IV. D 7. OF THE SUDAN 357

cessive heads of his family. Probably he throve most successfully in

the times of Musa Pasha and Ga'afir Muzhar Pasha, and was employed at Khartoum in some minor administrative position, or else was one

of those tactful " vicars of Bray " who were always to be found attached to the suites of the secular dignitaries.

From his expressed opinion of Mumtaz one would hazard the

opinion that he fell into disfavour during that Pasha's regime and com-

pleted his history after passing beyond his reach. On the other hand, the author of ABC (para, xxi), speaking of

the Hamaydania section of the Gamu'ia, says "Among them was

the feki Ibrahim 'Abd el Dafa'i, the author of the History of the Sudan"; and one notes that the family of the much belauded Sheikh el Taib {q.v. in ABC, Tree 3) are very closely related to the Hamay-

dania. The history mentioned may certainly be assumed to be the

one under discussion. Na'um Bey Shukayr, in his History of the Sudan, also speaks of "Sheikh 'Abd el Dafa'i, author of the Fung

chronicle" (Part H, Bk. iv, Chap, i, p. 73).

Thus, in support of the theory that Ibrahim 'Abd el Dafa'i wrote

it, we have (i) the tradition recorded by Mr Jackson and Na'um Bey and quoted above, (2) the express statement in ABC, and (3) the close relationship between Ibrahim and the founder of the Sammania tarika.

On the other hand, (i) the history is carried up to a date between 1870 and 1880, and yet Ibrahim was composing elegies in 1809 and 1823 (see paras, clxxxv and ccxxxv). (2) One would expect more

references to the Gamui'a and their Meks from a Gamu'i author, and a larger interest in the affairs of the Gamui'a countr}' along the west bank of the White Nile. (3) The tradition that Ibrahim 'Abd

el Dafa'i is the author is not by any means universal : my acquaintance-

ship with it is limited to the two quotations made above. (4) The general setting of the two passing references to Ibrahim in paras. CLXXXV and ccxxxv does not seem quite to suit the theory that

Ibrahim was speaking of himself.

There is of course the possibility of a divided authorship, but there is no particular evidence to support such theory.

One can only leave the question of authorship doubtful, and say that, all things considered, the history is a very creditable piece of work. It is written in a simple and straightforward way, with a reasonable sense of proportion ; and the author never loses the thread of his discourse.

Of the Turkish days he writes as a courtier, but it would have been unsafe, and less lucrative, to do otherwise: in fact he is at