LEYDEN (HOLLAND)
| “E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL”: |
| ORIGINAL TRUSTEES. |
| [ Thanks. The pre-1996 stuff is in the trash a small but still significant portion of the stuff which otherwise is in dead storage. The list of post 1/1/95 diskettes that I have at hand is fairly long (62 diskettes), but here it is: CU Crete 0130, Taki 1/2, 11.12.99 CU Crete 0130, Taki 2/2, 11.12.99 CU Crete 0130, CDD 1/2, Longwrite - 964 Kb, 11.12.99 CU Crete 0130, CDD 2/2, Longwrite, 11.12.99 Crete 0130, Taki - ICret 1/2, Cornell 12/7/01 Crete 0130, Taki - SEG etc. 2/2, Cornell 12/7/01 Crete 0130, CDD 1122K 1/2, Longwrite, Cornell 12/7/01 Crete 0130, CDD 2/2, Cornell 12/7/01 CU 1.99 Galatia, 1418=Galatia Taki, Gal=Filelists, 1.15.99 1/3 CU 1.99 Galatia, 1418/CDD=Galatia, 614K, 1.15.99 3/3 Knidos DB FMPro, 6.10.98 Cornell PC t060 Macedonia 1 (probably from Ohio) t060 Macedonia (cont.) 2 (probably from Ohio) t060 Macedonia (cont.) 3, + misc. files (probably from Ohio) Diskette 1: (T060 - Macedonia), t010.IG0001 - t060.Oik, 7/9/98 (probably from Ohio) Pergamon 1405, Taki 1/2, IvP, + filelists, Cornell 3.21.00 Pergamon 1405, Taki 2/2, MDAICA) SEG, Cornell 3.21.00 Pergamon 1405, CDD 1/2, Longwrite = 8/8, Cornell 3.21.00 Pergamon 1405, CDD 2/2, 3.21.00 Cornell Pergamon 1405, Taki 1/2, IvP 1-3, Filelists-Pergamon, 11.17.00 Cornell Pergamon 1405, CDD 1/2, Longwrite, 11.17.00 Cornell Pergamon 1405, CDD 2/2, Longwrite, 11.17.00 Cornell Pergamon Biblio 9911, Taki 1/2, Filelists, 11.17.00 Cornell Pergamon Biblio 9911, Beta 2/2, 11.17.00 Cornell Pergamon Biblio 9911, Upper Kaikos 1430, CDD, 11.17.00 Cornell CD ROM 1997, Phrygia Taki, 8/13/97, SEG 1-41, DrewBear, Insc. de Phrygie, Walkens, Türsteine Asia Minor, Phrygia, 0143, Taki 1/2, + Filelists, Cornell - Ibycus 12.1.97 (marked "Obsolete" by SVFW) Asia Minor, Phrygia, 0143, Taki 2/2, Cornell - Ibycus 12.1.97 (marked "Obsolete" by SVFW) Asia Minor, Phrygia, 0143, Beta 1/2, Cornell - Ibycus 12.1.97 (marked "Obsolete" by SVFW) Asia Minor, Phrygia, 0143, Beta 2/2, Cornell - Ibycus 12.1.97 (marked "Obsolete" by SVFW) Asia Minor, Phrygia, 0143, CDD 1/2, Cornell - Ibycus - 12.1.97 (marked "Obsolete" by SVFW) Asia Minor, Phrygia, 0143, CDD 2/2, Cornell - Ibycus - 12.1.97 (marked "Obsolete" by SVFW) Asia Minor, Phrygia 1/3, Taki, 1624K, 6.5.98 Asia Minor, Phrygia 2/3, Taki, 1624K, 6.5.98 Asia Minor, Phrygia 3/3, Taki 1624K, + filelists, 6.5.98 Asia Minor, Phrygia 1/3, CDD, 1610K Longwrite, Cornell 6.10.98 Asia Minor, Phrygia 2/3, CDD, 1610K Longwrite, Cornell 6.10.98 Asia Minor, Phrygia 3/3, CDD, 1610K Longwrite, Cornell 6.10.98 CU updates 10.1.98, Phrygia 0143 Taki, 1/10 CU updates 10.1.98, Phrygia 0143 Taki + Filelists 'Phr', 2/10 CU updates 10.1.98, Phrygia 0143 CDD, longwrite (1/3), 1630K, 5/10 CU updates 10.1.98, Phrygia 0143 CDD, longwrite (2/3), 1630K, 6/10 CU updates 10.1.98, Phrygia 0143 CDD, longwrite (3/3), 1630K, 7/10 CU updates 1.99 Phryg., 0143=Phrygia Taki, Phr=filelists, 1.15.99 1/5 CU updates 1.99 Phryg., 0143b=Phrygia Beta (Taki Files! added), 1.15.99 2/5 CU updates 1.99 Phryg., 0143 CDD version, Longwrite 1660K (1/3), 1.15.99 3/5 CU updates 1.99 Phryg., 0143 CDD version, Longwrite 1660K (2/3), 1.15.99 4/5 CU updates 1.99 Phryg., 0143 CDD version, Longwrite 1660K (3/3), 1.15.99 5/5 Phyrgia/Pisidia, File-lists (shipment of 6.16), CU 6.30.98 Asia Minor, Pisidia 1/2, Taki, Filelists, 6.5.98 Cornell Asia Minor, Pisidia 2/2, Taki, 6.5.98 Cornell Asia Minor, Pisidia 1/2, CDD, 914K Longwrite, 6.5.98 Cornell Asia Minor, Pisidia 2/2, CDD, 914K Longwrite, 6.5.98 Cornell CU Updates 10.1.98, Pisidia 1420 CDD, Longwrite (1/2) 914K, 9/10 CU Updates 10.1.98, Pisidia 1420 CDD, Longwrite (2/2) 914K, 10/10 CU Updates 1.99 Pisid, 1420=Pisidia Taki, Pis=Filelists, 1.15.99 1/4 CU Updates 1.99 Pis., 1420 CDD version, Longwrite 964K (1/2), 1.15.98[sic] 3/4 CU Updates 1.99 Pis., 1420 CDD version, Longwrite 964K (2/2), 4/4 Asia Min., Pontos 2/2, Auth=1402, CDD ~358K, 5/1/99 Cornell Rhodian Peraia DB FMPro 6.10.98 Cornell PC Syria 0175 1/3, Taki, "SyrAr"=Filelists etc., Cornell 7/98 Syria 0175 3/3, CDD, Cornell 7/98 JANE GIBB, died November 26, 1904], |
| [E. G. BROWNE, died January 5, 1926], |
| G. LE STRANGE, |
| [H. F. AMEDROZ, died March 17, 1917], |
| A. G. ELLIS, |
| R. A. NICHOLSON, |
| SIR E. DENISON ROSS, |
| ADDITIONAL TRUSTEES. |
| IDA W. E. OGILVY-GREGORY, appointed 1905. |
| C. A. STOREY, appointed 1926. |
| H. A. R. GIBB, appointed 1926. |
| CLERK OF THE TRUST. |
| W. L. RAYNES, |
| 90, Regent Street, |
| CAMBRIDGE. |
| PUBLISHER FOR THE TRUSTEES. |
| MESSRS LUZAC & Co., |
| 46, Great Russell Street, |
| LONDON, W.C. |
of a Series
published by the Trustees of the
“E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL”.
The Funds of this Memorial are derived from the Interest accruing from a Sum of money given by the late MRS. GIBB of Glasgow, to perpetuate the Memory of her beloved son
and to promote those researches into the History, Literature, Philosophy and Religion of the Turks, Persians and Arabs, to which, from his Youth upwards, until his premature and deeply lamented Death in his forty-fifth year, on December 5, 1901, his life was devoted.
| “These are our works, these works our souls display; |
| Behold our works when we have passed away”. |
I gladly comply with the request of my friend and sometime pupil, Dr. Muḥammad Niẓámu’d-Dín, now Professor of Persian in the Osmania University, Hyderabad, that I should write a few lines of introduction to the present work, with which, as Trustee-in-charge, I have had exceptional opportunities of making myself acquainted. Yet the pleasure I feel in performing this task is shadowed with regret. I cannot but recall that the work was initiated, directed, and supervised by one who is no longer with us, and that the resolution to publish it was adopted on his recommendation at a meeting of the Trustees held on November 1st, 1924, the last over which he was destined to preside.
While Professor Browne was by no means blind to ‘Awfí’s demerits, he appreciated the value and importance both of the Lubábu’l-Albáb, which his own edition has rendered accessible to students, and the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát. Had he been spared to write a Foreword to this volume, he might have enriched it with many observations drawn from his incomparable knowledge of Persian literary history. For me it is easier to call attention, as I am sure he also would have done, to the principal results achieved by the author’s learning, industry, and enthusiasm.
First, the anecdotes comprised in a hundred chapters and exceeding two thousand in number have been classified, catalogued, and either provided with descriptive titles or summarised, so that with little trouble readers can obtain a systematic view of every part of the immense and hitherto uncharted Persian “Ocean of Story”.
Second, the sources whence ‘Awfí derived the materials for his work have been thoroughly explored and, so far as possible, established. This chapter (pp. 33—103), and indeed the whole of Dr. Niẓámu’d-Dín’s book, displays a critical ability and range of erudition not unworthy of the eminent scholar whom he has taken as his model, Mírzá Muḥammad of Qazwín. ‘Awfí must have had at his command a very large miscellaneous library, including many precious works now lost, and fortunately for us he followed “the good old rule” of appropriating whatever suited his purpose. Judged by the standard of his day, he seems to have been passably honest: here and there he acknowledges a debt, and if he is apt to abridge and popularise his authorities, he does not wilfully garble them.
Third, much new light has been thrown upon the details of ‘Awfí’s life and literary career. From the evidence adduced it appears certain that ‘Awfí’s Persian translation of Tanúkhí’s Faraj ba‘da ’sh-Shidda preceded that of Ḥusayn ibn As‘ad ad-Dihistání, which Ethé supposed to have been the earlier.
Fourth, by personal examination and comparison of more than twenty MSS. and especially of seven belonging to the 14th century the way has been paved for a complete edition of the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát. Apart from the interest of its contents, the text is a monument of classical Persian prose. Great as are the difficulties of publishing it there is reason to hope that they will be overcome.
Subsequent writers made free use of the almost inexhaustible fund of information preserved in the Jawámi‘. As the numerous examples given by Dr. Niẓámu’d-Dín are all, I think, cited from historians or collectors of anecdotes who wrote in prose, I should like to add that probably some of the oldest traces of ‘Awfí’s influence are to be found in the Mathnawí of Jalálu’d-Dín Rúmí. Of course it does not follow that whenever both relate the same story the latter has borrowed it from the former, but several instances suggest that Jalálu’d-Dín may have dipped into the Jawámi‘ with profit to himself and his readers. Anecdote 1192 in ‘Awfí, the original version of the Story of the Arab and his Wife (Mathnawí, Bk I, v. 2244 sqq.), shows how masterfully the genius of the poet could deal with any material presented to it. The wife, who plays such a conspicuous part in the tale, is not mentioned by ‘Awfí; she has been created for the sake of the allegory, in which she typifies the flesh at war with the spirit. I must not dwell on this subject and will only remark that Jalálu’d-Dín’s methods of adaptation are further illustrated by Anecdote 1180 in the Jawámi‘, corresponding to the Story of the Gardener and the Three Friends (Mathnawí, Bk II, v. 2167 sqq.).
Perhaps what has been said is enough to indicate the quality and extent of the author’s researches and the value of his work to students of the history and literature of Islam.
For years the literature of Persia has attracted the attention of European scholars in particular, so much so that a large body of critiques and studies has been produced. But it is worthy of notice that it is more the poetry of Persia than prose that has been the subject of research and appreciation. No doubt scholars like Schefer, Lees, Elliot, Browne, Áqá Mírzá Muḥammad Khán, Professors Barthold and Nicholson and others have brought to light many a forgotten standard work and have also edited them; but the quantity of prose that has come within their purview is insignificant as compared with the poetic literature that has been the subject of Oriental scholarship. Not that the Orientalists have any particular intellectual or aesthetic distaste for prose or that material is not ready to hand. In spite of the great scourge of 1265 A. D. which afflicted Persia and its intellectual and literary life and resulted in the destruction of countless invaluable works, there still exists a considerable amount of prose literature that can be profitably utilised by modern scholarship. Indeed it is gratifying to note that an increasing and deserved attention is now being given to it.
One of the monumental works that have survived the Mongol Invasion is that great Collection of Anecdotes, the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát wa Lawámi‘u’r-Riwáyát of Sadídu’d-Dín Muḥammad-‘Awfí, to which the following pages serve as an analytical Introduction. The great importance of this work is indicated in Chapter II; may this Introduction to it prove, in even so small a measure, a source of help and assistance to all those who may be engaged in research in the different branches of Islamic history, literature, and science.
I wish I could have published the whole or a part of the original text of ‘Awfí along with this Introduction, but it appears that a few more years will have to elapse before I can finally edit it and see it through the press.
Before concluding, it is my chief duty to acknowledge all my obligations. I have dedicated this work to two persons, one, my late revered father Muḥammad Ghiyáthu’d-Dín, who inspired in me from my childhood a love for literature, the other, the late Professor Browne, who at the close of his memorable life, during the four years I worked under him at Cambridge, generously afforded me incalculable guidance in the pursuit of knowledge. As they are no longer living in body, may my humble effort win their spiritual approbation and blessing. These are not my only benefactors. H. E. H. the Niẓám’s government awarded me a special European Scholarship allowance which enabled me to carry on my researches in various Eastern and Western countries. To my Alma Mater, Cambridge, I owe my doctorate. The Trustees of the Gibb Memorial Fund have shown admirable generosity in publishing my Thesis in their Series. Prof. Nicholson, whom once the late Prof. Browne called the “godfather” to my work, stands foremost among those who have helped me in my studies. From the stage of manuscript to the correction of the last proofs, Dr. Nicholson has bestowed on the work such considerable pains and personal interest that words fail me to give adequate expression to my sense of gratitude towards him. There is another benefactor, Áqá Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín, whose name I mention with deep reverence. It was he who when I met him in Paris broadened my vision of historical criticism and widened the horizon of the present work. To Sir Denison Ross, Professors Margoliouth, Barthold, Marquart, Kratchkovski, Thomas, Massignon, Messrs Edwards, Ellis, Storey, Blochet, Krenkow, Wharton, and Prof. Iqbál of Lahore I am indebted in various ways. I cannot end without expressing my sense of obligation to all those authors whose works I have consulted and the various librarians through whom Mss. and works of reference were made available to me. Nor can I forget two of my pupils, ‘Abdu’l-Jalíl and Bindú Madhua, who have so dutifully helped me in the preparation and correction of the proofs of the Index.
I regret that in spite of the efforts of several careful proof-readers, a number of mistakes have crept into the book, so that I have found it necessary to add a list of corrigenda. I hope and trust that any mistakes which may have escaped my notice will be kindly overlooked by indulgent readers.
| Maḥbúb Vale, Ḥaydarábád-Dn. | |
| 22 Feb. 1929. | M. NIẒÁMU’D-DÍN. |
| P. | 6, | l. | 15 | Omit | [ |
|||
| ” | 7, | ” | 15 | Add | ||||
| ” | 8, | ” | 7 | Read | Majdu’d-Dín; l. 14 read 1300. | |||
| ” | 12, | n. | 1 | ” | Pt. II; the last footnote should be numbered 9. | |||
| ” | 14, | n. | 9 | ” | Iranischen. | |||
| ” | 15, | l. | 21 | ” | ||||
| ” | 16, | ” | 15 | ” | ||||
| ” | 19, | ” | 19 | ” | Chingíz; n. 4 Lakhnaw. | |||
| ” | 24, | ” | 20 | ” | are for is. | |||
| ” | 25, | ” | 8 | ” | Jáḥiẓ; l. 10 Dioscorides for Democrates. | |||
| ” | 26, | ” | 14 | ” | younger. | |||
| ” | 27, | ” | 36 | m | ” | In for Iu. | ||
| ” | 28, | ” | 2 | ” | Khwánd-amír; l. 41 -Mutawakkil. | |||
| ” | 31, | ” | 16 | -17 | (973 A. H. = 1565 A. D.) is the date of the death of Ṣáliḥ b. Jalál and not of Sulṭán Bayazíd. | |||
| ” | 32, | ” | 5 | Read | (D. f71a. IV, xvii. 1976) for D. f69b, etc. | |||
| ” | 36, | ” | 25 | ” | Radhiyyu’d-Dín. | |||
| ” | 39, | ” | 6 | ” | Nu‘mán. | |||
| ” | 43, | Omit | — Turkistán from the heading of the page. | |||||
| ” | 48, | n. | 11 | Read | Miskawayh. | |||
| ” | 49, | l. | 21 | ” | Abú ‘Alí ibn Muqla. | |||
| ” | 50, | ” | 10 | ” | Azhar Mosque for Khedivial Library. | |||
| ” | 50, | n. | iii | ” | Ms. contains. | |||
| ” | 51, | n. | 9 | ” | ||||
| ” | 56, | l. | 30 | ” | Naṣr b. Aḥmad for Aḥmad by Naṣr. | |||
| ” | 63, | ” | 34 | ” | Mas‘úd’s. | |||
| ” | 70, | ” | 28 | ” | Dhu’n-Nún. | |||
| ” | 71, | n. | 2 | , | l. 4 | Omit | his collaborator before Mírzá Muḥammad. | |
| ” | 74, | n. | 1 | , | l. 2 | Read | ||
| ” | 76, | n. | 3 | ” | facs. for fasc. | |||
| ” | 79, | n. | 1 | ” | and for aud. | |||
| ” | 80, | n. | 1 | , | l. 4 | ” | Quṭbu’d-Dín. | |
| ” | 95, | l. | 25 | ” | Qúhistání. | |||
| ” | 99, | ” | 29 | ” | ‘Ubaydu’llah. | |||
| ” | 102, | n. | 7 | ” | 1866. | |||
| ” | 112, | n. | 3 | Add | ||||
| P. | 141, | Anec. | 26 | Read | ‘Abdu’llah b. Muḥammad Abu’l-‘Abbás as-Saffáḥ. | |
| ” | 142, | ” | 50 | ” | Sayf. | |
| ” | 143, | ” | 72 | probably ‘Uqba b. Abí Mu‘ayṭ. | ||
| ” | 144, | ” | 94 | Omit | b. after Abú Sulaymán. | |
| ” | 145, | ” | 104 | Read | J. N. U. for J. N. V. | |
| ” | 146, | ” | 125 | -128 | ” | Dhaḥḥák |
| ” | 148, | ” | 177 | ” | the son and the grandson of Bahrám. | |
| ” | ” | ” | 179 | ” | Súkhurrá for Sawájir. | |
| ” | ” | ” | 184 | ” | Buzurjmihr. | |
| ” | 158, | ” | 500 | ” | Ismá‘íl b. Aḥmad for Ismá‘il b. Naṣr. | |
| ” | 162, | ” | 595 | ” | Abú Ayyúb Sulaymán Wahb and omit Sulaymán b. Wahb after his son. | |
| ” | ” | ” | 606 | ” | Yaḥyá b. Khálid for Yaḥyá b. Fadhl. | |
| ” | 165, | ” | 661 | ” | Aḥnaf b. Qays for Qays b. Aḥnaf. | |
| ” | ” | ” | 670 | ” | Qays b. Sa‘d b. ‘Ubáda. | |
| ” | 166, | ” | 698 | ” | Sulaymán b. Muḥammad. | |
| ” | 166-7, | ” | 699 | , 713-717 | ” | Ṣáliḥ b. Nadhr. |
| ” | 167, | ” | 700 | , l. 1 | ” | Layth; 713, l. 3, Kuthayyir. |
| ” | 168, | ” | 729 | ” | the for The. | |
| ” | 169, | ” | 751 | , l. 1 | Probably the Wazír Abu’l-Haṣan ibnu’l-Furát is meant; l. 2 read their for his; l. 3 Bú Ṣayqání, probably Waṣíf b. Ṣuwartigín. | |
| ” | 170, | ” | 755 | , l. 2 | Read | bowl of honey. |
| ” | ” | ” | 756 | , l. 3 | ” | Caliph. |
| ” | ” | ” | 768 | , l. 1 | ” | Ba‘lbakk. |
| ” | 171, | ” | 781 | , l. 2 | ” | Kawthar. |
| ” | 173, | ” | 831 | ” | ‘Iṣám. | |
| ” | 174, | ” | 853 | , l. 1 | ” | Qádhí Sharík for Qádhí Shurayḥ. |
| ” | ” | ” | 861 | , l. 3 | Reading in the text -Manṣúr for -Ma’mún. | |
| ” | 176, | ” | 885 | , l. 1 | Read | Mu‘áwiya. |
| ” | ” | ” | 887 | , l. 3 | Omit | al- before Hárún; l. 4 add N. to S. N. |
| ” | 177, | ” | 920 | , l. 3 | Read | he for be; l. 4, read Qábíl. |
| ” | ” | ” | 924 | , l. 2 | Omit | al- before Hárún. |
| ” | 179, | ” | 951 | , l. 2 | Read | Ibn Khal. for Ibn Kh. |
| ” | 180, | ” | 987 | , l. 2 | ” | sent for seut. |
| ” | 181, | ” | 988 | , l. 1 | ” | ‘Amr b. Mas‘ada’s; l. 3, army. |
| ” | ” | ” | 997 | , l. 1 | ” | title for titile. |
| ” | ” | ” | 1003 | , ll. 3-4 | ” | Átháru’l-Wuzará’. |
| ” | ” | ” | 1006 | , l. 1 | Omit | the full stop after Jannábí. |
| ” | 183, | ” | 1041 | , l. 3 | Read | Bahman for Bahrám. |
| ” | 184, | ” | 1055 | , l. 1 | ” | bloodsucking for blooksucking. |
| ” | 188, | ” | 1126 | , l. 2 | ” | Kímiyá-i-Sa‘ádat. |
| ” | 189, | ” | 1130 | , 1134 | Omit | al- before Hárún. |
| ” | ” | ” | 1141 | Read | Buzurjmihr for Buzurjimihr. | |
| ” | 194, | ” | 1231 | ” | Kitábu Sharafu’n-Nabí. | |
| ” | 203, | ” | 1395 | , l. 1 | ” | Bukht-i-Naṣṣar; l, 2, Irmiya. |
| ” | 206, | ” | 1450 | , l. 2 | Probably Isfíjáb for Sanjáb or Sinjáb. The same correction should be made on p. 158, Anec. 500, and p. 56, l. 32. | |
| ” | 211, | ” | 1509 | , l. 1 | Read | Thumáma. |
| ” | ” | ” | 1519 | , | ” | ‘Abbás b. ‘Amr-i-Ghanawí for ‘Abbás b. ‘Umar. |
| P. | 213, | Anec. | 1538 | , l. 1 | Read | Mu’ayyidu’l-Mulk, the son of the great Wazír. |
| ” | 215, | ” | 1559 | , l. 1 | ” | Barmecides and omit brothers. |
| ” | 217, | ” | 1590 | , l. 1 | ” | Naṣíbín. |
| ” | 225, | ” | 1688 | , l. 3 | ” | friendship. |
| ” | 246, | ” | 1946 | , l. 1 | ” | Jálandhar. |
| ” | 251, | ” | 1989 | , l. 4 | ” | Andulus. |
| ” | 252, | ” | 2004 | , l. 10 | Add | a comma after pseudo-prophet. |
| ” | 253, | ” | 2010 | , l. 1 | Read | A Story of the. |
| ” | 254, | ” | 2032 | , l. 2 | ” | Andulus. |
| ” | 257, | ” | 2066 | , l. 4 | ” | nature for naturo. |
| ” | 258, | ” | 2068 | , l. 6 | For | Dhiyá’u’d-Dín, in Lubáb Zaynu’d-Dín, see p. 10, l. 4. |
| ” | 259, | ” | 2088 | , l. 1 | Read | euphemistic for euphemistie. |
| ” | 260, | ” | 2094 | , l. 1 | ” | |
| ” | ” | ” | 2097 | , l. 2 | ” | |
| ” | ” | ” | 2105 | , l. 1 | Read | Hárún envies for Hárún’s envy. |
| ” | 267, | § 5 | ” | Ziyárids. | ||
| ” | ” | § 7 | ” | Buwayhids. | ||
| ” | 269, | l. 2 | Insert a comma after ii, and read ascertaining. | |||
| ” | ” | § 8 | Read | Ya‘qúb-i-Kashsháfí for Ya‘qúb Kisá’í. | ||
| ” | 270, | VII, l. 4 | ” | arranged in sections IV, V and VI of | ||
| ” | 273, | ” | ||||
| ” | ” | …. | ||||
| ” | 276, | Add | 26 as No. of the Conspectus. | |||
| ” | 306, | col. 2, l. 40 | Read | Sawájir (wrongly for Súkhurrá). | ||
| ” | 308, | col. 2, l. 18 | ” | Súkhurrá. | ||
Add. = Additional (Mark of the Mss. in the British Museum).
Aghání = Kitáb Agháni’l-Kabír of Abu’l-Faraj-Iṣbahání, Búláq, 1868.
Ansáb = Kitábu’l-Ansáb of ‘Abdu’l-Karím b. Muḥammad -Sam‘ání, (Facsimile, Gibb Memorial Series), Leyden, 1912.
Ar. = Arabic.
Asia. Muz. = Asiatsky Muzei, Petrograd.
A. T. A. = ‘Aṭṭár, (Farídu’d-Dín), Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’, ed. R. A. Nicholson, (Persian Historical Text Series), Leyden, 1905, 1907.
B. A. B. or Áthár = -Bírúní, Abú Rayḥán, Átháru’l-Báqiya ‘an-Qurúni’l-Kháliya, Arabic text ed. E. Sachau, Leipzig, 1876—78.
Bib. Geog. Arab. = Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Lugduni Batavorum.
Bib. Indica = Bibliotheca Indica Series, Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.
Bib. Nat. = Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
Bodl. Lib. = Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Br. Mus. = British Museum, London.
Brock. = Carl Brockelmann.
Brock. Gesch. Ar. Litt. = C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, Weimar and Berlin, 1898—1902.
B. T. F. = Briggs’s edition of Ta’ríkh-i-Firishta of Muḥammad Qásim b. Hindúsháh Astarábádí, Bombay, 1831.
B. T. G. = E. G. Browne’s abridged translation of Ta’ríkh-i-Guzída, Gibb Series, Leyden, 1913.
B. T. H. or Indica = -Bírúní, Abú Rayḥán, Kitábu’l-Hind or Kitáb fí Taḥqíqi-má li’l-Hind etc. Arabic text, ed. E. Sachau, London, Göttingen, 1887.
B. T. M. = Bayhaqí, Abu’l-Fadhl, Ta’ríkh-i-Mas‘úd, ed. W. N. Lees (Bibliotheca Indica Series) Calcutta, 1862.
Cat. = Catalogue.
Cat. Pers. Mss. Br. Mus. = Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, by Charles Rieu, London, 1879—83.
D. H. H. = -Damírí, Ḥayátu’l-Ḥayawánu’l-Kubrá (Arabic Text, Búláq).
D. N. D. = Dimashqí, Shamsu’d-Dín Abú ‘Abdi’llah Muḥammad b. Abí Ṭálib, Nukhbatu’d-Dahr fí ‘Ajá’ibi’l-Barri wa’l-Baḥr, ed. A. F. M. Mehren, 1866.
D. T. S. = Dawlatsháh, Tadhkiratu’sh-Shu‘ará, ed. E. G. Browne, (Persian Historical Text Series).
Eclipse = Eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate (Supplement to the Tajáribu’l-Umam of Miskawayh, Arabic text, ed. D. S. Margoliouth).
Ency. Brit. = Encyclopaedia Britannica, XI Edition.
Ency. Islam = Encyclopaedia of Islam.
Fihrist = Kitábu’l-Fihrist of Ibnu’n-Nadím (Muḥammad b. Isḥáq b. Abí Ya‘qúb -Warráq, -Baghdádí), ed. G. L. Flügel.
Gh. or Ghurar = Histoire des Rois de Perse, or Ghuraru Akhbári Mulúki’l-Fursi wa Siyari-him of Abú Manṣúr ‘Abdu’l-Malik Ath-Tha‘álibí, ed. H. Zotenberg, Arabic Text, Paris, 1900.
G. I. P. = Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie, ed. Geiger and Kuhn.
H. Khal. = Ḥájjí Khalfa, Kátib Chalapí, Kashfu’ẓ-Ẓunún, ed. G. L. Flügel.
H. N. Q. = Ḥamdu’llah Mustawfí, Nuzhatu’l-Qulúb, Persian text, ed. Guy Le Strange (Gibb Series).
H. S. R. = Ibn Hishám, Síratu Rasúli’llah, ed. F. Wüstenfeld.
H. T. Q. = Ḥamdu’llah Mustawfí, Ta’ríkh-i-Guzída, (Facs. Gibb Series).
H. T. S. = Ḥamza b. Ḥasan -Iṣfaháni, Ta’rikh-i-Siní Muluki’l-Ardh wa’l-Anbiyá’ (Káviání Press, Berlin, 1340 A. H.).
Ibn Khal. = Ibn Khallikán, Wafayátu’l-A‘yán, ed. F. Wüstenfeld.
Imp. Publ. Bib. = Imperatorskaya Publichnaya Biblioteka, Petrograd, now Leningrad.
Imp. Sank. Uni. = Imperatorsky Sanktpeterburgsky Universitet Library, Petrograd, now Leningrad.
Ind. Off. = India Office Library, London.
J A S B. = Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Jawámi‘ = Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát wa Lawámi‘u’r-Riwáyát of -‘Awfí. (For Mss. used, see the list on p. 111).
J. K. H. = Jáḥiẓ, Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán, Cairo, 1325 A. H.
J. N. U. = Jámí, Nafaḥátu’l-Uns (Lees’s Persian Series).
J R A S. = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
Kámil = -Kámil fi’t-Ta’ríkh of Ibnu’l-Athír, ed. C. J. Tornberg, 1867—71.
Kh. H. S. = Khwándamír, Ḥabíbu’s-Siyar, Bombay, litho. 1857.
L. E. C. = Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Guy Le Strange (Cambridge University Press).
Lit. His. Persia = Literary History of Persia, by E. G. Browne.
Lubáb = Lubábu’l-Albáb of -‘Awfí, ed. Browne, vols. I—II (Persian Historical Text Series).
M. A. T. or Asrár = Muḥammad b. -Munawwar, Asráru’l-Tawḥíd fí Maqámát-i-Shaykh Abí Sa‘íd, ed. Zhukovski.
M. K. B. = Maqdisí, Muṭahhar b. Ṭáhir, Kitábu’l-Bad’i wa’l-Ta’ríkh or Le Livre de la Création et de l’Histoire, ed. Cl. Huart, Arabic Text, 4 vols, Paris 1899—1907.
M. M. Dh. = Mas‘údí (‘Alí b. Ḥusayn), Murúju’dh-Dhahab or Les Prairies d’Or, Arabic Text, ed. Barbier de Meynard, Paris.
M. R. S. = Mírkhwánd, Rawdhatu’ṣ-Ṣafá, Lucknow Litho., 1874.
M. T. I. = Mas‘údí (‘Alí b. Ḥusayn), Kitábu’l-Tanbíh-wa’l-Ishráf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Bib. Geog. Arab., vol. VIII.
M. T. N. = Minháju’d-Dín (‘Uthmán b. Siráju’d-Dín-Júzjání), Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí, ed. W. N. Lees, Bib. Indica Series.
Nishwár = Nishwáru’-Muḥádhara, Arabic Text, ed. by Margoliouth.
N. S. N. = Niẓámu’l-Mulk, Siyásat-náma, Persian Text, ed. C. Schefer, Paris.
Or. = Oriental (Mark of the Mss. in the British Museum).
Pers. = Persian.
Pet. = Petrograd.
Q. A. B. = Qazwíní (Zakariyyá), Átháru’l-Bilád, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen, 1848.
Q. A. M. = Qazwíní (Zakariyyá), ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Makhlúqát, Arabic Text, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1847.
Q. K. M. = Ibn Qutayba, Kitábu’l-Ma‘árif, Arabic Text, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Litho., Göttingen, 1850.
Q. T. H. = Ibnu’l-Qifṭí (Jamálu’d-Dín), Ta’ríkhu’l-Ḥukamá’, ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig, 1903.
Q. U. A. = Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár, ed. C. Brockelmann.
R. Q. = Risálatu’l-Qushayriyya of ‘Abdu’l-Karím b. Hawázin -Qushayrí, Búláq, 1287 A. H.
S. J. M. = Sírat Jalálu’d-Dín Mankubirní, Arabic Text, ed. O. Houdas, Paris, 1891.
S. K. M. = Sijistání (Abú Ḥátim), Kitábu’l-Mu‘ammarín, ed. Ign. Goldziher, Leyden, 1899.
S. S. N. = Supplément Siasset Naméh (Texte Persan) by C. Schefer, Paris, 1897.
Suppl. = Supplement.
Ṭab. or Ṭabarí = Ta’ríkhu ’r-Rusuli-wa’l-Mulúk of Muḥammad b. Jarír -Ṭabarí, ed. de Goeje, Leyden.
Ṭabarí-Uebersetzung = Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden. Aus der arabischen Chronik des Ṭabarí übersetzt, von Th. Nöldeke, Leyden 1879.
T. F. S. or Faraj = Tanúkhí, Muḥassin, Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda, Arabic Text, Cairo 1903, 1904.
T. J. J. = Taríkh-i-Jahán-gushá-i-Juwayní, ed. Mírzá Muḥammad Qazwíní, Gibb Seríes, 1912, 1916.
T. S. N. = Translation of Siasset Naméh in French by C. Schefer, Paris, 1893.
Turkistán = Turkistán at the time of the Mongol Invasion, Russian edition, W. Barthold.
U. Q. N. = ‘Unṣuru’l-Ma‘álí, Qábús-náma, Ṭihrán Litho., 1285 A. H.
U. T. A. = Ibn Abí Uṣaybi‘a, Ṭabaqátu’l-Aṭibbá’, Cairo and Königsberg, 1884.
Wüst = H. F. Wüstenfeld.
Wüst. Gesch. = Die Geschichtschreiber der Araber und ihre Werke, by Wüstenfeld.
Y. I. A. = Yáqút, Irshádu’l-Aríb ilá Ma‘rifati’l-Adíb, ed. Margoliouth, Gibb Series.
Y. M. B. Yáqút, Mu‘jamu’l-Buldán, ed. Wüstenfeld.
Z. D. M. G. = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
Z. V. O. = Zapiski Vostochnavo Otdyeleniya Imperatorskevo Russkavo Arkheologischeskavo Obshchestva.
CHAPTER I.
Through Fresh contribution towards the life of the author. the publication of the first part of the Lubábu’l-Albáb) of our author, many incidents of his life have been revealed in the masterly introduction of Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín, and in fact his research is an advance upon that of Nathaniel Bland), Charles Rieu), Prof. E. G. Browne) and Th. W. Juynboll); the present notice is a continuation of the above, and is chiefly based on a closer study of the three works of our author, viz., the above-mentioned Lubáb, the Persian Translation) of at-Tanúkhí’s al-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda, by our author, and the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát), the present work, which we mean to discuss in this Introduction.
In Investigation of three problems. this estimate of the life and works of al-‘Awfí, only those points are discussed which were doubtful, and required a thorough investigation, e. g. his real title, the actual period of his life, and his literary career. For the first point documentary evidence is recorded and examined, for the second, an attempt is made to adduce circumstantial evidence, in order to determine the distinct phases into which his life falls, and for the third, a critical estimate of his individual works is affixed.
Until Discussion on his Laqab, as Sadídu’d-Dín, not Núru’d-Dín nor Jamálu’d-Dín. now, the laqab of the author Muḥammad al-‘Awfí has been known as Núru’d-Dín, which is founded on a wrong basis. Surely al-‘Awfí was known to his contemporaries as Sadídu’d-Dín, and how it was converted into Núru’d-Dín, one cannot say; probably the earliest authority for this innovation is that of Ḥamdu’llah Mustawfí al-Qazwíní, but we possess ample proofs to the contrary, and even contemporary documentary evidences regarding his correct laqab as Sadídu’d-Dín.
The The endorsement of a contemporary. latter statement is based, firstly, on an extract from a subscription to al-‘Awfí’s Persian Translation of al-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda), which runs as follows: — [Ind. Off. 1432] = Ethé’s Cat. No. 737 f456b-f457a.
This endorsement of a contemporary establishes beyond doubt, the title by which al-‘Awfí was known in his own times; actually his title was Sadídu’d-Dín and not Núru’d-Dín as the later authorities are inclined to believe. There has been a great confusion about it from the earliest down to modern times; Ḥamdu’llah Mustawfí al-Qazwíní being the first author to give an account of him, a very short one, in his Ta’ríkh-i-Guzída (see facs., p. 811). This history was composed in 730 A. H. = 1330 A. D., that is to say a century after the death of al-‘Awfí, and in it he mentions his title as Núru’d-Dín, in which he has been followed by all the later writers, except H. Khalfa (Vol. II, p. 510 No. 3899) whose knowledge of al-‘Awfí’s works is very inaccurate, and who mentions his title as Jamálu’d-Dín. This error has multiplied, as we find Flügel (Vienna Cat. [Persisch 422] Vol. I, p. 410) and a host of other Orientalists incorrectly describing the authorship and dedication of the Jawámi‘.
There Recognition of it by the author himself. is no mention in the text of the Lubáb or in the oldest and most reliable Mss. of the Jawámi‘, of his title as Núru’d-Dín, except in F.) on f135b, which is an abridged and supplemented codex. On the other hand, the title of al-‘Awfí as Sadídu’d-Dín is confirmed by another authentic record concerning al-‘Awfí, i.e., a line preserved in the Lubáb (I, p. 158-9) which occurs in a communication addressed by a friend of al-‘Awfí, called Muhadhdhabu’d-Dín Manṣúr b. ‘Alí al-Asfuzárí) (or Asfizárí), and is acknowledged by the author:
The words Sadíd and ‘Awfí, which occur in the last hemistich with the definite article, are not merely ornamental, but they form a part of the author’s full name; thus the shortened laqab and nisba are very aptly combined here.
In As recorded in the [Supplément Persan 95] Bib. Nat. Paris. support of this argument, the second oldest extant Ms. of the Jawámi‘ = B. dated 717 A. H. can also be adduced. In the body of the text at the end, on f289b in conclusion the author calls himself Sadíd-i-‘Awfí, and on the frontispiece f1a. of this Ms. the following words are written in the gilded border decoration.
The As duly acknowledged in the Tajáribu’s-Salaf. fourth item of evidence in proof of his title as Sadídu’d-Dín is based on the three quotations in the Tajáribu’s-Salaf), the enlarged Persian translation of the Kitábu’l-Fakhrí, by Hindúsháh b. Sanjar al-Kírání aṣ-Ṣáḥibí, who composed this work about 724 A. H. = 1324 A. D. In two of these quotations from the Jawámi‘ he acknowledges in clear words the title of the author as Sadídu’d-Dín:
In point of time Hindúsháh is as much later as Ḥamdu’llah, but the former acknowledges the title of the author and quotes correctly, whereas the latter in his Nuzhatu’l-Qulúb borrows from the Jawámí‘, yet mentions neither the laqab nor the nisba of the author. Perhaps the only passage that supports the claims of later writers) who give his title as Núru’d-Dín is this:
This short and unsatisfactory notice in the Ta’ríkh-i-Guzída is contrary to the weighty arguments advanced in proof of his correct title as Sadídu’d-Dín; hence Ḥamdu’llah’s version deserves very little credit, and henceforward his laqab will be regarded as Sadídu’d-Dín.
Before Determination of the Periods of his life. proceeding to discuss the actual details of our author’s life, it is necessary to determine the probable dates of his birth and death, but in this direction only internal and external evidence can be brought forward, and only approximate limits can be fixed, for we are not possessed of conclusive dates.
In The earliest limit. the year 597 A. H. = 1200/1 A D., we find him vigorous), coming out of his native town Bukhárá, as an accomplished scholar, and appearing at the court of the Sultan Jalálu’d-Dín Ibráhím b. al-Ḥusayn Ṭamgháj Khán of Samarqand, who reigned 574-597 A. H. = 1178/9-1200/1 A. D., and having literary discussions in the company of teachers and learned men like the Amír ‘Amíd Bahá’u’d-Dín, the tutor to the Prince Nuṣratu’d-Dín Qilij Arslán Kháqán ‘Uthmán), whose reign terminated about 609 A.H. = 1212/3 A. D. and whom he thinks to be 15 years old at that time. It is natural enough that al-‘Awfí, after his long studies in Bukhárá, should have attained an age of 25-30 years, after which he started on his literary tour, or in search of some position at the courts of the different princes, to which he pays visits in turn, as we shall notice presently; therefore on this hypothesis his birth can be placed between 567 and 572 A. H. = 1171/2-1176/7 A. D.
Whereas The latest limit. in the Jawámi‘) there are conclusive proofs that our author lived up to 630 A. H., one significant line in the memoria technica of the ‘Abbásid Caliphs suggests a much longer period than what is supposed. Our author has written the accounts of the 36 Caliphs of the ‘Abbásid line, and has brought down the history to the Caliphate of al-Mustanṣir, (623-640 A. H.), from whom his patron-monarch Shamsu’d-Dín Iltutmish received the nominal insignia of office in 626 A. H., in order to establish friendly relations between Baghdád and Dihlí (A. f118b. I. v. 362) but it appears that this line was added later on and the discrepancies were overlooked.
The Approximate age 60 years. persistence with which thirteen Mss. repeat this line makes one believe that the author lived at longest until the accession of al-Must‘aṣim, the last of the ‘Abbásid Caliphs, and added this line about 640 A. H. = 1242 A. D. Thus the period of his life falls roughly speaking between 567 and 640 A. H. = 1172-1242 A. D., or 572-635 A. H. = 1176/7-1232/3 A. D. which is probably nearer the truth. According to the latter reckoning al-‘Awfí lived a little less than 60 lunar years.
This Divisions of his life-period. period of about 60 years is marked by three distinct phases of his life:
| I. | Birth, childhood, and early education i.e., 572-597 A. H. = 1176-1200 A. D. in Transoxiana, mostly in Bukhárá his native town. |
| II. | Itinerary period, i.e., 597-617 A. H. = 1200-1220 A. D. from his first appearance at Samarqand, up to the time of settling at the court of Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha al-Mu‘izzí, the ruler of Sind. |
| III. | The period of literary productivity, i.e., 617-630 A. H. = 1220-1232/3 A. D. from the composition of the Lubáb until the completion of the Jawámi‘, and even later. |
As His childhood and early education. regards the first period of our author’s life very little is known, except from incidental references in the Lubáb and the Jawámi‘. The earliest mention of his childhood is made by himself in the Lubáb) and in the Jawámi‘ (D. f207a. III. v. 1588) (D. f187b. II. xxiv. 1524). As we know from the biography in the Lubáb) and from Taqí Awḥadí’s Tadhkira), the person referred to in the passages cited from the Jawámi‘ is al-‘Awfí’s grandfather Sharafu’d-Dín Abú Ṭáhir Yaḥya b. Ṭáhir b. ‘Uthmán al-‘Awfí, but unfortunately the date of his death is not known; otherwise we could have had a definite point to start from. At any rate our author was still a child, as we find him later acquiring the rudiments of knowledge under great teachers like Ruknu’d-Dín) Mas‘úd Imámzádah of Bukhárá, in a school at Dar-i-Fárijak) (A. f215b. I, xvii, 984), and again we find him reading the Fá’iq of az-Zamakhsharí, under another eminent doctor of law and a notable of the Ál-i-Burhán called Táju’d-Dín) ‘Umar b. Mas‘úd, a contemporary of Qilij Ṭamgháj Ibráhím and his son referred to above, and later we find him also reading under Quṭbu’d-Dín) as-Sarakhsí the calligrapher, the transcriber of the Lughát-i-Azharí, and the Keeper of the Sarpul Bázárcha Library of Bukhárá, and giving a faint recollection of Shamsu’d-Dín) Muḥammad ad-Daqá’iqí al-Marwazí, and of Sharafu’d-Dín) b. Fakhru’d-Dín Mas‘údí, and of his early association with a contemporary) when they had both committed to memory the Jámi‘u’s-Ṣaghír of the Qádhí Fakhru’d-Dín Ján; and probably the last reference to his educational period occurs in the biography of the poet Ashrafí-i-Samarqandí, about whom he writes the following:
The Itinerary period. instances cited above are quite different from the nature of those that will follow in the real period of his literary tour, as all of them conform to the requirement of a beginner, and to the foundation of his future literary greatness, which he laid in his native town, just before starting on his tour about 597 A. H. The literary tour of our author extends over a period of 20 years, 1200-1220 A. D. The first part of the Lubáb is in fact, from the autobiographic point of view, a faithful record of his activities) in Khurásán, and as Prof. Browne remarks), “His Lubáb may fairly be regarded as the Kitábu’l-Aghání of Persia …. It contains notices of 122 royal and noble personages who occasionally condescended to write verse, and of about 163 poets by profession, of whom thirty belong to the Ṭáhirí, Ṣaffárí, and Sámání periods; twenty-nine to the Ghaznaví period; and fifty to the Saljúq period; while some fifty-four are, roughly speaking, the author’s contemporaries”. The information for the above he collected during this period of his life. A rough outline of his tour is sketched below, in order to show the various places and eminent persons he visited. Like most of the learned men of his day our author was also seeking during his journeys a suitable position for himself, as we shall notice presently.
At At Samarqand. first he tries the court of the Ílak Kháns of Samarqand, where he held for sometime an honorary secretaryship) and made important literary acquaintances of the circle of the court, like the Wazír of Samarqand Niẓámu’l-Mulk Ṣadru’d-Dín) Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, the four Shamsu’d-Díns, the poets of the same laqab, and other eminent scholars, viz., Sharafu’d-Dín) Ḥusám Muḥammad b. ‘Abí Bakr an-Nasafí, a contemporary of the poets Kháqání and ‘Umar Núqání, from whom he obtains permission for relating Traditions; and Ṣadru’d-Dín ‘Umar b. Muḥammad al-Khurramábádí), a panegyrist of the Sultan ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh (reigned 596-617 A. H. = 1199-1220 A. D.). Although his maternal uncle Sharafu’z-Zamán Maju’d-Dín) Muḥammad b. ‘Adnán as-Surkhakatí and his cousin were serving in that court as state physicians, and our author seemed to be satisfied with the agreeable company of the Prince, yet we find that his stay here was not prolonged, and once more he was setting out on his travels.
After In Khwárazm. cultivating important acquaintances in Máwará’u’n-Nahr our author goes to Khwárazm. There is one important record of his stay in Khwárazm, which is found among the additional anecdotes, in the oldest Ms. of the Jawámi‘ (dated 699 A. H. = 1300 A. D.), which runs as follows: (A. f185b. I. xiii. 728)
In His stay coincides with this event. the above passage the date is not given, but from the historical events related in the preceding and succeeding anecdotes it can be established with certainty by references to other sources. According to the Ta’ríkh-i-Jahángushá’-i-Juwayní), the severest tension between the Sultan Mu‘ízzu’d-Dín Muḥammad (also called Shihábu’d-Dín) Ghúrí, (d. 602 A. H. = 1206 A. D.) and the Sultan ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh dates back to 598 A. H. = 1201/2 A. D.; and the latest phase of this struggle, when the Ghúrid Sultan was completely broken down, and gave up all hopes of Khwárazm and re-organised his defeated forces, and turned his thought finally towards India, occurs in 602 A. H., just before his death; and in the Ta’ríkh-i-Firishta) reference is made to one of the attacks on Khwárazm, in the following manner:
The
599-600 A. H.
as the year of
his stay.
attack of the Ghúrid Sultan and the clever defence of the city of Khwárazm
referred to in the anecdote must have happened before 600 A. H. From this it can be
concluded that al-‘Awfí was in Khwárazm at about this time, as it is in conformity
with the stages of his tour shown above — that is to say, after leaving Samarqand he
comes back to Bukhárá and goes to Khwárazm — and also because it corroborates the
coming events, as he is seen in Shahr-i-Naw and Nasá in 600 A. H. Besides this, we
find him attending some of the meetings of the famous disciple of Najmu’d-Dín Kubrá,
the Shaykh Majdu’d-Dín)
Sharaf ibnu’l-Muayyad al-Baghdádí (of Khwárazm), (whose
death is placed in 606; 607; 613; 616; A. H.), and narrating the personal relations
of the Shaykh with Shihábu’d-Dín Abú Sa‘d b. ‘Umar al-Khíwaqí, the Wakíl of the
Sultan ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh, on his own authority in the Jawámi‘
(D. f4b. IV. i. 1792)
At At Shahr-i-Naw, while on his way to Khurásán. any rate we find him in Shahr-i-Naw, the seat of the prince Nuṣratu’d-Dín) Kabúd Jáma (put to death by Khwárazmsháh circa 600 A. H.) and trying to get an audience of the said prince, and complaining of the losses he had incurred in his travels (probably robbed by the Ghuzz while returning from Khwárazm). The prince being busy with his enjoyments sends word that he has no time for listening to sermons, and at his request) supplies him with a horse and assures him of reward in the future. Our author seems to have been disappointed in this journey, and appears in Khurásán for the first time at Nasá) in 600 A. H. From this point actually begins his tour throughout this province. Here, we find him meeting Muḥammad) b. Badí‘ an-Nasawí, Majdu’d-Dín) Muḥammad al-Páyizí, the panegyrist of the Sultan Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh, who was preparing a Sháhinsháhnáma of the Khwárazmsháhs when ‘al-Awfí met him in Nasá, and Ẓahíru’d-Dín) an-Nasawí called Walí, all famous poets of his day.
At In Níshápúr district. a time when Níshápúr was flourishing under the rule of the Sultan ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh, and was celebrated for the great literary men that rose from its soil, our author is seen in this galaxy. In 603 A. H., according to his own statement in the Jawámi‘ (D. f93b. IV. xxiv. 2068) he saw in Khúján (Khabúshán) at the school of Zaynu’d-Dín) Ṣá‘id, an ostrich which was with the Wakíl of Khwárazmsháh. At about the same time he goes to Isfaráín, where he teaches the son of the famous secretary of the Sultan Khwárazmsháh, ‘Imádu’d-Dín) Muayyad b. Aḥmad al-Isfaráíní. Then, he comes down to the city itself, and from several references to Níshápúr, it appears that al-‘Awfí stayed here for a considerable period, and probably it was the culminating point of his literary friendships. The different persons he saw at Níshápúr were either eminent state-officials or teachers or poets, as follows.
Occasionally, His contemporaries in Níshápúr. as he says, he paid visits to Ṣadru’d-Dín) an-Níshápúrí, the Ṣáḥib-i-Díwán-i-Istífá of the Sultan Khwárazmsháh, the history of whose dynasty he had composed; and again in the same place, he studies the important treatise on the art of writing called the Ruqyatu’l-Qalam) (?), the composition of the secretary of the Sultan Sanjar, Muntajibu’d-Dín Badí‘ Atábek al-Juwayní; and enters into conversation with the eminent Jamálu’d-Dín) ‘Alí Láhúrí; the secretary of Malik Muayyad, about the famous Ghúrid secretary Farídu’d-Dín (also Shamsu’d-Dín) Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Káfí. At the same time he was preaching and trying his poetical skill in Arabic and Persian, as he referrs to his own sermons and to Fakhru’d-Dín Muḥammad as-Sarakhsí, against whose verses he matched his own in Níshápúr). Amongst others with whom he was intimate, were the humourist Abu’l-Fadhl ‘Uthmán) b. Aḥmad al-Harawí, nicknamed Kargas; and Abú ‘Alí) b. al-Ḥusayn al-Marwazí, the panegyrist of Khwárazmsháh; and the Amír Qiwámí) al-Khwáfí; and lastly Niẓámu’d-Dín) al-Jámí al-Kátib, who acquired prominence later at the court of Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh. Unfortunately he does not say anything about his relations with Farídu’d-Dín) ‘Aṭṭár, who was also a contemporary and a native of Níshápúr.
There On his way to Sijistán. is no record of his stay in Ṭús and other important cities of the Níshápúr district, but it is quite likely that our author might have visited them during his rambles in Khurásán. However, we see him in Herát a little later, probably on his way to Sijistán, enjoying the company of Fakhru’d-Dín) al-Khaṭṭáṭ al-Harawí, and of Badru’d-Dín) b. Núru’d-Dín al-Harawí, who recounts his own relations with ‘Alá’u’l-Mulk) Dhiyá’u’d-Dín Abú Bakr b. Aḥmad al-Jámají, the Wazír of the Sultan Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh, whom al-‘Awfí himself sees later in Asfizár, and whose generosity and piety he records in his biography). Only from this notice we can infer the approximate date of his stay in Sijistán. In one of the conversations with the Wazír, it is revealed that the Wazír had a desire to see the learned people of Khurásán and Transoxiana, which he fulfilled on the occasion of his journey to Khaṭá (Cathay). Now this incident is connected with the battle in Ṭiráz between Táyangú, the chief of the Qará Khaṭá, and the Sultan Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh, which happened according to the Jahángushá) and other authorities in the year 607 A. H. Therefore our author must have met the Wazír after that date. Sijistán at that time was under the rule of Malik Táju’d-Dín) Ḥarb, and the crown-prince was Yamínu’d-Dín Bahrámsháh who succeeded to his father’s throne in 612 A. H. Thus our author’s stay in Sijistán lies between these two dates, and this agrees with the other records of his tour in that country.
The His literary associations in Sijistán. important acquaintances he makes at Asfizár are those of the above-mentioned Wazír, and his son), whose glorious deeds he was destined to record in later times. Besides collecting a few verses of the poet Shihábu’d-Dín Muḥammad b. Humám from the Imám Sharafu’d-Dín) ‘Anbarí, in Asfizár, he makes a very important friendship with Muhadhdhabu’d-Dín) Manṣúr b. ‘Alí al-Asfizárí, who has probably immortalised the name of al-‘Awfí in the line cited below). Our author now comes down to Farah, while going to the capital of Sijistán, now called Zarnaj, and meets Sharafu’d-Dín) Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Faráhi. In the seat of the government of Sijistán, he meets the egoist Shamsu’d-Dín) Muḥammad b. Naṣír as-Sijzí, and hears the famous remark about the three wonders of Sijistán, and then comes into close touch with the Jásúsu’l-Aflák Farídu’d-Dín) ‘Alí al-Munajjim as-Sanjarí (Sijzí) who was then living a secluded life, and gives a short account of his brother Naṣír Sha‘rání, the Wazír of the country of Nímrúz; and also hears the verses of Shamsu’d-Dín) Mubáraksháh ibnu’l-A‘azz as-Sanjarí (Sijzí)), the panegyrist of the rulers of Sijistán.
After End of his wanderjahre and return to Bukhárá. this we do not know much about the wanderings of our author, although there is a vague reference) to Bámiyán, which does not necessarily indicate that our author had been there. Here, probably, ends the tour, and by this time our author, if not the acknowledged preacher, poet, and scholar of his day, is reckoned amongst the most eminent of his contemporaries. There is one significant reference to his return from Marw), by way of Ámway (Ámúl), which suggests the return of our author after his wanderjahre to his native town, as the references that follow throw a good deal of light on a period which is quite different to the earlier one at Bukhárá. Firstly, he meets his old teacher now the Ṣadru’sh-Sharí‘a of Bukhárá Burhánu’l-Islám Táju’d-Dín ‘Umar b. Mas‘úd (mentioned previously), and attempts a reconciliation) between him and his son, Niẓámu’d-Dín) Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. Mas‘úd, for whose unbecoming conduct towards his own parents al-‘Awfí pleads on his behalf; secondly his way of alluding to Sa‘du’d-Dín) Mas‘úd Dawlatyár, a client of the above-mentioned Táju’d-Dín, and his taking part with him in social intercourse with that personage, shows that our author had acquired a considerable importance by this time. Another proof of this is the congratulations sent to him by an eminent poet, the Ḥakím Majdu’d-Dín) Fahímí al-Bukhárí, at the approach of the month of Ramadhán. Similarly, when the Muftí of Nakhshab (Nasaf) Shamsu’d-Dín) Dá‘í al-Ḥusayní an-Nasafí comes to Bukhárá, he says that he approached his holiness, and heard his verses, but he does not say whether he learnt anything from him, though it is always the habit of our author to acknowledge the benefits he derived from his seniors.
We Unrest in Khurásán takes him to India. are in the dark as to when our author left Bukhárá for good, and what were the actual circumstances that drove him from Khurásán; but as we know from his past career, he was always trying to get a footing in some court or other, for he had tried Samarqand, Khwárazm, Jurján (Kabúd Jáma), and Sijístán at one time or other, and probably could not find suitable prospects for himself. Apart from this, if we look into the history) of Khúrásán, about 615 A. H. we find that the empire of the Sultan Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh had outgrown its limits, the clouds were gathering, and the impending storm of the Mongols was about to burst, and most of the scholars and poets enticed by the recently established fame of the Indian princes were finding their way to that country); naturally, our author was also attracted by it. At about this time we find him in Ghazna — shorn of its glory and no longer the pride of either the Ghaznawids or the Ghúrids — probably on his way to India, where he meets the poet Dhiyá’u’d-Dín) Maḥmú’d al-Kábulí, a younger contemporary of his; and then crossing the Indus), is seen for the first time in Lahore), associating as usual with poets and contemporaries) of more or less equal merit, who were then flourishing in that region. A little later we see him in Sind, then the dependency of Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha, which extended over a part of the modern Punjáb, and also included Sind and Gujrát. This is the landmark of his journey, and the end of the second period of his life; by this time he is settled at the court of the ruler of Sind, under the patronage of the Wazír ‘Aynu’l-Mulk Fakhru’d-Dín al-Ḥusayn b. Sharafu’l-Mulk Radhíyyu’d-Dín Abú Bakr al-Ash‘arí, and has begun his Lubáb (about 617 A. H.)
Before Situation in India after 607 A. H. discussing the third period, which is that of al-‘Awfí’s literary productivity, it is necessary to say a few words about the political relations of India with Ghúr, Ghazna, Khurásán and Khwárazm. According to the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí, an important source for Indian affairs at this period, we find that, after the death of Quṭbu’d-Dín Aybak, in 607 A.H., the Turkish generals, who had once served under the Ghúrid Sultans Ghiyáthu’d-Dín (d. 599 A. H.) and Mu‘izzu’d-Dín Muḥammad (d. 602 A. H.) and even under Aybak, assumed independence and set up states of their own. Thus Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha ruled in Sind; Shamsu’d-Dín Iltutmish became the virtual successor at Dihlí; the province of Lakhnawtí (in Bengal) was held by the Khalajís; Lawhúr (or Lahore) was a bone of contention amongst Táju’d-Dín Yildiz, (who governed Ghazna), Iltutmish and Qabácha; and the kingdom of Ghúr was rent asunder by the strife of ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Atsiz and ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad, till the Sultan Muḥammad Khwárazmsháh wiped it out in 612 A. H.
According Fate of the last two Khwárazmsháhs. to Ibnu’l-Athír) and Muḥammad b. Aḥmad an-Nasawí), at this stage India comes in contact with the Mongols who burst on Khwárazmsháh, drove his family out of Khwárazm in 616 A. H., and chased him in Khurásán, Mázandarán, and from place to place, till at last he took refuge in an island, called Ḥamáma, off the shore of the Caspian Sea and died there in 617 A. H. His gallant son, Jalálu’d-Dín Mankubirní, unable to stem the tide of Chingíz’s army, moved towards the south, and in 618 A. H., losing the battle fought on the upper bank of the Indus, crossed the Indus on horseback, seeking protection from the murderous foe, once at the hands of Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha at Multán and then again of Iltutmish at Dihlí; both of them in turn afraid of the invasion of the Mongols, which was hanging over their heads, deserted the unfortunate monarch in the hour of his dire need. But Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha could not escape the onset of the Mongols, as we find him besieged in Multán in 621 A. H. The rivalry of Iltutmish and Qabácha led to the overthrow of the latter and the supremacy of the former in 625 A. H. This period of the life of our author is intimately connected with the last event and he himself has portrayed it graphically in his Preface to the Jawámi‘ (A. ff20-21). He also alludes once in the Lubáb (I, p. 182) and again in the Jawámi‘ (A. f118a. = C. f161a = E. f127b. I. v. 360) to the destruction of Khurásán and other countries in the Caliphate of an-Náṣir in these words:
The The beginning of the period of his literary productivity. year 617 A. H. = 1220/1 A. D. is rather important in the life of our author, as we find him taking actual part in the political events of the day, and preaching from the pulpit the glorious adventures of the statesman Majdu’l-Mulk) Bahá’u’d-Dín ‘Alí b. Aḥmad al-Jámají, once the Wazír of Táju’d-Dín Yildiz in 612 A. H., who now after breaking with Iltutmish, had become a staunch supporter of Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha, the ruler of Sind. As has been said previously, the period of his literary activity also begins in this year, so we shall trace the progress of his works in succession. There are three extant works of the author and the fourth) is probably lost. The first is the Biography of the Poets, called the Lubábu’l-Albáb, for which he collected ample material during his travels. Owing to various unfortunate accidents, much of this material, as he himself states on two different occasions), was destroyed, and in the short period at his disposal he was not able to enrich the Lubáb with biographical details of the various personalities mentioned in the notices, so that this anthology contains no more than a summary of what he could recollect. And again it appears from the concluding remarks in the Lubáb that his attachment to the court of Qabácha was not much earlier than this date, and that the Lubáb was completed just afterwards.
Soon Chief Judge of - Kanbáyat, where he translates the Faraj. after this, he was sent as the Chief Judge, at the behest of Qabácha, to the recently acquired country of Gujrát, or Nahrwála as it was then called. A contemporary note, suffixed to the Persian Translation) of at-Tanúkhí’s al-Faraj gives a glimpse of our author in Kanbáyat. From the original Preface to this work, from this Subscription, and from the author’s own reminiscences of Kanbáyat in the Jawámi‘) and a clear statement in the same), we can gather the history of this Translation), which was composed about 620 A. H. This work, like the first one, was written for Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha, and in fact it was a preparation for the grand Collection of Anecdotes which was to follow.
Another al-‘Awfí’s Persian version hitherto undiscovered. work of Muḥammad al-‘Awfí, which is very little known and incorrectly described is the Persian Translation mentioned above. Until now only one translation by Ḥusayn b. As‘ad b. Ḥusayn ad-Dihistání al-Muayyadí is known as the earliest Persian version of the Faraj. Charles Rieu) has given a full account of this work, but he has neither fixed the date of composition nor mentioned anything about al-‘Awfí’s efforts in this connection. Ethé), in the description of Nos. 733, 737, 738 of his Catalogue, has left the authorship of the last two Mss. undecided, and has conjectured that Ḥusayn b. As‘ad’s Translation is of a prior date. And again in his article in the Grundriss), on “Die Erzählende und poetische Prosa”, he mentions a translation of the Faraj by al-‘Awfí, but does not add much to our information about this work. The learned Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín, while discussing this translation of al-‘Awfí says), “And it is not known, whether the translation of the Kitábu’l-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda by Ḥusayn b. As‘ad ibnu’l-Ḥusayn, which we have in our hands nowadays, was prior or subsequent to that by the author (al-‘Awfí), since it is not known at what period the translator (Ḥusayn) lived”. The existence of the two Mss. of the latter half of al-‘Awfí’s Translation in the India Office Library was not known to him, hence he was unable to determine the actual dates of these two Translations by al-‘Awfí and Ḥusayn respectively.
Therefore, The Scope of the present notice. the object of this notice is to determine the exact dates of both the translations, and to establish the priority of al-‘Awfí’s to that of Ḥusayn’s Version, and to elucidate a few points about the life of al-‘Awfí, which are mentioned in the original Preface to this work, and in a Subscription appended to al-‘Awfí’s Persian Translation) of al-Faraj by one of his contemporaries, and in the Jawámi‘ itself.
Let The two statements of al-‘Awfí about his own Translation. us first of all consider what al-‘Awfí himself has to say about this translation in his own Preface [Ind. Off. 1432. f1b-2a.] = [Ind. Off. 720. f1b].
And again in the Jawámi‘ (D. f22a = C. f360a. IV. vii. Int. 1848.)
There
Importance
of one of the
two Mss.
exist two Mss. [Ind. Off. 1432 and 720 (= Ethé’s Cat. Nos. 737-738)]
in the library of the India Office, of the second half of this translation by al-‘Awfí,
upon which the following criticism of this work is based. Ms. [Ind. Off. 1432] deserves
special attention, as it contains a Subscription on ff. 456b-459a, which is of capital
importance in determining the history of this translation and a few doubtful points
about the life of the author.
This History of the transcription of this work. Ms. was transcribed in the city of Karkh a suburb of Baghdád. The colophon is defective and reads thus:
The copyist has purposely omitted his name and the date is also uncertain; probably it was transcribed in the tenth century of the Hijra, but the Subscription, called Faṣl, at the end of this Ms. forms a part of the original transcription by a contemporary, hence its importance is enhanced. The writer of this note is Muḥammad [b.] ‘Umar [b.] Muḥammad of Samarqand, a friend of al-‘Awfí, who happened to visit Kanbáyat (Cambay) where our author was appointed as a judge by the ruler, Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha of Sind, and where this unauthorised translation was copied by the above-mentioned Samarqandí and kept in secret, and later on collated by him from the author’s original copy once more, as follows: [Ind. Off. 1432] ff456b-459a.
The The importance of the above Subscription. importance of this document is enhanced on account of the following reasons: The details of al-‘Awfí’s life are very little known; excepting what is derived from his own works there is no other contemporary account or source from which an exact estimate of his life and works can be formed. This account is written in the lifetime of our author, and by one who was on intimate terms with him and had an equal aptitude for literary pursuits, as is evident from the eagerness with which he seized the opportunity of transcribing this translation even without the permission of the author.
Unfortunately Corroboration of facts. the Ms. is defective and the name of the transcriber is not identifiable with any of the persons mentioned in the group of al-‘Awfí’s contemporaries in the Lubáb; but there is no reason to doubt the validity of his own statement about the secret transcript, in which he confesses his guilt, while on the other hand the historical facts mentioned in this note about the inroads of the Mongols on Sind and Múltán in the year 621 A. H. are corroborated by later historians like Minháj-í-Siráj.
Although al-‘Awfí in Kanbáyat between 620—621 A. H. this note is not intended to give a full account of al-‘Awfí’s life, yet we obtain a glimpse of the man and the author, as situated in Kanbáyát (Cambay), at a particular period of his literary activity, from which we gather that he was the Judge of that place in the province of Nahrwála, known in modern times as Gujrát, then a dependency of Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha. He was also considered as a person of acknowledged merit among the literary men who flocked to the court of that ruler immediately after the destruction of Khwárazm and Khurásán by the Mongols. The author himself relates in the Jawámi‘ (A. f119b. I. vi. 366) an anecdote) connected with the justice of an Indian Ráy and the outrage committed against the Muslims of Kanbáyat by infidels who profaned the Chief Mosque; and in this passage he describes the surroundings incidentally. Thus the period of his stay in Kanbáyat and the date of the composition of this work can be determined: it lies between 620/1 A. H. It appears that the author took up this translation soon after he had finished his Lubáb at the end of 617 A. H. which, in fact, was a preliminary step to the composition of the grand Collection of Anecdotes.
It Historical data for the period of ‘Izzu’d-Dín b. Ṭáhir al-Fariyúmadí. appears from the preface of Ḥusayn’s Translation) that he prepared this work while Amír Arghún was engaged in his campaigns at Tabríz, under the orders of Mangú, and while he was working in the capacity of a personal secretary to ‘Izzu’d-Dín b. Ṭáhir b. Zangí al-Fariyúmadí), the Governor of Amír Arghún in the province of Khurásán and Mázandarán, to whom this work is dedicated. Our information about Ḥusayn is very meagre, but an attempt is made in this notice to establish his career and adduce circumstantial evidence from contemporary and other sources.
The 641 A. H. = 1243—4 A. D. Amír Arghún nominates Amír Ḥusayn, Khwája Fakhru’d-Dín and others from the ranks of the secretaries to the management of Khurásán and Mázandarán while he is engaged with the affairs of Tabríz).
The 647 A. H. = 1249 A. D. Amír Arghún returns from Tabríz, and sends Amír Ḥusayn to Urdú, the Mongol capital, to explain the reason of his return; Ḥusayn performs this mission successfully. A little later Amír Arghún himself appears at the court of Aghúl Gháyimísh held at Urdú and clears his reputation against the allegations of insubordination to the supreme authority of the Mongol Empress). In the meantime Amír Ḥusayn and Ṣáḥibu’d-Díwán [Bahá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad Juwayní] had gone to attend the court of Bátú, in pursuance of his order).
The 649 A. H. = 1251 A. D. Amír Arghún attends the Great Qúriltáy, on the accession of Mangú Qá’án, and is reinstated in the Governorhsip of Khurásán).
After 651 A. H. = 1253 A. D. his return to Khurásán Amír Arghún tries to carry out the orders of Mangú about the assessment of the revenues and nominates Ṣáḥib ‘Izzu’d-Dín [b.] Ṭáhir, who was already the sole Governor of Khurásán and Mázandarán, to the Commission of Land Settlement. Most probably Ḥusayn b. As‘ad accompanied him, as he was connected with this affair also).
According 654 A. H. = 1256 A. D. to Dawlatsháh), Húlágú was given the appanage of Írán on the accession of Mangú to the Mongol throne, and at the time when he was advancing upon the Assassins of Alámút, he stayed in one of the gardens of the Amír Arghún called Manṣúriyya, where the family of Amír Arghún and Khwája ‘Izzu’d-Dín b. Ṭáhir, his viceroy, used to reside).
And 656 A. H. = 1258 A. D. again we find Amír Arghún in Khurásán for the inspection of the revenues and once more entrusting financial and other important affairs to Khwája ‘Izzu’d-Dín b. Ṭáhir).
Dawlatsháh, under the biography of the poet Sa‘íd-i-Harawí), gives the account of Khwája ‘Izzu’d-Dín [b.] Ṭáhir Fariyúmadí as the poet’s patron:
“He was the Wazír of Khurásán at the time of the ascendency of the sons of Chingíz Khán, and resided in the city of Ṭús; and in the reign of Húlágú Khán, at the instigation of Amír Arghún Áqá, was dismissed from the Wizárat, and had to pay a fine, and his son Khwája Wajíhu’d-Dín Zangí was placed in his stead”.
Then he quotes a panegyric of the poet Sa‘íd written in honour of ‘Izzu’d-Dín b. Ṭáhir, which is also a conclusive proof of the responsible position which the Khwája held in those days.
This Determination of the date of Ḥusayn’s Version. is all that can be gathered about Ḥusayn b. As‘ad b. Ḥusayn ad-Dihistání al-Mu’ayyadí and his patron, ‘Izzu’d-Dín b. Ṭáhir b. Zangí al-Fariyúmadí, the Governor of Khurásán, to whom this Translation is dedicated. Although the exact date of the composition cannot be ascertained with certainty, it can be safely fixed during the period of his patron’s Governorship of Khurásán and Mázandarán, i.e. between 651 and 660 A. H., as we have shown above. Hence the conjecture of Ethé in his descriptions [Ind. Off. 1664; 1432 = 733; 737 of his Catalogue] of these two translations that Ḥusayn’s translation is prior to al-‘Awfí’s seems utterly unfounded. The present investigation undoubtedly establishes that Ḥusayn b. As‘ad translated the Faraj at least thirty years after al-‘Awfí, who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and whose translation was the first.
Coming His Magnum opus, the Jawámi‘. now to the last work of our author, his magnum opus, the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát wa Lawámi‘u’r-Riwáyát, a collection which took nearly five years of his life-time, containing four parts, each divided into 25 chapters, and consisting of 2,113 anecdotes taken from about 93 mentioned sources, and probably from many more unmentioned. According to the author’s own statement in the Preface to this work (A. f21b), he had already planned it, at the request of Malik Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha, but had not finished it when the conquest of Uchcha, the siege of the fort of Bhakkar, the drowning of his former patron-monarch, and the triumph of Shamsu’d-Dín Iltutmish took place in 625 A. H.. At this critical juncture our author was also among the besieged, and later, like Minháj-i-Siráj), had to change masters. From this time onwards we see him in the service of Sultan Iltutmish, under the patronage of the Wazír Qiwámu’d-Dín entitled the Niẓámu’l-Mulk Muḥammad b. Abí Sa‘d al-Junaydí, at whose behest he resuscitated this work and to whom he dedicated it later. There is practically nothing autobiographic, which would throw some fresh light on the sunset of his life, except occasional references to the court and the Wazír in the conclusions of the chapters of the Jawámi‘. The allusion to the rebellion of Malik Ikhtiyáru’d-Dín Dawlatsháh) Balká b. Ḥusámu’d-Dín ‘Awadh Khalají, the governor of Lakhnawtí, and the victory of Iltutmish over him in 628) A. H., signifies that it happened in the past and that the Jawámi‘ was in progress. In this respect, al-‘Awfí offers a great contrast to the younger and more famous Minháj-i-Siráj, who appears constantly on the scene. Among the innumerable eulogies, one is entirely autobiographic and sums up his position at the court of Iltutmish. (A. f9b = D. f105a = C. f88a. II, iii. 1228)).
The al-‘Awfí’s unique position amongst Men of Letters. epoch in which al-‘Awfí flourished is important for two reasons. Firstly it coincides with the earliest invasions of the Mongols on Khurásán, and the destruction of the empire of Khwárazm, secondly it is rich in literary productions, both in Arabic and Persian prose. Thus from the literary point of view al-‘Awfí was an inheritor of the learning of the past, and a transmitter of that knowledge, which was soon to be lost, to the later generations. If we glance at the writers of the early Mongol period, we find that historians like Ibnu’l-Athír (who composed his Kámil in 628 A. H. = 1230/1), biographers like Ibn Khallikán (who finished his work the Wafayátu’l-A‘yán in 1274 A. D.) geographers like Yáqút (who completed his Mu‘jamu’l-Buldán in 1224 A. D.), Zakariyya al-Qazwíní (who composed the Átháru’l-Bilád and the ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Makhlúqát at a later date in 1263 A. D.), special historians and biographers like Ibnu’l-Qifṭí, (who composed his Ta’ríkhu’l-Ḥukamá’ after 1227 A. D.), Ibn Abí Uṣaybi‘a (d. 1270), the author of Ṭabaqátu’l-Aṭibbá’, are the dominant figures in Arabic prose. In Persian some of the most important works were written at this period. Shams-i-Qays wrote his important treatise on prosody the Mu‘jam fí Ma‘á’ír-i-Ash‘ári’l-‘Ajam, between 614-630 A. H. = 1217/8-1232/3 A. D., while Abu’sh-Sharaf Náṣiḥ of Jurbádhaqán translated the Kitábu’l-Yamíní of al-‘Utbí. Other mixed works were not wanting e. g. al-Fatḥ b. ‘Alí b. Muḥammad al-Bundárí re-edited ‘Imádu’d-Dín al-Kátib al-Iṣfahání’s history of the Saljúqs in 1226 A. D., and also epitomised The Sháhnáma of Firdawsí in Arabic prose, at about this time. Shihábu’d-Dín Muḥammad an-Nasawí compiled the Sírat-i-Jalálu’d-Dín Mankubirní in Arabic, in 639 A. H. = 1241/2 A.D.; Ibn Isfandiyár compiled his History of Ṭabaristán (613 A. H. = 1216/7 A. D. being the current year), Sa‘d of Waráwín, translated the Marzubán-náma from the dialect of Ṭabaristán into ordinary Persian prose about 1210-1215 A. D., and Farídu’d-Dín al-‘Aṭṭár composed the Tadhkiratu’l-Awliyá’ at about the same time as the Jawámi‘ was being composed.
All The only Collection of its kind written as early as 625 A. H. the above writers lived at one place or another, and al-‘Awfí had no direct connection with them, but they represent a wider group of contemporaries, who were engaged with their own works while al-‘Awfí was compiling his anecdotes. While others were writing systematic accounts of persons, places, periods and sciences, he selected the whole mass of recorded and unrecorded knowledge as his material, and drew upon it freely, and preserved it in detached anecdotes. The very title of the work as the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát wa Lawámi‘u’r-Riwáyát (“Compendium of Anecdotes and Flashes of Traditions”) suggests the wide field it covers. Since most of the branches of Muslim learning either in Persian or Arabic are represented in one form or another in the Jawámi‘, we find here and there anecdotes common to the above works, and somewhat independent of each of other as regards their sources, method of treatment and illustration. It is really the comparison with the works of his predecessors, that shows the value of this collection and gives it a unique position in the literature of Persia. Hitherto different works had been written on different subjects, but there was not found one collection of this type written in the Persian language representing the history, civilisation, literature, and science known to the Muslim world.
And Its typical sources for historical and biographical anecdotes. again it is the remarkable range of sources that gives this work the historical value it enjoys. A few of them, which were once at the disposal of our author, and are now extremely rare or lost, are these works: aṣ-Ṣúlí’s Ta’ríkh-i-Khulafá-i-bani’l-‘Abbás, Muḥammad b. Kalbí’s Tafsír and his son’s Adyánu’l-‘Arab, Khaṭíb-i-Baghdádi’s Ta’ríkh-i-Baghdád, as-Sallámí’s Ta’ríkh-i-Wulát-i-Khurásán, Ibráhím aṣ-Ṣábi’s Ta’ríkh-i-Tájí, al-Marzubání’s Kitábu’sh-Shabáb-i-wa’sh-Shayb and Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘’s Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. A systematic classification of some of the sources of al-‘Awfí shows that he used such works as represent the subjects in a typical manner. Thus, for the history of the Caliphate, the Annals of at-Ṭabarí has constantly been utilised; for the history of the ancient kings of Persia, ath-Tha‘álibí’s Ghurar, the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí, and the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam (probably the Khudáy-náma of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘) have been used; and for the anecdotes of the various dynastic rulers, special and typical sources have been employed. The accounts of the Ṭáhirids, the Ṣaffárids, and the Sámánids are taken partly from the Ta’ríkh-i-Wulát-i-Khurásán of as-Sallámí (as has been shown in the Conspectus of the Sources); for the Ghaznawids three important sources are mentioned — the Ta’ríkh-i-Náṣirí, the Yamíní of al-‘Utbí, and the Khalqu’l-Insán of Bayánu’l-Ḥaqq an-Níshápúrí; for the Buwayhids the Ta’ríkh-i-Tájí or the Ta’ríkh-i-Dayálima is the source; and the accounts of the Ílak Kháns of Máwará’u’n-Nahr, are based on the Ta’ríkh-i-Turkistán by Majdu’d-Dín b. ‘Adnán as-Surkhakatí, but unfortunately the last three works are also lost. This wide range of sources for the historical anecdotes covers almost all the important works written from the earliest times down to al-‘Awfí’s day. For politics and administration, there are traces of the utilisation of the Siyásat-nama of the Niẓámu’l-Mulk, the Qábús-náma of ‘Unṣuru’l-Ma‘álí, and the A‘rádhu’r-Riyása of aẓ-Ẓahírí as-Samarqandí, and a Siyaru’l-Mulúk. The accounts of the Prophet and his followers, and the lives of the saints and religious worthies, are based on the Kitábu’l-Maghází of Muḥammad b. Isḥáq, the Rabí‘u’l-Abrár of az-Zamakhsharí, the Risálatu’l-Qushayriyya, the Asráru’t-Tawḥíd, a Ta’ríkh-i-Mashá’ikh-i-Khurásán, a Rawdhatu’l-‘Ulamá’, a Siyaru’ṣ-Ṣáliḥín, and a Qiṣaṣu’l-Anbiyá’ respectively.
Biographical Other sources of varied nature. anecdotes of other eminent personalities, which also form an important portion of the compendium, are taken from various other works, e.g. the chapter on the ‘Heresiarchs’ is based on the Átháru’l-Báqiya of al-Bírúní, that on the ‘Poets’ is partly based on the Yatímatu’d-Dahr of ath-Tha‘álibí, that on the ‘Women’ is partly based on the works of a different nature, like the Sindbád-náma, the Bakhtiyár-náma and the Kalíla wa Dimna. The accounts of the ‘Longlived’ persons is taken from the lost work of al-Marzubání, called the Kitábu’sh-Shabáb-i-w’ash-Shayb, which ranks next to the Mu‘ammarín of Abú Ḥátim as-Sijistání. The two parts of the work on ‘Blameable’ and ‘Praiseworthy’ qualities also contain a wide range of historical illustration, the sources of which are diverse; and for the stories of encounter and adventure the Faraj of at-Tanúkhí is the constant and acknowledged source.
Besides Sources for semi-scientific subjects. the above-mentioned subjects, a few other chapters on semi-scientific topics are important on account of their typical sources. Thus the information about cosmography, ethnology, and antiquities is drawn from the works called the Masálik wa-Mamálik, which are so many in number, that it is difficult to say which particular work or works were actually utilised. The chapters on natural history and physical properties of natural objects are based on the Kitábu’l-Ḥayawán of al-Jáḥiẓ and that of Sharafu’z-Zamán Ṭáhir al-Marwazí, and on other treatises translated from the Greek authors, like Dioscorides, Aristotle, Galen, Ptolemy and Rufus Ephesius.
An Authenticity of its material. exact estimate of his debt to other important authors cannot be made; the information contained in this notice is chiefly based on the works utilised or mentioned in one form or another. There are many anecdotes in which al-‘Awfí, gives no clue to his sources; hence we can only conjecture that he had a wide store of information at hand which he utilised according to his own discretion, and occasionally acknowledged his indebtedness to his predecessors. One remarkable thing about the utilisation of his sources is his fidelity to them. This contributes immensely to the authenticity of the knowledge which he handed down to posterity in a plain and straightforward style, (very different to the florid style of the Lubáb) and in an abbreviated and anecdotal form. Much as we should have liked him to give us the entire details, and all his authorities and sources of information, it seems it was besides his main purpose, which was to make an anecdote interesting and readable and bring together scattered facts in a reasonable compass.
As Copious but less original. regards the copiousness of the contents of the Jawámi‘, a glance at the Comparative Index of the hundred chapters will show the wide range of subjects and its encyclopaedic nature. It is enough to point out here, that it is one of the largest books in Persian, containing 2,113 anecdotes interspersed with about 1,650 couplets which in a clear Naskhí hand cover 358 folios in G = [Suppl. persan 906]; but the material which is al-‘Awfí’s own, or cannot be found in other later works, is very limited. A considerable number of the anecdotes can be traced either in the extant original sources of al-‘Awfí or in other earlier or later works. In such cases it is interesting to note the transmigration of anecdotes and the various changes which they have undergone, till they have lost their historical accuracy and possess no more value than fiction. This phenomenon has been noticed under the account of the influence of the Jawámi‘, in the next few pages.
In Absence of contemporary events and dates in historical anecdotes. his attempt to preserve the traditions of the past and communicate them faithfully, he has ignored what passed around him, and has abstained from giving contemporary history. Of first-hand material, which would have been of immense value to us, there is practically nothing. Lack of dates in historical anecdotes is one of the serious defects of this collection. Besides this, the arbitrary arrangement of anecdotes about a particular individual in different chapters and under different headings, without any chronological sequence or systematic design, is a great hindrance to the utility of the work. In very few cases has al-‘Awfí challenged the authenticity of his material, hence some inconsistencies and inaccuracies have crept into the anecdotes.
Apart Valuable information in some chapters. from these defects, there are always found several anecdotes in each chapter that contain genuine facts, and are peculiar to the Jawámi‘. Most of the biographical anecdotes occur in part I, ch. vi-xxv, and some of these deserve special attention. The same is the case with part II and III: here and there one finds really valuable material. The fourth part derives special importance on account of the scientific information contained in it. The importance of all such anecdotes is either shown in the Complete Table of Contents or in the Conspectus of the Sources, as will be seen later on.
The The Jawámi‘ as a mine of information, during the vii-xiv centuries of the Hijra. name of al-‘Awfí has always been associated in Persian literature with the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát alone; perhaps the Haft Iqlím, (composed in 1002 A. H.) is the earliest work that acknowledges the Lubábu’l-Albáb also. The influence which the Jawámi‘ exerted on historical, biographical, anecdotal and cosmographical works, can be estimated by the accounts borrowed from this work, directly or indirectly, and by the number of Turkish translations, abridgements and adaptations of this book, and excerpts utilised for critical studies at different times and in different countries.
Soon Its traces in the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí. (vii). after al-‘Awfí, Minháj-i-Siráj, a younger contemporary of his, famous as the author of the Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí, compiled his history in 650 A. H. = 1260 A. D. Traces of the influence of the Jawámi‘ are found in places, although without any acknowledgement on the part of Minháj. The following anecdote which is found in only one Ms. [Add. 16,862 Br. Mus.] is common to both. Cf. (J. f216a. II. vi. 1300); M.T.N., pp. 282-5). It describes the ideal training of a prince, at the hands of an excellent preceptor who punished the prince very severely, at the end of his probation, in order that he might realise the pains of his victims, when he should become a king.
In In the ‘Ajá’ib-u’l-Makhlúqát. (vii). a similar manner we find that Zakariyyá al-Qazwíní, in his ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Makhlúqát) (composed in 1263 and 1276 A. D.), relates the story of the Israelite hermit Barṣíṣá and the temptation of the Devil, which is also common to both and classified under the same heading; but it cannot be ascertained whether he actually borrowed from al-‘Awfí. Cf. (D. f255b. III. xvii. 1711); Q.A.M., pp. 368-9).
The Citations in the Tajáribu’s-Salaf. (viii). earliest citations) from the Jawámi‘ with due acknowledgement are found in the Taiáribu’s-Salaf, the enlarged Persian version of the Kitábu’l-Fakhrí of Ibnu’ṭ-Ṭiqṭaqa (composed 701 A. H. = 1302 A. D.) by Hindúsháh b. Sanjar al-Kírání aṣ-Ṣáḥibí, for the prince Nuṣratu’d-Dín Atabek of Luristán in the year 724 A. H. = 1324 A. D.. There are three direct quotations from the Jawámi‘; in Nos. (1) and (3) the laqab of the author al-‘Awfí as Sadídu’d-Dín is given (see above, p. 5). The parallel references are to [Browne Or. G. 3.].
| (1) | Accession of Marwán b. Ḥakam. (A. f97a. I. v. 248) = f34a. |
| (2) | Why the Caliph ‘Uthmán recalled Ḥakam b. al-‘Aṣ. (A. f92b. I. v. 222) = f34b. |
| (3) | Convent of Niẓamu’l-Mulk Ṭusí in Constantinople. (A. f188a. I. xiv. 746) = f138b. |
A Citations in the Nuzhatu’l-Qulúb, (viii). little later Ḥamdu’llah Mustawfí of Qazwín, makes a passing mention of the Jawámi‘, as shown above (p. 5, ll. 14-23), but in the geographical part of his Nuzhatu’l-Qulúb (composed in 740 A. H. = 1340 A. D.) at least ten direct quotations are traceable. Mr. Guy Le Strange has commented in his preface to the Persian text of the Nuzhat (p. xv) on the inaccuracy of Ḥamdu’llah in the use of the Fársnáma, and the case is the same with the Jawámi‘. All these quotations are cut short, and sometimes disranged and misquoted, but for our purposes it is important to note that as early as the eighth century A. H. the Jawámi‘ had shown its influence on important writers. As the end of the book derives its special interest from the stories of ‘Marvels’, Ḥamdu’llah has utilised it in this connection. Parallel references are given below to the Persian text of the Nuzhat edited by Mr. Guy Le Strange. (= H.N.Q.)
| (1) | Duality of sex in a girl in Baghdád. (D. f59b. IV. xiv. 1936) = p. 281. |
| (2) | A monstrous birth in Palestine. (D. f60a. IV. xiv. 1937) = p. 292. |
| (3) | Joint-twins presented to Náṣiru’d-Dawla. (D. f60b. IV. xiv. 1940) = p. 284. |
| (4) | A monstrous birth in the reign of Iltutmish. (D. f60b. IV. xiv. 1942) = p. 288. |
| (5) | The City of Women near the Moving Sands. (D. f70a. IV. xvii. 1976) = p. 273. |
| (6) | Talisman set in the Valley of Ants (D. f75a. IV. xix. 1989) = p. 288. |
| (7) | Spellbinding gnats in Naṣíbín. (D. f75b. IV. xix. 1990) = p. 106. |
| (8) | The wondrous water-mill of Yúnus. (D. f75b. IV. xix. 1991) = p. 284. |
| (9) | The seven enchanted cities of Babylon. (D. f76a. IV. xix. 1994) = p. 292. |
| (10) | The rain-producing fire-temple in Armenia. (D. f78b. IV. xx. 2001) = p. 293. |
Likewise In the Zubdat u’t-Tawáríkh and Átháru’l-Wuzará’, (ix). we find two other authors utilising the Jawámi‘ in the ninth century A. H., the first being Ḥáfiẓ Abrú who composed the Zubdatu’t-Tawáríkh for the prince Báysunqur in 829 or 830 A. H. = 1426 or 1427 A. D. The very first anecdote of the Jawámi‘, on the origin of idolatry, is cited word for word without any acknowledgement. Cf. (A. f22a. I. i. 1), [Or. 2774 Br. Mus.]) f24b. The next author who is greatly indebted to al-‘Awfí is Sayfu’d-Dín Ḥájí b. Niẓám al-‘Aqílí. In the first nine chapters of his Átháru’l-Wuzará’ (composed about 883 A. H. = 1478/9 A. D.), besides acknowledging the Jawámi‘ as one of his main sources, he has incorporated a considerable number of anecdotes from the accounts of the wazirs and secretaries in the Jawámi‘. See [Or. 4107 Br. Mus.]. f4a, f7a, f10a, f11a, f12b, f16a, f24a, f37b, f41b, ff111-4. The last reference, though without acknowledgement, is important. It contains the epistle written by Mu‘ínu’d-Dín al-Aṣamm, the secretary of the Sultan Sanjar in response to the appeal for redress sent by the Muslim captives in Byzantium). (A. ff220. I. xviii. 1003) = ff111-4.
The In the works of Mír Khwánd and Khwánd-amír (x). most wide-spread influence of the Jawámi‘ is seen in the tenth century A. H.. At least ten authors who wrote in various parts of Máwará’u’n-Nahr, Khurásán, Asia Minor and India, on history, biography and cosmography quote this work. In the Khátima of the Rawdhatu’ṣ-Ṣafá of the historian Mír Khwánd (d. circa 903 A. H.) occur four direct citations of the same type as in the Nuzhatu’l-Qulúb, noticed above. (See M. R. S., pp. 1467, 1468, 1470). But the works of his illustrious grandson Khwánd-amír, who wrote mostly in Herát, are directly influenced by the Jawámi‘. A few resemblances are found in his earlier works, the Ma’áthiru’l-Mulúk and the Khuláṣatu’l-Akhbár, while his Dastúru’l-Wuzará’, (composed in 915 A. H. = 1509/10 A. D.) contains at least twenty citations. This Manual of the Wazírs, like its predecessor the Átháru’l-Wuzará’, is indebted to the wealth of biographical material, scattered throughout the anecdotes of the Jawámi‘, which is indispensable for a thorough understanding of the Eastern method of administration. See [Or. 234 Br. Mus.] f11b, f12a, f15a, f17b, ff18, f19a, f20a, f21a, f22b, f29a, f36a, f37a, f38b, f39a, f50a, f110a. Then in his Ḥabíbu’s-Siyar composed in 930 A. H. = 1523/4 A. D. two long anecdotes are quoted verbatim in the account of the Barmecides. (1) How a scribe forged a letter and incidentally healed the breach between ‘Abdu’llah b. Málik al-Khuzá‘í and Yaḥyá b. Khálid the Barmecide. (D. f180a. II. xxiii. 1503) = Kh.H.S. Vol. II, juz’ iii, pp. 18-9. (2) The proscription by the Caliph Hárún of the lamentation over the Barmecides, and the account of Mundhir b. Mughíra concerning their generosity. (D. f146a. II. xiv. 1411) = Kh.H.S. Vol. II, juz iii, p. 24.
Then In the Laṭa’ifu’ṭ-Ṭawá’if and Ta’ríkh-i-Abu’l-Khayr Khání (x). ‘Alí, the son of Ḥusayn al-Wá‘iẓ al-Káshifí, modelled his Laṭá’ifu’ṭ-Ṭawá’if (composed in 939 A. H. = 1532/3 A. D.) on the lines of the Jawámi‘. Although he has surpassed al-‘Awfí in systematic classification of the groups, the material has lost much of historical accuracy in transition. Two direct quotations from the Jawámi‘ as the work of Sadíd-i-‘Awfí are found in [Add. 18,408 Br. Mus.] on f19b and 35b, but in every chapter the Jawámi‘ has constantly been used, barring those taken from other sources and added by the author himself. And again in the Ta’ríkh-i-Abu’l-Khayr Khání written by Mas‘úd(í) b. ‘Uthmán Kúhistání for the Uzbek ruler ‘Abdu’l-Laṭíf Khán of Samarqand after 947 A. H. = 1540/1 A. D., an extract, from the anecdote of the tailor, the tyrannical chief, the significance of the former’s prayer-call at unusual hours, and a rape, is given in an altered form. This story also occurs in the Faraj, and the Siyásat-náma; a comparison of the text of each will perhaps show the changes which anecdotes undergo in transmigration. Cf. T.F.S., pt. II, pp. 17-9, N.S.N.), pp. 45-54, (A. f126a. I. vi. 399) = [Add. 26,188 Br. Mus.] f66b.
In In the Ta’ríkh-i-Nigáristán, Ta’ríkh-i-Ílchí -i-Niẓámsháh, and Mir’át u’l-Adwár, (x). the latter half of this century three other writers acknowledge the importance of the Jawámi‘. The Qádhí Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Ghaffárí of Qazwín, like most of the previous historians, refers to our author in connection with the Jawámi‘ in his Nusakh-i-Jahán Árá composed in 972 A. H. = 1564/5 A. D., [Or. 141 Br. Mus.] f118b; but in his Ta’ríkh-i-Nigáristán composed earlier in 957 A. H. = 1551/2 A. D., at least 10 direct quotations can be discovered. These are of the nature of those in the Nuzhat mentioned above. Short parallel references are given to the Bombay lithographed edition of the Nigáristán published in 1829 A. D.
| (1) | The letter of the Caliph ‘Umar to the Nile. (A. f39a. I. iii. 80) = p. 211. |
| (2) | The wondrous dream of Sabuktigín in 361 A. H.. (A. f233a. I. xxi. 1072) = p. 95. |
| (3) | The interpretation of the Caliph ‘Alí’s seven scourges to al-Mutawakkil in his dream. (A. f236b. I. xxi. 1089) = p. 63. |
| (4) | The caution of Amír Ismá‘íl the Sámánid in arresting Muḥammad Hárún Sarakhsí, the rebel govervor of Jurján. (D. f157b. II. xvii. 1447) = p. 149. |
| (5) | al-Ḥajjáj’s dinár and justification of his double-edged policy. (D. f236b. III. xii. 1669). = p. 303. |
| (6) | Aḥmad b. Mudbir’s omen, deliverance, and appointment as governor of Shám by al-Mutawakkil. (D. f20a. IV. iv. 1842) = p. 60. |
| (7) | Presage of being killed by a beast. (D. f29b. IV. ix. 1868) = p. 114. |
| (8) | Joint-twins presented to Náṣiru’d-Dawla. (D. f60b. IV. xiv. 1940) = p. 131. |
| (9) | A monstrous birth in the time of Iltutmish. (D. f60b. IV. xiv. 1942) = p. 273. |
| (10) | The mystery of the idol at Somnát. (D. f77b. IV. xx. 1996) = p. 100. |
Then Khwarsháh b. Qubád al-Ḥusayní in his Ta’ríkh-i-Ílchí-i-Niẓámsháh, composed in 917 A. H. 1511/2 A. D. for Ibráhím Quṭbsháh of Golkunda (now under the territory of H. E. H. The Niẓám of Ḥaydarábád Dakan), besides acknowledging the Jawámi‘ as one of its sources in [Add. 23,513 Br. Mus.] on f3a and referring to our author on f183a, bears traces of its influence on f55a, f56a, f57a, f206, though without mention. One instance, the appearance of Zoroaster in the reign of Gushtásp on f55a, is striking as it exhibits a twofold source. Cf. (A. f60a. I. iv. 141), Jámi‘u’t Tawáríkh-i-Rashídi [Add. 7628 Br. Mus.] f250a. Similarly the Mir’átu’l-Adwár of Musliḥu’d-Dín al-Lárí composed about 974 A. H. = 1566/7 A. D. bears a few traces. In the case of two anecdotes about Abú Sa‘íd b. Abi’l-Khayr the source is not mentioned. Cf. M.A.T., pp. 70, 141-2, (A. ff45. I. iii. 111-112), Mir’at [Add. 7650 Br. Mus.] f119a. With this account we close the survey of the influence of the Jawámi‘ on the tenth century writers.
In The Zínatu’l-Majális as an adaptation of the Jawámi‘, (xi). the eleventh century A. H. there are found at least three authors who had a direct knowledge of the Jawámi‘. The first being Muḥammad Majdu’d-Dín al-Majdí al-Ḥusayní or Ḥasaní, who compiled, probably in Káshán, the Zinatu’l-Majális) [Or. 238 Br. Mus.] in 1004 or 1025 A. H. = 1595/6 or 1616 A. D., which is no more than an unscrupulous adaptation of the Jawámi‘, with supplementary material. This work of al-‘Awfí appears to have suffered a similar fate to that of the Lubáb, as the Zínatu’l-Majális and the Bazm-Áráy) stand in the same category of daring plagiarism, although Majdu’d-Dín in his preface to the Zínat f1b submits a comparatively modest claim and acknowledges the Jawámi‘ as one of its sources. He has altered the division of chapters, and actually intended to divide the book into 10 parts (Ajzá’) further subdivided into 10 sections (faṣls). Thus the very headings, the arrangement of anecdotes, the wording of the Jawámi‘ are entirely copied, excepting the introductions and eulogies of al-‘Awfí in each chapter. This work has been discussed by Barbier de Meynard and Sir William Ouseley and in the Mélanges Asiatiques, and two lithographs of it have been published at Ṭihrán, in 1262 and 1270 A. H.
The Citations in the Ta’ríkh-i-Firishta, (xi). second author is Muḥammad Qásim b. Hindúsháh of Astarábád, in whose Ta’ríkh-i-Firishta (composed in 1015 A. H. = 1606/7 A. D.) besides references to the author under the reigns of Qabácha and Iltutmish, occur two quotations, one) in the account of Sultan Maḥmúd, (D. f77b. IV. xx. 1996) = B.T.F. Vol. I, p. 60, and another in that of the Sultan Radhiyyu’d-Dín Ibráhím of Ghazna. The Imám Yúnus of Sajáwandí’s threatening sermons to the Sultan (D. f105a. II. iv. 1230) = B.T.F., Vol. I, p. 83. Yet another anecdote quoted without acknowledgement resembles closely the wording of the Jawámi‘, concerning the respect of the Sultan for his order to a load-bearer, who laid down a heavy stone in a field, which was lying there for a long time, even though it was an obstacle to the royal cavalry. (D. f188a. II. xxiv. 1525) = B.T.F., Vol. I, p. 84.
Perhaps In the Ẓafar u’l-Wálih, an Arabic History of Gujrát, (xi). the first quotations that have been translated into Arabic appear in an Arabic History of Gujrát entitled Ẓafaru’l-Wálih bi Muẓaffar wa Álih, composed by ‘Abdu’llah Muḥammad b. ‘Umar al-Makkí al-Áṣafí Ulugh-Khání between 1014-1020 A. H. = 1605-1611 A. D. This work has been edited by Sir E. Denison Ross) in three volumes, and in each volume one exact quotation occurs. Under the year 625 A. H. = 1228 A. D. in the reign of Iltutmish, (Vol. II, p. 696) a short account of al-‘Awfí and the Jawámi‘ is given in connection with the conquest of Uchcha and the defeat of Qabácha. The preface of the Jawámi‘ (A. f21a) is translated in extenso, even the couplet in Persian which Qabácha addressed to himself before drowning is quoted verbatim. Again under the year 946 A. H. = 1539/40 A D., in two different volumes two anecdotes are cited from the Jawámi‘ in illustration of similar historical ruses. The first, the ruse of ‘Abdu’llah b. ‘Ámir [b. Kurayz] at the time of the conquest of Níshápúr in 31 A. H. = 651/2 A. D., that of sending wooden boxes packed with armed men into the fort, is cited in illustration of the artifice of Shér Sháh during the capture of the fort of Ruhtás. (A. f174b. I. xiii. 678) = Vol. III, p. 983-5. The second artifice is that of the great Saljúq Wazír Niẓámu’l-Mulk in acquiring a piece of land in Constantinople from the Qayṣar of Rúm covering the skin of a bull, which is quoted as a parallel to the craftiness of the Portuguese in acquiring a harbouring place from the Sultán Bahádur-sháh of Gujrát, at Dayw (or Diu). (A. f188a. I. xiv. 746) = Vol. I, pp. 252, 254-5.
The In the Nawádir u’n-Nuqúl, (xii). last work, with which the survey of the influence of the Jawámi‘ closes, lies in the twelfth century A. H.. It is a collection of historical anecdotes from various sources, entitled the Nawádiru’n-Nuqúl fí Ma’áthiri’l-‘Uqúl [Add. 25,834 Br. Mus.], compiled by Abu’l-Fatḥ b. Muẓaffar in 1151 A. H. = 1738/9 A. D. The plan of this book is probably based on the chapter-headings of the Jawámi‘, but the author in his preface on f3a has acknowledged his indebtedness duly and has quoted faithfully. In the latter half of this book a considerable number of anecdotes of various eminent persons are incorporated from the Jawámi‘.
Roughly Retrospection. speaking, some twenty works, written in Persia, India and Asia Minor from a time soon after the completion of the Jawámi‘ about 630 A. H. = 1232/3 A. D. down to the 12th century of the Hijra, have utilised this work in different connections, as has been shown above. But the importance of this work has not yet been realised as a whole. In the above survey those works are recorded which have come under the notice of the present writer, but there may be others hitherto undiscovered, which would further reveal the influence of this work in the past ages.
It Turkish versions of the Jawámi‘, and abridgements, (ix—xii). appears from the number of the Turkish translations of the Jawámi‘ that this book was once very popular in Turkey, and was highly appreciated by the Ottoman Sultans and poets. H. Khalfa (Vol. II, pp. 510/1) mentions three translations and one abridgement. The first is by the famous Ibn ‘Arabsháh, the well-known author of the ‘Ajá’ibu’l-Maqdúr, who translated it by order of the Sultan Murád II (reigned 824-855 A. H. = 1421-1451 A. D.). In the Preface) to the Turkish version of the above work, the translator, Murtedhá Náẓimí Zádeh enumerates among the works of Ibn ‘Arabsháh, this first Translation of the Jawámi‘, but there exists no copy of it in Europe at present, so far as appears from the catalogues of the various great libraries. The work was translated a second time by the poet Nejátí for the Prince Sultan Maḥmúd (1451-1481 A. D.), and apparently this is also lost; even Hammer-Purgstall in his Gesch. der Osmanischen Dichtkunst (Vol. I, p. 166) does not say whether any copy of it is extant.) There exists one Turkish version in the Vienna Library (see Flügel’s Cat. No. 423, Vol. I, p. 143), but it is not certain whose version it is, Ibn ‘Arabsháh’s or Nejátí’s or Ṣáliḥ b. Jalál’s. A third Translation by Ṣáliḥ b. Jalál, who prepared it at the request of Sultan Báyazíd b. Sulaymán (d. 973 A. H. = 1565 A. D.), exists in the Bodleian Library (see [Sale 47] Ethé Cat. Bodl. No. 331, column 179a). An abridgement by Muḥammad b. As‘ad b. ‘Abdu’llah at-Tustarí, mentioned by H. Khalfa, is preserved in the Núr-i-‘Uthmániyya Library. There is another abridged and excerpted version called the Kitábu’l-‘Ajá’ib wa’l-Ghará’ib in the Br. Mus. [Or. 1874], dated 1133 A. H. = 1721 A. D.. The number of the fine royal codexes described later on in the Descriptive List of the Mss., especially the Mss. B., F., G., H., I., J transcribed in India, Persia and Turkey also show that this work was once very popular.
Among Utilisation in the xiii—xiv centuries A.H. = xix-xx A.D. the Oriental scholars who have actually utilised this work, the name of Sir William Ouseley comes first. During his travels in Persia (1810-2 A. D.), speaking about Iṣṭakhr and “Zend u Pázend”, he quotes the Jawámi‘u’l-Ḥikáyát from the account of Zoroaster, (D. f219a. III, viii. 1619) = Travels etc. Vol. II, pp. 363-4 and incidentally speaks about the Mss. of this work. Then Edward Thomas of the Bengal Civil Service, the editor of J. Prinsep’s Essays on Indian Antiquities etc. published in 1858 A. D. cites the anecdote of ‘Amr b. Layth and Kamlú, (A. f164a. I. xii. 631) = Vol. I, pp. 317-8 and likewise speaks of the Mss. in his possession. Next comes J. Dowson, the editor of the History of India etc. by Sir H. M. Elliot (published in 1867-77 A. D.), who has utilised a considerable number of anecdotes concerning the early history of India (Vol. II, pp. 155-203). The Jawámi‘ was also utilised in 1900 A. D. from a critical point of view by Prof. W. Barthold), in his work in Russian called “Turkistán at the time of the Mongol Invasion”, (Pers. Extracts, Vol. I, pp. 83-101), in which about 25 original anecdotes bearing upon Turkistán are incorporated; and in his article “Zur Geschichte der Saffariden” in the Nöldeke-Festschrift (I, p. 175-6) he has discussed the importance of the anecdotes of the Ṣaffárids in the Jawámi‘, as will be noticed in the next chapter. Then Prof. J. Marquart) of Berlin in his “Ērānšahr” (published in 1901), pp. 295-8, refers to the anecdotes about Zábulistán and in his article “Skizzen zur geschichtlichen Völkerkunde von Mittel-asien und Siberien” (p. 296) quotes from the account of the valley of Kharkhíz (D. f67a. IV, xvi. 1967) about the West-Siberian tribes, and directs attention to the ethnological side of the geography of Turkistán. Then M. Clément Huart cites one anecdote (D. f71a. IV, xvii. 1976) with its translation in French, in the Documents persans sur l’Afrique — Extrait du “Djawami‘ ‘el-Ḥikâyât”de Djémâl-Ouddîn Moḥammed ‘Aufî — published in the Recueil de Mémoires Orientaux, 1905 (see pp. 102-103).
Again in 1906 A. D. in the Persian Introduction to the first part of the Lubáb, the literary value of the Jawámi‘ has been duly emphasised by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán of Qazwín, whose interest in the present work and the publication of its entire text is enormous. (See Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 314-7 for a long citation concerning the epistle of Mu‘ínu’d-Dín al-Aṣamm, the secretary of the Sultan Sanjar).
Recently a few anecdotes from the first part of the Jawámi‘, chapter xx “On Physicians”, have been used by Prof. E. G. Browne, in his excellent “Arabian Medicine” (pp. 78-79), being the Fitzpatrick Lectures delivered at the College of Physicians in November 1919 and November 1920 A. D.
To conclude, the encyclopaedic contents of this work have created diverse interests, and have been considered as an authentic source of valuable information for different branches of study from the earliest days down to modern times, as has been pointed out in this chapter.
See below, p. 4, ll. 25-33.
↩The Lubábu’l-Albáb, Pt. I. ed. Prof. E. G. Browne and Mírzá Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdu’l-Wahháb-i-Qazwíní in 1906 A. D.; Pt. II. ed. Prof. E. G. Browne in 1903 A. D. (Persian Historical Texts Series), hereafter referred to as the Lubáb.
↩His article “On the Earliest Persian Biography of Poets”, JRAS (1848) IX, pp. 112—6.
↩Description of [Add. 16,862] Cat. Pers. Mss. Br. Mus. Vol. II, pp. 749—51, 1881 A. D.
↩His article on “The Sources of Dawlatsháh”, JRAS (1891) XXXI, pp. 45—7 and Lit. His. Persia, 1906 A. D. Vol. II, p. 477—9.
↩See his article on “‘Awfí” in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (= Ency. Islam), Vol. I, p. 517. Although it appeared in 1911 A. D. and the above edition of the Lubáb is referred to in the bibliography, yet he seems to have utilised it but little.
↩A Critical Notice of al-‘Awfí’s Persian Translation of at-Tanúkhí’s al-Faraj ba‘da’sh-Shidda, by the present writer, is incorporated in this work. See below, pp. 14—9.
↩ Hereafter referred to as the Jawámi‘, or denoted by letters of the alphabet in case of individual
Mss., along with folio numbers; Part (
Two Mss. of this work, both containing the second half of the translation were discovered by the present writer in the India Office Library. [Nos. 1432; 720.]
↩See below, p. 16—7 for a complete and emended text of this extract.
↩See below, Ch. IV, No. 6 in the Chronological Table and Descriptive List of all the known Mss. of the Jawámi‘, where a fuller description of this Ms. is given.
↩See Yáqút, Mu‘jamu’l-Buldán ed. Wüstenfeld (= Y.M.B.) Vol. I, p. 248, also. “Lands of the Eastern Caliphate”, by Mr. Guy Le Strange (= L.E.C.) p. 340.
↩See Prof. E. G. Browne’s article in the Centenary Supplement of the JRAS Oct. (1924) pp. 245—255.
↩See [Browne Or. G. 3] Tajáribu’s-Salaf, f34a and f138b.
↩See below, pp. 26—32 on the influence of the Jawámi‘ on later works.
↩ See facs., p. 811. Cf. also Lubáb, Persian Introduction p. marked
(A. f246a. I. xxiv. 1137—8) Reminiscences of youth.
↩See Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 44—46, also Jawámi‘ (D. f80a. IV. xx. 2008) as to the correct interpretation of the line of the poet Manṣúr-i-Manṭiqí.
↩(D. f260. III. xviii. 1720), see below, p. 20; allusion to the rebellion of Balká in 628 A. H. as an event of the past.
↩ Jawámi‘ (A. f102a. I. v. 281) Variations in later Mss. but most of the old Mss. agree in this reading,
except that the word
Pt. II, p. 163, ll. 13—17,
Pt. I, pp. 178—9.
↩Called the ‘Urfát wu Ghurfát-i-‘Áshiqín, see [Ind. Off. 3654] f60b, and JRAS. (1848) IX, p. 115.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 181—182; 339. T.J.J. Pt. I, p. 81. Killed in 617 A. H. by the Mongols in the sack of Bukhárá.
↩ A. f215b
Lubáb. Pt. I, p. 170, ll. 9—10
↩Ibid. Pt. I, pp. 210—1; 338; 346.
↩Ibid. pt. I, p. 212, ll. 7—10.
↩Ibid. Pt. II, p. 163, ll. 13—17, also above p. 6 n. 3.
↩Ibid. Pt. II, p. 423, ll. 19—20; the name of this person is not found as the text is marred by a short lacuna.
↩Ibid. Pt. II, p. 391, ll. 21—22.
↩Ibid. Pt. I, p. 162. ll. 19—22.
↩JRAS. (1899) XXXI, p. 46—47.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 45, ll. 20—21.
↩Ibid. Pt. I, p. 205—6; 346.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 164—5; 168.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 201. Pt. II, pp. 341—344.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 179—180.
↩ A.
Superfluous.
↩Added.
↩Unintelligible.
↩Unintelligible.
↩Added from the context of the previous anecdote.
↩ A.
ed. Mírzá Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’l-Wahháb of Qazwín (= T.J.J.) Pt. II, p. 54, l. 15; p. 58, ll. 15—20.
↩ed. J. Briggs = (B.T.F.) Vol. I, p. 103, cf. Kámil, Vol. XII, pp. 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 230; 349—50.
↩ C.D.K.M.
Ibid., Pt. I, p. 209, ll. 13—5.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 42—4.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 139—42; 328 (alive in 588 A. H.)
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 51—2.
↩Lubáb, Pt. II, p. 345, ll. 9—10.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 240 ll. 4—10.
↩Ibid., Pt. II, p. 345, ll. 8—11.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 243, ll. 11—12.
↩Cf. Lubâb, Pt. I, p. 144.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 147.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 142; 143.
↩ Ibid., Pt. I, p. 78; also T.J.J., Pt. I,
Ibid., Pt. I, p. 121.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 218—9; (A. f94a, 96b. I. v. 232, 246).
↩Ibid., Pt. II, p. 346.
↩Ibid., Pt. II, p. 339—40.
↩Ibid., Pt. II, p. 357.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 149; 151, also T.J.J. Pt. II, p. 81.
↩Lubáb, Pt. II, p 337. This biography, as most others, is devoid of biographical information, which al-‘Awfí could have easily supplied, at least in the case of ‘Aṭṭár.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 246.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 250.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 250.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 111—3.
↩ T.J.J., Pt. II, p. 77 and Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 321—2; also Pers. Int. footnote (
Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 49—50.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 113—117; also below, p. 13, ll. 35—8.
↩Ibid., I, pp. 154—5.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 158—9.
↩
Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 259.
↩ Ibid., Pt. I, p. 251.
Ibid., Pt. II, p. 347.
↩Ibid., Pt. II, p. 348.
↩Sanjarí and Sijzí are always liable to be confused on account of clerical errors; here Sijzí seems more proper, on account of the association of these persons with Sijistán.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, pp. 232—3.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 176.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 177.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 175—178.
↩Lubáb, Pt. II, pp. 387—8.
↩Ibid., Pt. II, p. 386.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 182—3.
↩See the Sírat-i-Jalálu’d-Dín Mankubirnî, ed. O. Houdas, Arabic Text (= S.J.M.) p. 21, 35—7; also, Ibnu’l-Athír, Kámil, under the year 615 A. H.
↩See Táju’l-Ma’áthir [Add. 7623. Br. Mus.] f11a. The author known as Ḥasan Niẓámí called Táju’d-Dín or (Ṣadru’d-Dín) Muḥammad b. Ḥasan an-Niẓámí, a native of Níshápúr, expresses his regret at the bad condition of Khurásán, on account of which he had to come to India. He dedicated this work to Quṭbu’d-Dín Aybak, and brought down the history to 614 A. H. giving an account of the wars of Iltutmish also. See Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí ed. W. N. Lees (= M.T.N.) p. 143—4 in proof of this statement, Minháj-i-Siráj being one of those who came to India in 624 A. H. and attached himself to the court of Náṣiru’d-Dín Qabácha, like our author.
↩See Lubáb, Pt. II p. 416.
↩The anecdote about his first experience of a compass or a magnetic needle in the Jawámi‘ (D. f78b, IV, xx, 1997) refers to a voyage.
↩See Lubáb, Pt. II, p. 411.
↩Ibid., Pt. I, p. 284—285.
↩Kámil, Vol. XII, p. 333 under the year 617 A. H.
↩S.J.M. pp. 38, 43, 45—8, 55, 83—94 also below, p, 17, ll. 24—9.
↩Lubáb, Pt. I, p. 115.
↩
Lubáb, Pt. II, pp. 383; 418.
↩[Ind. Off. 1432] ff456b—459a.
↩(A. f119b. I. vi. 366.); (D. f81b. IV. xxi. 2011.)
↩(D. f22a. IV. vii. Int. 1848.)
↩See two separate notices on at-Tanúkhi’s al-Faraj bá‘da’sh-Shidda, (= T. F. S.) under the Conspectus of the Sources of the Jawámi‘, Ch. III, Nos. 31, 32, for the utilisation of the Faraj.
↩See Cat. Per. Mss. Br. Mus. [Add. 7673] Vol. II, pp. 751—2.
↩The India Office Mss. Nos. 1664, 1432, 720, resp., Columns 502—5.
↩Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie (= G.I.P.) II, p. 330.
↩ Lubáb, Pt. I, Persian Int. p.
The Ta’ríkh-i-Muḥammadí, ([Or. 137. Br. Mus.] f334a. composed in 842 A. H.) states that al-‘Awfí dedicated it to Qabácha; perhaps this is the only work which mentions it and omits his other works.
↩ Ms.
Ms.
It is evident from here, and from the original preface of al-‘Awfí (see above, p. 15. ll. 17—22) that he had completed the Daftar-i-Awwal, which is now lost, and had begun the Daftar-i-Dúyum, before he met this Samarqandi in 621 A. H.
↩The transcriber Samarqandí made a copy of it, without the permission of al-‘Awfí and afterwards collated both the Daftars or parts, with the original Ms. of the author.
↩Both the Daftars were originally dedicated to Qabácha.
↩Mírzá Muḥammad’s correction.
↩The present writer is indebted to Mr. Sayyid Ja‘far Ḥusayn for the correction of this couplet.
↩See for a description of the relation of this work to the original of at-Tanúkhí, Rieu Cat. Pers. Mss. Br. Mus. [Add. 7673] Vol. II. pp. 751—2.
↩He drew his nisba from Fariyúmad, a town in the district of Sabzawár, the birth-place of Khwája ‘Alá’u’d-Dín Muḥammad the Wazír of Khurásán under the Sultan Abú Sa’íd. See Ḥabibu’s-Siyar (Bombay Litho. 1857) = (Kh.Ḥ.S.) Vol. III. Juz. ii. p. 61. Cf. L.E.C. p. 392; H.N.Q. p. 150, as the chief town of Juwayn.
↩T.J.J. Pt. II. p. 244, ll. 7—8.
↩T.J.J. Pt. II. p. 249.
↩T.J.J. Pt. II. p. 250, ll. 15.
↩T.J.J., Pt. II. p. 251.
↩T.J.J., Pt. II. p. 256.
↩Tadhkiratu’sh-Shu‘ará’, ed. Prof. E. G. Browne (= D.T.S.) p. 163.
↩Rawdhatu’s-Ṣafá, (Lakhnaw Litho. 1874) (= M.R.S.) Vol. V, p. 972 cf. also Jámi‘u’t-Tawáríkh ed. Quatremère pp. 180—2.
↩T.J.J., Pt. II, p. 260.
↩D.T.S. pp. 157—161.
↩M. Ṭ. N., pp. 173—4.
↩(D. f260a. III. xviii. 1720).
↩ Ṭabaqát-i-Náṣirí [Add. 26,189 Br. Mus.]. On f178b the year 628 A. H. is clearly written, which is wrongly
printed in the text, as 627 A. H., cf. Lubáb. Pt. I, p.
These lines and other passages in this chapter have been carefully revised by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán, to whose admirable scholarship the present writer is so much indebted.
↩ C. D.
C. D.
C.
C.
A. C. D.
P.
C.
C. D.
C. D. K.
Ed. F. Wüstenfeld. 1848. (= Q.A.M.)
↩The importance of these was first discovered by Prof. Browne, who kindly communicated them to the present writer.
↩See for a description of this Ms. and others examined in this notice Rieu’s Cat. Pers. Mss. Br. Mus. under the original Press-mark indicated in [ ], which denotes the work or works in question.
↩The text of this anecdote has been carefully edited by Mírzá Muḥammad Khán and suffixed to the Lubáb. Pt. I, pp. 314—7; see also below, p. 32.
↩i. e. the Siyásat-náma of the Niẓámu’l-Mulk, (Pers. Text.) ed. by C. Schefer.
↩See Rieu, cat. Pers. Mss. Br. Mus. Vol. II, p. 758—9. On f176a, 1025 A.H. as the current year.
↩ See Lubáb, Pt. I, Pers. Int. p.
Cf. above l. 10.
↩The present writer is indebted to him for these references and unpublished material from this book.
↩See Cat. of Turkish Mss. in the Br. Mus. [Add. 7847] p. 43.
↩See also Gibb, Hist. of Ottoman Poetry, Vol. II, p. 102, footnote.
↩The present writer is personally indebted to both of these scholars for these references.
↩The present writer is personally indebted to both of these scholars for these references.
↩