The Indications of the material for these chap­ters. Annals* of Abú Ja‘far Muḥammad* b. Jarír aṭ-Ṭabarí (b. 224 d. 310 A. H. = 838-923 A. D.), fully entitled the Ta’ríkhu’r-Rusul-i-wa’l-Mulúk, is mentioned with its short title as Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí twenty times in the Jawámi‘. Almost all these citations occur in Pt. I, ch. iv, “On the Ancient Kings of Persia” and ch. v, “On the Accounts of the Caliphs.” In the introduction* to ch. iv, al-‘Awfí has given us sufficient clues about his material for this and the next chapter, and in two other places* he has indicated the nature of the utilisation of this and other works, such as the Ghurar and the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí discussed later on.

From Observations on other com­bined sources. the three quotations given in the footnotes, it is to be remarked that, firstly, al-‘Awfí had at his disposal other works besides the Annals of aṭ-Ṭabarí, and that he utilised them according to his own discretion with a sparing mention of the sources; secondly, the Persian Translations of the Annals and the Ghurar were known to him. Although in the first instance there is no direct mention of the translation of ‘Abú ‘Alí al-Bal‘amí, yet, probably, the emphasis on the word <Arabic> along with the title of aṭ-Ṭabarí’s work in this and several other citations, and two other vague allusions to a Ta’ríkh-i-*Tází, indicate the utilisation of the Arabic original rather than the Persian version of al-Bal‘amí. The latter fact is also confirmed by a textual comparison of similar anecdotes both in al-Bal‘amí’s version and the Jawámi‘ with the original, and by the separate method of division of the longer accounts in the Chapter on Persian Kings; thus we do not find any indebtedness of al-‘Awfí to Bal‘amí’s version. In the case of the Ra’y-Áráy*, the Persian Translation of the Ghurar*, we do not possess the Persian text, hence our inability to estimate the exact nature of the debt of al-‘Awfí to this version. Regarding the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí*, although this quotation about the terrible fate of the two sons of Ja‘far and ‘Abbása is not traceable, yet there are besides these other citations in which al-‘Awfí has shown something in the nature of a combined utilisation.

The Purport of the anecdotes. following is a summary of the quotations in which the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí is mentioned.

(1)	Dhaḥḥák’s tyranny relaxed at the protest of the people of Babylon. (A. f48b. I. iv. 127) = Ṭab. I, 204-5.
(2)	Recognition of Ashk, the son of Dárá the great, by the Tribal Kings. (A. f67a. I. iv. 155) = Ṭab.* I, 704-5, cf. Gh.* pp. 456, 473.
(3)	Ardashír’s final victory over Arduwán. (A. f68a. I. iv. 157) = Ṭab. I, 819, cf. Gh. pp. 479-80.
(4)	The account of the birth of Shápúr. (A. f69a. I. iv. 158) = Ṭab. I, 823-5; cf. Gh. pp. 473-82.
(5)	Hurmuz cuts off his hand to remove his father’s suspicion. (A. f69b. I. iv. 160) = Ṭab. I, 833.
(6)	Short period of Bahrám III’s reign. (A. f70b. I. iv. 164) = Ṭab. I, 835; cf. Gh. pp. 507-8.
(7)	Shápúr disgraces the Qayṣar of Rúm. (A. f70b. I. iv. 167) = Ṭab. I, 845; cf. Gh. p. 528.
(8)	Extermination of the Mazdakites by Núshírwán in his own reign. (A. f75b. I. iv. 183) = Ṭab. I, 893-4; cf. Gh. 603-5, also B. A. B. p. 209.
(9)	Defeat of Parwíz at the hands of Bahrám Chúbín. (A. f76b. I. iv. 185) = Ṭab. I, 1000.
(10)	Flight of Bahrám Chúbín and Parwíz’s final history. (A. f78a. I. iv. 186) = Ṭab. I, 1000.
(11)	The cause of Ázarmídukht’s murder. (A. f81a. I. iv. 193) = Ṭab. I, 1064-5; cf. Gh. pp. 736-7.
(12)	The Caliph ‘Umar’s comparison of the death of the Prophet Muḥammad with the ascension of Jesus Christ (A. f82b. I. v. 197). = Ṭab. I, 1815-6, where it is inter­preted as parallel to the Translation of Moses. In the Jawámi‘ there is a mis­quotation as well as a complete refutation of this comparison, with an explanation of the Caliph’s words and the situation at that moment.
(13)	Khálid b. Walíd’s killing of Málik b. Nuwayra the Musaylimite, regarded in Ṭabarí as the cause of dissension between the Caliphs Abú Bakr and ‘Umar. (A. f83a. I. v. 200) = Ṭab. I, 1924-5, 1926-9. The last version is adopted by al-‘Awfí.
(14)	‘Amr b. Sa‘íd b. al-‘Áṣ al-Ashdaq and ‘Abdu’llah b. Zubayr as rival claimants to the Caliphate in the time of Marwán b. Ḥakam. (A. f97b. I. v. 252) = Ṭab. II, 576.
(15)	Sulaymán b. ‘Abdu’l-Malik the Umayyad’s benevolence towards the ‘Alids. (A. f99b. I. v. 261) = Ṭab. II, 1338.
(16)	The killing of the two sons of Ja‘far and ‘Abbása. (A. f107a. I. v. 303) = Ṭab. III, 676-7.
(17)*	The poisoning* of the Imám Ḥasan. (A. f176b. I. xiii. 684).
(18)	Prediction of the historian aṭ-Ṭabarí about the unsettled affairs of the Caliphate and Ibnu’l-Mu‘tazz who was much ahead of his times. (A. f114b. I. v. 337).
(19)	The Caliph al-Ma’mún’s efforts to suppress the rumours afloat in Baghdád after his advent, and the story of the Caliph and the Miller (D. f181a. II. xxiii. 1510).
(20)	The Caliph Hárún’s consideration for the Qádhí Abú Yúsuf and the preparation of a special daily dish for him. (D. f5b. IV. i. 1794).

From Nature of the Utilisation of the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí in the Jawámi‘. the nature of the citations from the Ta’ríkh-i-Ṭabarí it can be inferred that al-‘Awfí makes a particular mention of this source whenever there is a material difference of tradition regarding the particular event or whenever he wants to support his own statement. In the account of the ancient kings of Persia, he has omitted the parallel accounts given in aṭ-Ṭabarí and the Ghurar about the ancient prophets and other Arabian kings, and has represented the tradition regarding the Persian kings as based on Arabic rather than on the original Persian sources, as in the case of Ibn Qutayba, Ḥamza b. Ḥasan al-Iṣfahání or the anonymous author of the Mujmal or Firdawsí*. The account of the Persian kings is in general based on the plan of the Ghurar, rather than on that of aṭ-Ṭabarí. These acknowledged citations are very short, but there are other anecdotes about the Caliphs which are entirely based on aṭ-Ṭabarí; in these al-‘Awfí has cut short longer accounts, dropped the chain of tradition, and omitted other interesting particulars, and in places blended the different accounts into one single narrative, and retained bare events regarding the lives of the Caliphs, which can be found in any ordinary handbook on the Caliphs. Only in the latter portion of this chapter, when the accounts approach his time, he gives valuable information regarding the rise of the various dynasties, while the Caliphate was on the decline.

This An unidenti­fiable source. work is mentioned only once, and its identification is extremely difficult. From the nature of the anecdote and the connection in which it is cited the work appears to be different from the Ta’ríkh-i-Khurásán discussed previously in Notice No. (11). The anecdote which is borrowed from this source is that of a disciple of Abú Ḥámid Aḥmad b. Khidhrawayh al-Balkhí, the famous Ṣúfí saint (d. circa 240 A. H. = 854 A. D.), at whose prayer a bucket of water rose from the bottom of the well automatically, (A.* f42a = B. f21b = G. f22a. I. iii. 97). It is quite likely that the next anecdote might have also been taken from the same source, though it is not mentioned in any Ms.: the visit of the Shaykh Abú Ḥafṣ ‘Umar b. Maslama al-Ḥaddád (d. circa 264 A. H. = 877 A. D.) to the Shaykh Abú ‘Uthmán al-Ḥírí (d. circa 298 A. H. = 910 A. D.) and his historic reception by the latter in his own convent, and the burning of nineteen lamps, which resulted in the conversion of a family of Jews at the hand of the latter Shaykh (A. f42a. I. iii. 98). These accounts are not found in the Risála of Qushayrí; it is possible that al-‘Awfí is alluding to the Ta’ríkh of al-Ḥákim* an-Níshápúrí (d. 403 A. H.) or of Abú Naṣr al-Marwazí.

The Correct identi­fication of this source. source mentioned above is no other than the Kitábu’l-Bad’i wa’t-Ta’ríkh of Muṭahhar b. Ṭáhir al-Maqdisí, composed in 355 A. H. = 965-6 A. D. This work was for a long time regarded as the composition of Abú Zayd Aḥmad b. Sahl al-Balkhí; in fact, the first two volumes of M. Clément Huart’s edition appeared under the name of Abú Zayd. As early as 1883, C. Schefer* had noticed a few extracts of this work in the Bayánu’l-Adyán; it was Hermann Zotenberg* who discovered a passage in the Ghurar of ath-Tha‘álibí quoted from this history (Vol. III, p. 157), about Manes, and perfectly established the right authorship.

There Acknowledged citations. are three acknowledged citations from the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí in the Jawámi‘; the first one happens to be the same on which the discovery of Zotenberg was based, the second is not traceable, and the third is entirely based on the version of al-Maqdisí, regarding the origin, rise, and rebellion of Bábak al-Khurramí. The following are the anecdotes taken from this work:

(1)	Manes as the founder of Zindiqism and his followers who in later times were called Báṭinís (Esoterics). (A. f70a. I. iv. 162) = Gh. p. 501 = M. K. B. Vol. III, p. 157.
(2)	The fate of the two sons of Ja‘far the Barmecide and ‘Abbása. (A. f107a. I. v. 303).
(3)	The origin, rise, and rebellion of Bábak al-Khurramí. (A. f110b. I. v. 315). M. K. B. Vol. IV, pp. 114-6.

The Importance of the Ta’ríkh-i-Maqdisí. authority of al-Maqdisí (d. 375 A. H. = 985 A. D.) on the origin of important historical events has been recognised from the earliest times; especially the quotations No. (1) and (3), which are concerned with two important persons in the history of the heretical movements in Persia, contain independent and original matter. Although the accounts of them given by aṭ-Ṭabarí were written nearly 50 years earlier, al-Maqdisí appears to have adopted quite a different source. Particularly Bábak’s private life, which is quoted in the Jawámi‘ from al-Maqdisí, is also found in detail in the Fihrist (pp. 342-4), which was written nearly 25 years later than al-Maqdisí’s work, and differs essentially from aṭ-Ṭabarí’s version (III, 1171-9).