The Difficulties regarding the identification of these works. identification of this work and four others of a similar nature viz., the Kitáb-i-Áyín-i-Mulúk, the Ta’ríkh-i-Akásira, the Siyaru’l-Mulúk and the Waṣáyá-i-Ardashír which are mentioned as the sources of the anecdotes of which the purport is given below, is beset with many difficulties. Firstly, the names of the authors are not mentioned and the titles are uncertain; secondly, none of these works has come down to us in its original form, language, and version; thirdly, there are diverse statements given by earlier authorities who utilised them regarding the different versions of some of them; fourthly, the criticism of these works by Oriental scholars is mostly based on conjectural grounds; and lastly, al-‘Awfí’s knowledge about them seems to be secondary. In so far as they are represented by quotations in the Jawámi‘, an attempt is made in this notice to discuss briefly each of them and where possible to identify them.

The Purport of the anecdotes in which they occur. following are the accounts borrowed from these works:

(1)	The various qualities which determined the rank and social status of the officials under the various Persian kings from the time of Jamshíd to Núshírwán, as recorded in the Kitáb-i-Áyín-i-Mulúk, and recounted before an anonymous Caliph. (A. f127b. I. vii. 402).
(2)	The peaceful reign of Yazdijird b. Bahrám Gúr, as recorded in the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam, and his four pithy sayings appreciated in the court of the Caliph al-Manṣúr. (A. f139a. I. viii. 476).
(3)	Bahrám Gúr’s skill in the art of shooting arrows as exhibited before Nu‘mán b. Mundhir, drawn from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f141a. II. xii. 1391).
(4)	How Gushtásp during his exile in Constantinople, maintained himself by earning his own livelihood, and his public order for learning handicrafts after being restored to his Persian kingdom, drawn from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f203a. III. iv. 1572).
(5)	The story of the forbidden dish and the Kisrá’s admonition to the ungrateful guest, who betrayed the secret of his host, drawn from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f261a. III. xix. 1721).
(6)	Núshírwán punishes, after his coronation, the courtiers who took the same liberty with him as before it, taken from the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam. (D. f8a. IV. ii. 1804).
(7)	An interview between a king and a sage, and the latter’s reference to the Akhbár-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam concerning the remark of Núshírwán about the safety of his own person from the attack of enemies, and its being due to the protection which he offered to his own subjects. (D. f10b. IV. iii. 1812).
(8)	The reason of the preference of al-Ma’mún over al-Amín, as shown to Zubayda by the Caliph Hárún through a practical test of their capabilities, in which an incidental reference to the Siyaru’l-Mulúk occurs, which the precocious al-Ma’mún always used to study. (D. f184b. II. xxiii. 1517).
(9)	An account drawn from the Siyaru’l-Mulúk concerning the Land of Women in the desert of the Maghrib near the Moving Sands. (D. f71a. IV. xvii. 1976).
(10)	An observation from the Waṣáyá-i-Arḍashír is recited by Naṣr b. Aḥmad the Sámánid on the eve of his immediate action against the rebellious governor of Isfíjáb in contrast to the negligence of his Wazír Abu’l-Fadhl al-Bal‘amí, enjoining the precautions which a king should observe, first about the safety of his throne, then his court, then his palace, then his capital, then his subjects, and then the boundaries of his kingdom. (P. f261b. II. xvii. 1450).
(11)	An observation from the Ta’ríkh-i-Akásira is brought forward by Núshírwán to bear upon his decision regarding the characteristic craftiness of a dwarf. (D. f194a. III. i. 1543).

In Discussion on the anecdote taken from the Áyín-i-Mulúk. the anecdote preceding No. (1) occurs a passage (A. f127b. I. vii. 401) in which ‘Abdu’llah b. al-Muqaffa‘ speaks of his own efforts in recasting* the philo­sophical books which he found in the treasury of the kings of Persia, and goes on to describe the ten virtues inherited from Kayúmarth, the mythical ancestor of the Persian kings, and acted upon by his descendants to the time of Yazdijird, which established the superiority of the Persian kings over other rulers of their times. And the anecdote in which the Áyín-i-Mulúk is mentioned as the source, recounts the various qualities which determined the rank and social status of the officials. A parallel text of the latter account is also found in the Ghurar* of ath-Tha‘álibí (pp. 14-5), where the Kitábu’l-Áyín is also mentioned as the source, but the anecdote in the Jawámi‘ is told before a Caliph and is set in a different manner, from which we can infer that at least the Ghurar is not the direct source; nor does it correspond with any of the citations from the Kitábu’l-Áyín in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár*; hence it is likely that al-‘Awfí may have utilised a source in which this anecdote occurs in a much later setting.

Other Other citations from the Kitáb­u’l-Áyín in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akh­bár. quotations from the Kitábu’l-Áyín occur in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár of Ibn Qutayba without acknowledgement of the author of the Áyín. Ibn Qutayba’s knowledge of this work is first-hand, as he says he has read such and such in the Kitábu’l-Ayín* and quotes from it directly. One of the quotations is interesting on account of the changes which it has undergone. This is a short and sententious saying from the speech of an anonymous king regarding his policy of administration. In the ‘Iqdu’l-Faríd* this same quotation is ascribed to Ardashír, and in the Jawámi‘ a story is built on it. It occurs as a reply of Núshírwán written in response to a mischievous representation of certain courtiers about others whom they suspected of evil intentions against the king (A. f146b. I. x. 529). Unfortunately the source of this anecdote is not mentioned in the Jawámi‘ and only a part of this saying is translated, so we do not know the intermediate stages it passed through, before it assumed the form in which it occurs in the Jawámi‘.

al-Mas‘údí Its identifi­cation with the Kitábu’l-Áyín of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘. in his Kitábu’t-Tanbíh wa’l-Ishráf* (p. 104) is the only author who describes the Áyín-námáh and differentiates it (p. 106) from the Khudáy-námáh and another anonymous large and illustrated work* of encyclopaedic information on the history of the Persian kings, which he happened to see in Iṣṭakhr in 303 A. H.. As Zotenberg* asserts, it is quite likely that the long extracts concerning the social hierarchy of the Persian court and of the Marzubáns in the Murúju’dh-Dhahab* may have been drawn from the Ayín-náma, since these details and the definition of the work given by al-Mas‘údí, as a book of the customs and conventions of Persian society, point in this direction; but unfortunately he does not mention the name of Ibnu’l-Mụqaffa‘ as the translator of this work. For the identification of this work with that of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘ mentioned in the Fihrist (p. 118, l. 27), our information rests on Ibnu’n-Nadím and Ibn Qutayba. The former mentions various Áyin-námas* but it is likely that as Victor Rosen* affirms, the <Arabic> mentioned under the works of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘, the character and the nature of which are in agreement with the definition of al-Mas‘údí and with the quotations in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár, is the work in question, which formed an indirect source of al-‘Awfí.

Of Identity of the Ta’ríkh-i-Mu­lúk-i-‘Ajam. the six anecdotes, Nos. (2) to (7), in which the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam is citēd, two deal with Bahrám Gúr, one with Gushtásp, another with the Kisrá (probably Núshírwán) and the other two with Núshírwán; hence they give us a clue to the utilisation of a work, which in general contained an account of historical events, at least from the time of Gushtásp to Núshírwán. As regard the identification of this work, serious difficulties come in our way; but similar quotations in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár* and the Kitábu’l-Ma‘árif* of Ibn Qutayba, from a Siyaru’l-‘Ajam and from another anony­mous work, which is identified by Nöldeke* and Rosen* as the Arabic Translation of the Khudáy-náma by Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘, lead us to think that this work is meant here. But as early as 350 A. H., we know through Ḥamza b. Ḥasan al-Iṣfahání* that at least eight Arabic versions of the Khudáy-náma existed. Of all these the celebrated but unfortunately lost version of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘ is the one that has been most used by subsequent writers. References to the existence of this version and stray accounts from it are found as late as the 6th century A. H. or 12th A. D.

Much Critical studies on the Khudáy-náma in con­nection with various works. light has been thrown on the origin, contents and versions of this important source for the ancient history of Persia, the Khudáy-náma, by various Oriental scholars, viz., Wallenbourg*, Turner Macan*, Quatremère*, Jules Mohl*, Th. Nöl­deke*, Victor Rosen*, H. Zotenberg*, E. Mittwoch*, and many important points have been elucidated from the extracts from this work, in connection with Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘ (d. circa 760 A. D.), al-Jáḥiẓ* (d. 869 A. D.), Ibn Qutayba (d. 889 A. D.), ad-Dinawarí (d. 895/6 A. D.), al-Ya‘qúbí (d. 900 A. D.), the Patriarch of Alexandria Sa‘íd b. Biṭríq or Eutychius (d. 939 A. D.), aṭ-Ṭabarí* (d. 923 A. D.), al-Mas‘údí (d. 956 A. D.), Abú Manṣúr al-Ma‘marí and Abú Manṣúr b. ‘Abdu’r-Razzáq the lord of Ṭús, identified as Muḥammad b. ‘Abdu’r-Razzáq the lord of Ṭús (r. 945-960 A. D.), Ḥamza b. Ḥasan al-Iṣfahání (d. 961 or 971 A. D.), Ibnu’n Nadím (d. 995 A. D.), Firdawsí (d. 1020 or 1025 A. D.), ath-Tha‘álibí (d. 1037 A. D.), al-Bírúní* (d. 1048 A. D.), Abu’l-Fadhl al Bayhaqí* (d. 1077/8 A. D.) and the anonymous author of the Mujmalu’t-Tawáríkh (composed about 1126 A. D.)*.

In Various problems connected with the Ta’ríkh-i-Mu­lúk-i-‘Ajam. the past as well in modern times, the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúk-i-‘Ajam, variously designated as the Ta’ríkh-i-Mulúki’l-Furs, Ta’ríkh-i-baní-Sásán, or the Siyar-i-Mulúki’l ‘Ajam has been the subject of discussion, on account of its importance as an original source for the antiquities, legends, history, literature and civilization of the ancient Persian kingdom, but the identity and differentiation of the various versions of this work have been based on hypothetical grounds; and unless an extract from the original Pahlawí text of the work and a corresponding Arabic translation of it are happily discovered, we cannot really establish the exact relation of the former to the latter versions. Till then our conclusions for the most part will remain conjectural: for instance, concerning the thorny problems of the Dihqán-i-dánishwar, the prose version of the Sháhnáma prepared for Abú Manṣúr b. Abdu’r-Razzáq, the nature of Ibnu’l-Muqaffa‘’s translation from the original work, the different versions mentioned by Ḥamza al-Iṣfahání and the relation of one to another, the work which formed the real basis of Firdawsí’s Sháhnáma, and the partial genuineness of the Báysunqurian preface. Prof. Nöldeke in the articles mentioned above has discussed these points thoroughly, but where data are not available he had to depend on historical reasoning.

Three References to the Sháhnáma of Firdawsí. incidental references to the Sháhnáma occur in the Jawámi‘, in one of which the name of Firdawsí is also mentioned (A. f50a. I. iv. 130). There appears to be no evidence of direct utilisation, as there are no citations of verses from the Sháh­náma; whereas other verses from unknown sources are found in the chapter on the ancient kings of Persia. Besides this, these references are given simply by way of representing the incredible views of the Persians on the legendary history of their kings, and the Sháhnáma being the highest representative of their national epic is referred to for further details; thus occasional resemblances are noticeable.

(1)	The origin of the name of Minúchihr. (A. f50a. I. iv. 130).
(2)	The legend of the Birth of Zál and of the Símurgh. (A. f51a. I. iv. 131).
(3)	The Haft Khwán of Isfandiyár. (A. f61b. I. iv. 144).

The The other three similar works men­tioned in the Jawámi‘. Siyaru’l-Mulúk which is mentioned in (No. 8) in connection with the Caliph al-Ma’mún is likely to be the work to which Ḥamza al-Iṣfahání refers as one that was acquired from the library of al-Ma’mún, but no extract occurs in the Jawámi‘. In the anecdote (No. 9) in P. f387b, Sha‘bí* is mentioned as the author of the work, but other Mss. omit it, so the identity of this work also remains uncertain. The Waṣáyá-i-Ardashír referred to in (No. 10), from which a quotation regarding the precautions enjoined upon kings for their protection is given, appears to be the same work which occurs anonymously in the instructions of Ardashír in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár. Then the Ta’ríkh-i-Akásira mentioned in (No. 11) is probably an early Pahlawí text which existed in the time of Núshírwán in the form of an official summary of the history of the Sásánid kings.

Besides Sources of other similar anecdotes unassignable. the above-mentioned anecdotes there are several others unascribed which are likely to have been drawn from similar sources, for we find in them partial agreement with others extant; for instance, several anecdotes concerning the ancient Persian customs, method of administration or speeches or replies of the various kings agree sometimes with certain passages in the ‘Uyúnu’l-Akhbár, and at other times with the accounts given in Ṭabarí, or in Tha‘álibi’s Ghurar. The absence of sources in such cases, and the mixing up of various versions of the same story to shape out an anecdote in order to suit his chapter-headings, and the utilisation of secondary sources by al-‘Awfí make it impossible for us to determine their exact sources; but in the con­nected accounts of the Persian kings in pt. I, ch. iv the case is otherwise, as will be noticed later on in connection with the Ghurar*.