Historians’ reliance on Mehmed Ali’s own dictations produced a flattering orderly picture

Evidence

It has to be pointed out that the Pasha, although illiterate, was constantly “writing” letters (strictly speaking, dictating them to his scribes), issuing decrees and granting interviews, a point that was not lost on his contemporaries: as the Austrian internuncio once remarked: “The Pasha has not always the virtue of silence or simulation.” The result is countless letters and interviews that have been used by historians to construct a history of his reign, using his own words. The outcome is not surprising: his rule appears impressive, orderly and neat. Mistakes are corrected, crimes are punished, irregularities are standardized and inconsistencies are ironed out. In these accounts it is possible to argue how the Pasha “was capable with his genius mind [to] … spread education, introduce industry, improve administration … and build a modern army.” — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 910

Categorization

• QUESTION: Fahmy’s critique of source-driven historiography — does this apply to how current scholarship treats other ‘founders’ who controlled their own written record?
• XREF: connects to: Some Egyptian historiography is built from the Pasha’s own documents. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 983; Historians risk being hypnotized by Mehmed Ali’s staged spectacles of power. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 69