılı manuscript, which may be why scholars interested inNus.ayrism never thought to examine it.38 It was labelled MS 722 and given the descriptivetitle “Ismaili Ritual Sermons and Lists of Saints”. No other information regarding its contentswas provided in the published catalogue and the only way to identify it as the K. al-Mashyakha

32Arabic MS 124 [722], (Manchester, John Rylands Library), pp. 61b–63b.33The pages are not numbered but would correspond to MS Lyde 17, pp. 191–197.34Ibid., p. 188.35Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 61a.36Ibid., p. 49a.37MS Lyde 17, p. 156.38James Ludovic Lindsay Earl of Crawford and Michael Kerney, Bibliotheca Lindesiana: Hand-List of Oriental

Manuscripts. Arabic. Persian. Turkish (Aberdeen: Priv . Print. Aberdeen University Press, 1898), p. 41. It is possiblethat this error was due to a misunderstanding of the relationship between Nus.ayrıs and Ismaʿılıs. Although Lydehad made the distinction between these two sects quite clear, the two were often conflated.


is from its date given as “about A.D. 1820” and from its Lindesiana shelf mark, 722, mentionedin the John Ryland’s catalogue in the entry on the K. al-Mashyakha.39

How did this manuscript arrive at the Bibliotheca Lindesiana? In his 1977 study of thelives and libraries of the Earls of Crawford, Nicolas Barker, a scholar of antiquarian books,writes that Lindsay’s book buyer, a man by the name of Bernard Quaritch, obtained “severalmanuscripts of the prayers and legends of the Ansairis” from “a Syrian working as a clerk inthe city” named Catafago.40As may be recalled, Joseph Catafago wrote the original noticeabout the K. al-Mashyakha, which appeared in the Journal Asiatique in July 1848. It seemsthat sometime between 1853 and 1858 Joseph Catafago left Syria and moved to London,where he occupied himself with the compilation of an Arabic-English dictionary.41 Whilein London, he made the acquaintance of Bernard Quaritch who, in addition to beingLindsay’s personal book buyer, was a well-known London-based book dealer and publisher,responsible for many of the nineteenth-century contributions to the field of oriental studies.In fact, Bernard Quaritch Booksellers published Catafago’s Arabic-English dictionary in1858. In the preface to this work, Catafago attributes the idea for the dictionary to BernardQuaritch, whom he calls a friend.42 There is, moreover, a record in the form of lettersbetween Catafago and Lord Lindsay that in 1862 Catafago was hired to complete variousscribal projects for the library.43 So the link between Joseph Catafago and the BibliothecaLindesiana is well documented and there can be no doubt that the same Joseph Catafagowho examined the K. al-Mashyakha in Syria in 1848 is the one who sold it to the library afterhis arrival in London, more precisely in 1858. The invoice is still preserved in the CrawfordMuniments, the collection of documents relating to the Bibliotheca Lindesiana now heldat the National Library of Scotland. Recorded for 18 February 1858 is the purchase of a

39The handwritten notes of Michael Kerney, who was the cataloguer of Oriental manuscripts at the BibliothecaLindesiana, provide additional information: “MS 722, Ismaiʿilı Rituals, Sermons, and Lists of Saints. 62 Leaves clearlywritten in Naskhi. Written in Syria about 1820. A curious volume which shows singular resemblances to the Druzebooks. One of the pieces is addressed to Christians and informs them that Christ was not really put to death orcrucified. The K. urʾan and the Bible are freely quoted. There is no intitulation or description to specify the exactsect; but it is plainly the ritual of a faith in which ʿAli holds a higher place than Muhammad and is treated as adivinity. An inscription at the end says that the book ‘is in the handwriting of our uncle’s son, the Shaykh ʿAli,’ anddeprecates any disparagement of the text. It is by implication a sort of presentation-inscription”, Michael Kerney,Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts belonging to the Earl of Crawford (unpublished, n.d.) The quotation from the inscriptionwas misunderstood by Kerney. It in fact reads that the book was written in honor of shaykh ʿAlı, not by him. Iwould like to thank Elisabeth Gow, the manuscript curator at the John Rylands Library, where these handwrittennotes are now housed, for supplying me with a copy of this entry.

40Nicolas Barker, Bibliotheca Lindesiana: The Lives and Collections of Alexander William, 25th Earl of Crawford and8th Earl of Balcarres, and James Ludovic, 26th Earl of Crawford and 9th Earl of Balcarres (London, 1977), p. 209.

41Joseph Catafago, An English and Arabic Dictionary, in Two Parts, Arabic and English, and English and Arabic: inwhich the Arabic Words are Represented in the Oriental Character, as well as their Correct Pronunciation and AccentuationShewn in English Letters (London, Bernard Quaritch, 1858). The dates for Catafago’s move to London are taken fromthe biographical information given on the title page of the dictionary which states the following: “Joseph Catafago,of Aleppo in Syria, Secretary to Soliman Pasha (Major-General to the Egyptian Army in Syria), 1839–1840; firstinterpreter and chancellor of the general consulate of Prussia at Beirut, 1842–1851; secretary of the general consulateof Russia at Beirut, 1851–1853; corresponding member of the Asiatic Societies of Paris and Leipsic, and of theSyrio-Egyptian society of London; the translator of the ‘Catechism of the Ansaris,’ presented to H.M. the King ofPrussia in 1845, and of other Arabic manuscripts etc. etc.” Since Catafago’s last listed employment in Beirut wasin 1853 and the preface to his dictionary is signed with his residence given as “London, 7 Howard Street, Strand,September 1858”, one can assume that he moved to London sometime between these dates.

42Ibid., p. vi.43Accession 9769, Library Papers 3: The Crawford Muniments: Letter, 4 March 1862, of Catafago to Lord

Lindsay, item no. 40, and Letter, 8 April 1862, of Catafago to Lord Lindsay, item no. 70.


Nus.ayrı book, (incorrectly) identified as “Hymns of the Ismailis,” for £1 as well as a “prayerbook of the Ansairis”, surely our K. al-Mashyakha, for £3.44 These are the two items latercatalogued as MSS 721 and 722 of the Bibliotheca Lindesiana and MSS 123 and 124 of theJohn Rylands library and, along with the Dıwan of al-Khas.ıbı (MS 655 /452), are the onlyworks of Nus.ayrı liturgy in the entire collection.45

This takes us back to the problem of how Catafago had obtained a copy of Muh. ammadof Bishraghi’s K. al-Mashyakha when we know that Lyde purchased it from a Christianmerchant in Latakia in 1859. This can be explained in one of two ways: either Catafagoand Lyde each had their own duplicate copies which had been produced while the originalmanuscript was still among the Nus.ayrıs, or Catafago personally copied this text when themerchant who later sold it to Lyde lent it to him, presumably in 1848 when his article aboutit appeared. The second theory is the more likely as it would better explain the identicalcolophons. We know from his notice in the Journal Asiatique that Catafago intended topublish a translation of this manuscript. If Lyde was correct in assuming that Catafago hadonly borrowed the K. al-Mashyakha, it would have made sense for him to make a copy forhis personal use. This assumption would also explain why the copyist removed the apparentdittography in the patronymic of Muh. ammad of Bishraghı instead of supplying the missingname, as a Nus.ayrı copyist would probably have done: Catafago was not familiar with it.According to this hypothesis, the K. al-Mashyakha housed at the John Rylands Library wasnot reproduced by a Nus.ayrı but rather by Joseph Catafago.

There is nothing in the Crawford Muniments to confirm this hypothesis, but it is possiblethat Catafago did not reveal this information to Quaritch or, if he did, that it was simplynot documented. Of course, the alternative suggestion, that Catafago and Lyde had eachdiscovered distinct copies of this manuscript, must also be entertained. In support of thishypothesis is the fact that Catafago’s 1848 notice of the K. al-Mashyakha in the JournalAsiatique includes an Arabic table of contents, which exists in Manchester 124 but is absentfrom Lyde 17. It is impossible to tell for certain, however, if the table in Catafago’s article wascopied from an actual table of contents in the manuscript or is simply a list of the chapterheadings. In other words, the table of contents in Manchester 124 could be Catafago’spersonal addition to the text. On balance, the fact that the two manuscripts have identicalcolophons weights strongly in favour of the first hypothesis as a non-Nus.ayrı scholar wouldhave copied the manuscript as he found it, complete with its colophon, instead of insertinghis own.

Be that as it may, there is a third copy of the K. al-Mashyakha, if only a partial one, in ParisArabe 6182 fols. 20a–37a. This manuscript is an anthology of Nus.ayrı works dealing withinitiation and is best known for including the K. Taʿlım diyanat al-nus.ayriyya, the catechism

44Accession 9769, Library Papers 315, item no. 5569.45There still remains a description of the contents of MS 721 written in Catafago’s own hand. This description

was originally attached to a letter written by Bernard Quaritch to Lord Lindsay on 25 February 1858 informinghim of the purchase of the manuscript from Catafago. (Accession 9769, Library Papers 3; item no. 51). Howeverit subsequently became detached from the Crawford Correspondences and can now be found at the John RylandsLibrary where it is attached to the relevant entry for MS 721 in Kerney, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts Belongingto the Earl of Crawford. It is likely that when Kerney wrote his notes for the catalogue he consulted this letter butneglected to return it to its proper location.


of the Nus.ayrı religion, which has recently been studied by Bar-Asher and Kofsky.46 Theelements of Lyde’s text that can be found verbatim in Paris Arabe 6182 are al-Tawjıh, the finalchapters of the K. al-Mashyakha that deal with drinking the ʿabd al-nur (fols. 20a–30b) as wellas Khit.ab al-tilmıdh baʿd al-suʾal and al-ʿIqad, the two texts appended to the K. al-Mashyakhathat deal with initiation (31a–37a).47 Since the addition of the chapters on initiation to themain body of the K. al-Mashyakha was likely an innovation of Muh. ammad of Bishraghı, onemust assume that the Paris manuscript, which follows this same order, was somehow basedon his text.48

Although Bar-Asher and Kofsky noted that these treatises are also found in Manchester124, they did not relate the identity of any of these texts to Lyde’s lost K. al-Mashyakha. Theywere not the first to overlook this relationship: Lyde, who actually included a translation ofthe K. Taʿlım diyanat al-nus.ayriyya in his Asian Mystery, never noticed it either. The culpritbehind this inadvertence is once again Joseph Catafago, who was also the first to publicisethis work. Like Bar-Asher and Kofsky, Catafago was particularly interested in the catechismthat opened this anthology. In 1845 he sent an Arabic copy of this catechism along with aFrench translation of the entire manuscript to the King of Prussia, by whom he was thenemployed.49 From the French translation of the manuscript, the German Orientalist PhillipWolff produced a German translation of the catechism that he published in 1849.50 Lyde thenrendered Wolff’s translation into English and appended it to his Asian Mystery.51 This is clearlya case of crucial information being lost in translation. Not having examined the original,Lyde never knew that Catafago’s manuscript also included parts of his K. al-Mashyakha.

He did, however, recognise that the contents of the catechism were extremely similar tothat of his K. al-Mashyakha. He writes: “It will be seen, on comparing this catechism with thesketch I have given of my MS., the ‘Manual of Shaykhs,’ that the arrangement and contentsare in the main the same. Even single expressions are nearly identical, and would probablybe found to be exactly so could the two Arabic texts be compared”.52 Lyde documented thesimilarity between his manuscript and the catechism by providing references to both worksin his footnotes to his descriptions of Nus.ayrı beliefs. The similarity he noticed is due tothe fact that the K. Taʿlım diyanat al-nus.ayriyya was actually based on the K. al-Mashyakhaand conceived as a digest of the Nus.ayrı doctrines from this work that a student needed to

46See “A catechism of the Nus.ayrı religion” in Bar-Asher and Kofsky, Nus.ayrı-‘Alawı Religion, pp. 163–221.47These correspond to items 16–33 of Catafago, “Lettre de M. Catafago”, pp. 77–78. and items 17–32 of Lyde,

Asian Mystery, pp. 243–257. It should be noted that the order of the chapters on initiation (Khit.ab al-tilmıdh baʿdal-suʾal and al-ʿIqad) in MS Paris 6182 is the reverse of that in MS Lyde 17 and MS Manchester 124, and is likelyan error.

48This conclusion would allow us to roughly date MS Paris Arabe 6182 to some time between 1824, whenMuh. ammad of Bishraghı’s K. al-Mashyakha was copied, and 1845, when MS Paris Arabe 6182 was first brought tolight.

49See Fleischer, “Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht”, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft(Leipzig, 1846), p. 130; “Aus einem Briefe von Dr. Schultz, Kon. Preussischem Consul in Jerusalem”, Zeitschrift derDeutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, I (1847), p. 353 in which Dr Schultz discusses Catafago’s catechism and alsomentions two other manuscripts delivered by Catafago: one dealing with Nus.ayrı feasts, surely the Majmuʿ al-Aʿyad(MS Berlin 4292), as well as a small Nus.ayrı prayer book (probably that contained in MS Berlin 4291).

50Philipp Wolff, “Auszuge aus dem Katechismus der Nosairier,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen MorgenlandischenGesellschaft, III (1849), pp. 302–309.

51Lyde, Asian Mystery, pp. 270–282.52Ibid., 270.


memorise as part of his induction into the sect. Just about every question in the catechism isdirectly excerpted from the prayers of the K. al-Mashyakha.53 Between the catechism and thechapters of the K. al-Mashyakha quoted in full, almost the entire content of Lyde’s manuscriptis accounted for in Paris Arabe 6182. Had Catafago ever accomplished his goal of publishingthe K. al-Mashyakha, he would undoubtedly have noted the relationship between this textand the one he had previously translated for the King of Prussia. But since he never did,and since Lyde’s illness prevented him from personally examining the source of Catafago’scatechism, the connection remained obscured.54

The latest development in the story of the K. al-Mashyakha is the recent publication ofanother version of this work by the Lebanese press Dar li-ajl al-maʿrifa. For the last decade,this press has been pseudonymously issuing dozens of hitherto undisclosed Nus.ayrı worksin a eleven-part series called al-Turath al-ʿAlawı (the ʿAlawite heritage). The publication ofthese works is a very significant development in the history of Nus.ayrı studies which hasalways been plagued by a scarcity of sources. With the recent publication of what can beconsidered an entire library of new Nus.ayrı treatises our understanding of this faith canincrease exponentially. One of the works included in the ninth instalment in their series,

53The following is a list of the catechism questions that derive from the K. al-Mashyakha. I provide the referencesto both MS Lyde 17 and MS Manchester 124: Q2: (MS Lyde 17, p. 6; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 3b.); Q3: (MS Lyde17, pp. 93–95; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 29a–b.); Q4–5: (MS Lyde 17, p. 8; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 3b–4a.);Q9: (MS Lyde 17, p. 20; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 7b.); Q11: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 110–111; Arabic MS 124 [722],pp. 34b-35a.); Q14: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 66–68. ; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 20b–21a.); Q15: (MS Lyde 17, p. 75;Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 23b.); Q16–21: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 60–65; Arabic MS 124 [722]: pp. 19a-20b.); Q22: (MSLyde 17: 38–40; Arabic MS 124 [722]: pp. 12b-13b.); Q23–42: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 45–59; Arabic MS 124 [722],pp. 14b–18b.); Q43: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 78–83; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 24a–25b.); Q44: (MS Lyde 17: 84–86 ;Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 26a–b.); Q45–49: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 88–90; Arabic MS 124 [722], [p. 27b.); Q51–52: (MSLyde 17, pp. 80–81; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 25a.); Q56–65: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 27–31; Arabic MS 124 [722]: pp.9a-10b.); Q66–67: (MS Lyde 17: pp. 35–38; Arabic MS 124 [722]: pp. 11b-12b.); Q69: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 33–34;Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 11a–11b.); Q70: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 42–44; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 13b–14a.) Q71: (MSLyde 17, p. 40; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 13a.); Q75: (MS Lyde 17, p. 2; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 2a.); Q83: (MS Lyde17, p. 164; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 51b.); Q84–85: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 171–72; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 53b–54a.);Q86: (MS Lyde 17, p. 175; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 55a.); Q87: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 126–131; Arabic MS 124 [722],pp. 40a–41b.); Q88: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 133–136; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 41b–42b.); Q89–90: (MS Lyde 17,pp. 131–132; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 41b.); Q92: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 133–135; Arabic MS 124 [722], pp. 42a-42b.);Q99: (MS Lyde 17, p. 144; Arabic MS 124 [722], p. 45b.); Q101: (MS Lyde 17, pp. 69–73; Arabic MS 124 [722],pp. 21b-23a.) Those catechism questions not accounted for in this list are for the most part explanations of conceptsintroduced in questions that do derive from the K. al-Mashyakha. One notable exception is the controversial Q77,which makes reference to sacramental bread called al-qurban; its inclusion has been seen as the primary indicationof Christian influence on this text. There is no mention of such a sacrament in the K. al-Mashyakha, and so onemust assume that it was an addition of the author.

54It should be noted that the handwriting of MS Paris 6182 is identical to that of MS Manchester 124 andit is therefore also likely to be a copy produced by Catafago. It is known that Catafago made copies of thismanuscript. As mentioned above, he produced a copy of the catechism for the King of Prussia that is now housedin the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (MS Berlin, 2086). It also seems that Phillip Wolff, who produced the Germantranslation from Catafago’s French translation, inspected another copy owned by Catafago when he visited him inBeirut. I do not know what became of this copy; perhaps it is MS Paris 6182. What is known of the history ofMS Paris 6182 is that Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche (1844–1916), a scholar and collector of Islamic manuscripts,donated it to the Bibliotheque Nationale in November 1905. (See E. Blochet, Inventaire des Manuscrits Arabes de laCollection Decourdemanche (Besancon: Typographie et Lithograph Jacquin, 1906), pp. 3–4, 7–8.) There is a mark onfolio 1 of the manuscript which indicates that it had been a possession of Joseph Catafago, Beirut, so we know thatit came from him, but I have not yet been able to discover whether Catafago sold it directly to Decourdemancheor if there were intervening owners. Perhaps this is something that Catafago regularly did, producing copies ofmanuscripts and selling them to European collectors. Without overstating this point, I might hesitantly suggest thatthe title of the catechism, K. Taʿlım diyanat al-nus.ayriyya, which scholars as early as Lyde have suspected of being alater (outside) addition, may have been introduced by Catafago when he copied the text.


which came out in 2008 under the title Kutub al-ʿalawiyyın al-muqaddasa, is a K. al-Mashyakha,which makes it the fourth known copy of this work.55

The K. al-Mashyakha included in the series is much longer and more detailed than theone studied by Lyde, but it is clearly related. Like all of the manuals described in this paper,the Turath al-ʿAlawı manual for shaykhs begins with a liturgical section, which includes thoseprayers and invocations found in Lyde’s text as well as others, taken from various sources. Asin Lyde’s text, the prayer section is followed by instructions for initiation, which are moredetailed but clearly derived from the account in Lyde’s text. The book then concludes withadditional chapters on marriage, death and food preparation. The meticulous stage directionsthat accompany all of these chapters make the Turath al-ʿAlawı K. al-Mashyakha an invaluablecommentary on the older text that is its core.

While the exact relationship between these two works has not yet been determined,it is clear that they are connected. Their intertextuality reveals the significance of the K.al-Mashyakha, which managed to influence the creation of the anthology on initiation foundin Paris Arabe 6182 as well as the more extensive manual for sheikhs published in the SilsilatTurath al-ʿAlawı. Who knows how many other works have been marked by this text? Itclearly also had an active life among the early orientalist scholars of the nineteenth century,and its impact, after its presumed disappearance, can rival that of most published texts, havingbeen quoted time and again from Lyde’s excerpts of the K. al-Mashyakha and from the K.Taʿlım diyanat al-nus.ayriyya. Now that this work has been rediscovered, a more thoroughinvestigation of its contents can finally be resumed, one that will take into account theadvance of scholarship on the Nus.ayrı religion in the over 150 years since Lyde based thefirst monograph on Nus.ayrism on this text in 1860. In the near future, I hope to undertakesuch a project and contribute another piece to our ever-evolving understanding of thissecretive faith by producing an annotated translation of this important work.

References

Sulayman al-Adhanı, Kitab al-Bakura al-sulaymaniyya fı kashf asrar al-diyana al-nus.ayriyya. (Beirut, 1863).Necati Alkan, “Fighting for the Nus.ayrı Soul: State, Protestant Missionaries and the ʿalawıs in the Late

Ottoman Empire.” Die Welt des Islams 52 (2012), pp. 23–50.Isa Abu ʿAlushʿ, S. afah. at Majhula min thawrat al-shaykh s.alih. al-ʻalı (Latakia, 2006).Arabic Ms 124 [722]. Manchester: John Rylands Library.“Aus Einem Briefe Von Dr. Schultz, Kon. Preussischem Consul in Jerusalem”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen

Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft [Magazine of the German Oriental Society], I (1847), pp. 129–131.Meir M. Bar-Asher and Arieh Kofsky, The Nus.ayrı-‘Alawı Religion: An Enquiry into Its Theology and

Liturgy (Leiden, 2002).Nicolas Barker, Bibliotheca Lindesiana: The Lives and Collections of Alexander William, 25th Earl of Crawford

and 8th Earl of Balcarres, and James Ludovic, 26th Earl of Crawford and 9th Earl of Balcarres (London,1977).

Kamil ʻAlı Ibrahım Bays.ın,. H. aqaiʾq al-tabyın fı nasab al-muslimın al-ʻalawiyyın (Beirut, 2006).

55Kitab al-mashyakha, (ed.) Abu Musa and Shaykh Musa, Silsilat al-Turath al-ʿAlawı 9 (Kutub al-ʿAlawiyyınal-Muqaddasa) (Diyar ʿAql: Lebanon, 2008), pp. 141–230.


E. Blochet, Inventaire des manuscrits arabes de la collection Decourdemanche (Besancon, Typographie etLithograph Jacquin, 1906).

Edward G. Brown, A Supplementary Hand-List of the Muh. ammadan Manuscripts, Including all Those Writtenin the Arabic Character, Preserved in the Libraries of the University and Colleges of Cambridge (Cambridge,University Press, 1922).

Joseph Catafago, An English and Arabic Dictionary, in Two Parts, Arabic and English, and English and Arabic:In Which the Arabic Words Are Represented in the Oriental Character, as Well as Their Correct Pronunciationand Accentuation Shewn in English Letters (London, Bernard Quaritch, 1858).

Joseph Catafago, “Lettre De M. Catafago”, Journal Asiatique July (1848), pp. 72–78.Joseph Catafago, “Notice Sur Les Anseriens”, Journal Asiatique February (1848), pp. 149–168.Joseph Catafago, “Nouvelles Melanges”, Journal Asiatique July (1876), pp. 523–525.James Ludovic Lindsay Earl of Crawford and Michael Kerney, Bibliotheca Lindesiana: Hand-List of

Oriental Manuscripts. Arabic. Persian. Turkish (Aberdeen, Private Print, Aberdeen University Press,1898).

Selim Deringil, “The Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire”. ComparativeStudies in Society and History 35, no. 1 (1993), pp. 3–29.

Dick Douwes, “Knowledge and Oppression; the Nus.ayriyya in the Late Ottoman Period”. In ConvegnoSul Tema: La Shıʿa Nell’impero Ottomano (Rome, 1993), pp. 150–169.

H. L. Fleischer, “Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht”, Jahresbericht der D. M. G. (1846), pp. 129–131.Yaron Friedman, The Nus.ayrı-ʿAlawıs: An Introduction to the Religion, History, and Identity of the Leading

Minority in Syria (Leiden, 2010).Dıb ʿAlı H. asan, Aʿlam min al-madhhab al-jaʿfari al-ʿalawi. Vol. 1–2 (Damascus, 1997).Henry Harris Jessup, The Women of the Arabs, (New York, Dodd and Mead, 1873).Kitab al-Mashyakha, edited by Abu Musa and Shaykh Musa, Silsilat al-Turath al-ʿalawı (Kutub al-ʿalawiyyın al-muqaddasa) (Diyar ʿAql, Lebanon, 2008).

Kamal Salibi and Yusuf K. Khoury, (eds.) The Missionary Herald: Reports from Ottoman Syria, 1819–1870.Vol. V. Amman: Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, 1995.

Samuel Lyde, The Ansyreeh and Ismaeleeh: A Visit to the Secret Sects of Northern Syria; with a View Towardsthe Establishment of Schools (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1853).

Samuel Lyde, The Asian Mystery: The Ansaireeh or Nusairis of Syria (London, Lomgman, Green,Longman, and Roberts, 1860).

A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library Manchester (Manchester,Manchester University Press, 1934).

MS Lyde 17, Cambridge: Old Library, Jesus College.Gizela Prochazka-Eisl and Stephen Prochazka, The Plain of Saints and Prophets: The Nusayri-Alawi

Community of Cilicia (Southern Turkey) and Its Sacred Places (Wiesbaden, 2010).Edward Salisbury, “The Book of Sulayman’s First Ripe Fruit disclosing the mystery of the Nosairian

religion”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, VIII (1864), pp. 227–308.Antoine Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, Expose de la religion des Druzes, tire des livres religieux de cette secte, et

precede d’une introduction et de la vie du khalife Hakem-Biamr-Allah. II vols (Paris, L’Imprimerie royale,1838).

Rudolph Strothmann, “Festkalender Der Nusairer”, Der Islam, XXVII (1944–1946).Yvette Talhamy, “American Protestant Missionary Activity among the Nusayris (Alawis) in Syria in

the Nineteenth Century.” Middle East Studies 47, no. 2 (2011), pp. 215–236.Yvette Talhamy, “Conscription among the Nusayris (ʿAlawis) in the Nineteenth Century”. British

Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (2011), pp. 23–40.Muh. ammad Ghalib al-T. awıl, Tarıkh al-ʿalawiyyın second edition, (Beirut, 1966).


J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses: A Biographical List of All Known Students, Graduates and Holders ofOffice at the University of Cambridge, from the Earliest Times to 1900, Part 2. Vol. IV (Cambridge, 1951).

Stefan Winter, “La revolte Alaouite de 1834 contre L’occupation Egyptienne: perceptions Alaouiteset lecture Ottomane.” Oriente Moderno 79, no. 3 (1999), pp. 61–71.

Philipp Wolff, “Auszuge aus dem Katechismus der Nosairier”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen MorgenlandischenGesellschaft [Magazine of the German Oriental Society] III (1849), pp. 302–309. [email protected]

Bella Tendler KriegerYeshiva University

Documents

The Rediscovery of Samuel Lyde’s Lost Manual for Shaykhs